Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at 1:30 P.M.
1800 E Spruce Street, Mitchell, South Dakota
2205 Career Place/USDSU Building RM 282, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
501 E Saint Joseph St/Classroom Building RM 109, Rapid City, South Dakota
DDN Room Cap A, State Capitol Building, Pierre, South Dakota
NOTE: If you wish to join this meeting by conference call, please contact the Commission at 605-773-3201 by 5:00 p.m. on June 12, 2006. The lines are limited and are given out on first come/first serve basis. Ultimately, if you wish to participate in the Commission Meeting and a line is not available you may have to appear in person.
NOTE: To listen to the Commission Meeting live please go to the PUC's Web site www.puc.sd.gov and click on the LIVE button on the home page. The Commission meetings are archived on the PUC's Web site under the Commission Actions tab and then click on the LISTEN button on the page.
NOTE: Notice is further given to persons with disabilities that this Commission meeting is being held in a physically accessible place. If you have special needs, please notify the Commission and we will make all necessary arrangements.
AGENDA OF COMMISSION MEETING
Consumer Reports
1. Status Report on Consumer Utility Inquiries and Complaints Received by the Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Deb Gregg)
Consumer Complaints
Complaint by Sioux Valley Southwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc. against Northern States Power Company d/b/a. Xcel Energy regarding the provision of service to Myrl and Roy's Paving. Myrl and Roy's Paving conducts a quarry and rock crushing operation at a location that is partly located on Xcel's established service territory and partly on Sioux Valley's established service territory. The complaint states that prior to 1991, Myrl and Roy's was served by Sioux Valley. Acting upon a complaint filed by Xcel in 1991, the Commission ruled that because the preponderance of Myrl and Roy's load was located on Xcel's established territory, the Myrl and Roy's was to be then served by Xcel. The Commission decision was appealed to both Circuit Court and the South Dakota Supreme Court which upheld the Commission's decision. Myrl and Roy's have now informed Sioux Valley that they will be adding new equipment which will result in the majority of their load being located in Sioux Valley's territory. Sioux Valley has requested Xcel to relinquish Myrl and Roy's as a customer but Xcel has failed and refused to do so. Sioux Valley now requests that it be awarded the exclusive right to serve Myrl and Roy's and that Xcel remove its lines and other facilities from Myrl and Roy's location. The South Dakota Rural Electric Association (SDREA) filed a Petition to Intervene on June 1, 2006. Xcel filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on May 15, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Motion to Dismiss?
Electricity
On August 26, 2005, Xcel Energy (Xcel) submitted an application for a Construction Permit to build 9.6 miles of 345 kV Transmission Line from Split Rock to Lakefield Junction and add Facilities to the Split Rock Substation. A new 345 kilovolt line from the Split Rock Substation located west of Brandon, South Dakota to the Minnesota line is proposed to be constructed. The line will be approximately 9.6 miles in length and comprise the western portion of an 86-mile 345 kV transmission line between Split Rock Substation west of Brandon, South Dakota to the Lakefield Junction Substation east of Lakefield, Minnesota. Improvements to the Split Rock Substation will be constructed to accommodate the new 345 kV interconnection. A Joint Stipulation between Xcel and Commission Staff was filed on June 6, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Construction Permit?
Petition filed by Dakota Vinyl Extrusions, Inc. to be provided electric service by NorthWestern Energy outside of NorthWestern Energy's established service territory pursuant to SDCL 49-34A-56. The petition states that NorthWestern can furnish electric service to meet the customer's needs consistent with the factors of SDCL49-34A-56 and that the customer has a strong preference to be served by NorthWestern Energy. The customer's facility is to be located in the existing territory of Codington-Clark Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Codington-Clark). On May 31, 2006, the South Dakota Rural Electric Association (SDREA) and Codington-Clark filed Petitions for Intervention.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Petitions for Intervention to Codington-Clark and the SDREA?
On May 18, 2006, NorthWestern Corporation d/b/a NorthWestern Energy (NWE) and Bon Homme Yankton Electric Association, Inc. (BYE) filed a Joint Request for Electric Service Rights Exception for Commission approval. NWE is seeking approval of an exception to the current electric territory agreement to provide 3-phase electric service to an irrigation well. The well is located in the NW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 95 North, Range 58 West, in Bon Homme County, South Dakota. The parties to this agreement agree that the public interest would be served by BYE providing electric service to the well. The consent on the part of NWE is limited to the afore said service and will automatically terminate upon removal or abandonment of such service. The exception is not to be construed as having any impact upon or indicating any desire to change the service area assigned by the Commission.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Joint Request for an Electric Service Rights Exception?
One Call
On July I, 2005, pursuant to SDCL 49-7A-17, the South Dakota One-Call Board (Board) received a complaint filed by Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. of Rapid City, South Dakota (MDU) against Vince Finkhouse d/b/a Eagle Excavating of Rapid City, South Dakota (Finkhouse). According to the complaint, Finkhouse hit a natural gas service line owned by MDU while excavating. The complaint alleged that Finkhouse: 1) failed to notify the One-Call System prior to commencing excavation; 2) failed to maintain a minimum clearance of eighteen inches between a marked underground facility and the cutting edge of mechanical equipment; and, 3) failed to provide notification to the utility of damage to an underground facility. Pursuant to SDCL 49-7A-22, a five member panel (Panel) was appointed by Kevin Kouba, Chairman of the Board, for the purpose of determining whether there was probable cause to believe there had been a violation of any statute or rule of the Board. The Panel met on August 19, 2005. The Committee found there was probable cause that Vince Finkhouse, d/b/a Eagle Excavating, while excavating at 16630 Elk Horn Road, Piedmont, SD, had damaged an underground gas line and failed to notify Montana-Dakota Utilities or the South Dakota One Call Center as required by SDCL 49-7A-82. The committee recommended a penalty of one-thousand dollars ($1000) against Vince Finkhouse, d/b/a Eagle Excavating, for this violation. The committee determined that the conditions identified in this complaint clearly indicate that SDCL 49- 7A-19 applies to this violation. In addition to the previously identified penalty under SDCL 49-7A-18 the committee recommended an additional penalty of five-thousand dollars ($5000) against Vince Finkhouse, d/b/a Eagle Excavating for this violation. As of June 5, 2006, Finkhouse has not paid the assessed penalties.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Staff Permission to Get a Civil Judgment Against Finkhouse in Circuit Court Pursuant to SDCL 49-7A-28?
Telecommunications
1. In the Matter of the Filing for Approval of Amendments to Agreements in Dockets TC06-008, TC06-019, TC06-029, and TC06-044.
On January 31, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Triennial Review Order and Triennial Review Remand Order Amendment to an Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and IDT America, Corporation. According to the parties, this Amendment deletes, changes, adds or places conditions on certain UNEs.
On March 16, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Triennial Review and Remand Order Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and XO Communications Services, Inc. According to the parties, this Amendment changes, adds or deletes conditions for certain UNEs.
On April 6, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Single Point of Presence (SPOP) Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and RC Communications, Inc. According to the parties, this Amendment adds terms and conditions for the Single Point of Presence.
On May 10, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of an Amendment for Miscellaneous Charges to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Midcontinent Communications. According to the parties, this Amendment adds terms, conditions and rates for Miscellaneous Charges.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Amendments to the Agreements in the Above Referenced Dockets?
2. In the Matter of the Filing for Approval of Agreements in Dockets TC06-018, TC06-028, TC06-045, TC06-050, and TC06-051.
On March 16, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Type 1 and Type 2 Paging Connection Service Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Pierre Radio Paging & Telephone Inc. According to the parties, "[t]his Agreement covers Type 1 and Type 2 Paging Connection Service which consists only of those one-way intraLATA/intrastate land-to-pager trunks."
On April 6, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Type 1 and Type 2 Paging Connection Service Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Golden West Technologies, Inc. According to the parties, "[t]his Agreement covers Type 1 and Type 2 Paging Connection Service which consists only of those one-way intraLATA/intrastate land-to-pager trunks."
On May 10, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Type 2 Wireless Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Iowa Wireless Services, LLC d/b/a i Wireless. According to the parties, "This Interconnection Agreement sets forth the terms, conditions and pricing under which Qwest will offer and provide to any requesting WSP network Interconnection and Ancillary services."
On May 18, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Type 1 Wireless Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Vantek Communications, Inc. According to the parties, the Agreement sets forth the terms, conditions and pricing under which Qwest will offer Interconnection and Ancillary services within a defined area.
On May 18, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Type 1 and Type 2 Paging Connection Service Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Western Communications, Inc. According to the parties, "[t]his Agreement covers Type 1 and Type 2 Paging Connection Service which consists only of those one-way intraLATA/intrastate land-to-pager trunks."
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Agreements in the Above Referenced Dockets?
On March 27, 2006, YMax Communications Corp. (YMax) filed an application seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange services using a combination of either unbundled network elements or resold services within Qwest Corporation's South Dakota service territory. YMax may eventually provide local services via its own switching facilities.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant a Certificate of Authority to YMax Communications Corp.?
On May 1, 2006, Nationwide Long Distance Service, Inc. filed an application seeking a Certificate of Authority to resell interexchange services including 1+ and 101XXXXX outbound dialing, 800/888 Toll-Free inbound dialing, directory assistance, data services and postpaid calling card services throughout South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Certificate of Authority to Nationwide Long Distance Service, Inc.?
On May 2, 2006, Midstate Telecom, Inc. (MTI), a registered CLEC providing facilities based competitive local exchange services in the Chamberlain/Oacoma exchange, submitted a petition to the Commission pursuant to ARSD 20:10:32:11, requesting approval to offer a different local calling area than that offered by the incumbent local exchange carrier. On May 26, 2006, Qwest filed a Petition for Intervention.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to Qwest?
6. In the Matter of the Petition for Arbitration of Interconnection Agreements in Dockets TC06-036, TC06-037, TC06-038, TC06-039, TC06-040, TC06-041, and TC06-042.
On May 3, 2006, Armour Independent Telephone Co. (Armour) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Armour and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Armour filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Armour appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Armour "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Armour] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Armour] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Armour] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006, (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006.
On May 3, 2006, Bridgewater-Canistota Independent Telephone Company (Bridgewater) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Bridgewater and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Bridgewater filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Bridgewater appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Bridgewater "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Bridgewater] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Bridgewater] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Bridgewater] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006 (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006.
On May 3, 2006, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Golden West) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Golden West and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Golden West filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Golden West appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Golden West "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Golden West] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Golden West] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Golden West] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006, (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006.
On May 3, 2006, Kadoka Telephone Company (Kadoka) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Kadoka and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Kadoka filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Kadoka appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Kadoka "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Kadoka] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Kadoka] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Kadoka] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006, (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006.
On May 3, 2006, Sioux Valley Telephone Company (Sioux Valley) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Sioux Valley and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Sioux Valley filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Sioux Valley appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Sioux Valley "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Sioux Valley] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Sioux Valley] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Sioux Valley] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006, (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006.
On May 3, 2006, Union Telephone Company (Union) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Union and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Union filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Union appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Union "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Union] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Union] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Union] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006, (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006.
On May 3, 2006, Vivian Telephone Company (Vivian) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Vivian and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Vivian filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Vivian appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Vivian "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Vivian] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Vivian] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Vivian] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. Order the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2006, (the Effective Date set forth in Exhibit A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. Take such other and further action as it deems necessary and appropriate." In accordance with ARSD 20:10:32:30, a non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information within 25 days after the commission receives the petition. On May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to SDTA in the Above Referenced Dockets?
On May 12, 2006, MCC Telephony of the Midwest, Inc., d/b/a Mediacom ("MCC") filed an application seeking a combined Certificate of Authority to provide competitive facilities-based and resold basic local exchange and intrastate interexchange services, including non-switched, switched local services and special access services to customers in the state of South Dakota. MCC also seeks full authority to provide telecommunication services such as private line services to residential and business customers throughout the state. MCC proposes to provide the services through a combination of its own facilities and on a resale basis. On June 1, 2006, Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Communications (Swiftel), filed a Petition to Intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel?
On May 16, 2006, Aventure Communication Technology, L.L.C. ("Aventure") filed an application seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide competitive full-service facilities-based local exchange services to customers in the state of South Dakota. Aventure proposes to provide these services with wireless local loop technology using licensed and unlicensed spectrum, as well as transport from the soft-switch located in Sioux City, Iowa. Aventure initially intends to offer services in the following service territories: 1) Qwest Corporation, Elk Point, Yankton, and Vermillion exchanges; 2) Jefferson Telephone Company d/b/a Long Lines, Jefferson exchange; 3) PrairieWave Community Telephone, Inc., Alsen, Gayville, Irene and Wakonda exchanges, and; 4) Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc, Alcester exchange. On June 2, 2006, Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc. filed a Petition for Intervention. Jefferson Telephone Company d/b/a Long Lines and Vivian Telephone Company d/b/a Golden West
Telecommunications filed Petitions for Intervention on June 5, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to Alliance Communications Cooperative, Inc., Jefferson Telephone Company, and Vivian Telephone Company?
On May 18, 2006, the Commission received a petition from Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative (ITC) requesting the Commission grant an extension of the six month filing deadline for its 2006 intrastate switched access cost study.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to Any Party that May have Filed? AND, shall the Commission Grant Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc.'s Request for an Extension for Filing its 2006 Cost Study?
10. TC06-049 In the Matter of the Filing by West River Cooperative Telephone Company for an Extension of Deadline for Filing its 2006 Cost Study. (Staff Analyst: Keith Senger, Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer)
On May 18, 2006, the Commission received a petition from West River Cooperative Telephone Company (West River) requesting the Commission grant an extension of the six month filing deadline for its 2006 intrastate switched access cost study.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to Any Party that May have Filed? AND, shall the Commission Grant West River Cooperative Telephone Company's Request for an Extension for Filing its 2006 Cost Study?
Administration
1. Consideration of Amendments to the Commission's Procedural Rules to Implement Electronic Filing and to Update Complaint Procedures and Other Procedural Rules. (Commission Attorney: John Smith)
Rules currently governing the filing of documents with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) require paper filing and paper service of all documents, and require parties to include 10 copies of all documents submitted to the Commission. For some time now, the Commission has been exploring ways to utilize the Internet and computer technology both to reduce the flow of paper and to make the Commission's operations more efficient and economical for both the Commission and its staff and for constituents. Additionally, as the case load at the Commission has evolved over time and an increasing number of filings have involved inter-company cases, discussions among the Commission, Staff and counsel who regularly practice before the Commission have suggested the appropriateness of changes to the Commission's complaint procedures and other procedural rules to reflect these changes and the realities of the way cases are currently handled.
TODAY, shall the Commission Open a Docket and Accept Comments on How to Proceed with its Consideration of Electronic Filing?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held July 11, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 412, State Capitol Building.
2. Commission meetings are scheduled for August 8 and 22, 2006.
3. Prehearing motions in the Big Stone II docket will be heard after the June 13, 2006, Commission meeting.
4. At 10:00 a.m. on June 11, 2006, Commissioners and Staff will be meeting with representatives of MidAmerican Energy in the Lewis & Clark Rural Water Board Room (401 E. 8th Street, Sioux Falls) to discuss the potential for wind development in South Dakota.
5. A wind energy meeting will be held at the EMS building (129 Main Avenue) in Gary, South Dakota at 6:00 p.m., June 13, 2006.
6. Commissioners and Staff will be attending the Mid-American Regulatory Conference in Columbus, OH, June 17 – 21, 2006.
7. A hearing in docket EL05-022 (Big Stone II) will be held in the State Capitol Building June 26 – 30, 2006. The hearing will start at 9:30 a.m. on June 26th in Room 412.
______________________
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
June 6, 2006
