Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Wednesday, August 23, 2006, at 9:30 A.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 412
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 August 22, 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)
Electricity
On July 21, 2005, the Commission received an Application for a Construction Permit for an Energy Conversion Facility from Otter Tail Power Company (Otter Tail) on behalf of the Project co-owners; Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; Great River Energy; Heartland Consumers Power District; Montana Dakota Utilities Co., a Division of MDU Resources Group, Inc.; Otter Tail Corporation d/b/a Otter Tail Power Company; Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; and Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency. The proposed Energy Conversion Facility is a nominal 600 MW coal fired electric generating facility and associated facilities, which the Project co owners have named Big Stone II, to be located on an industrial site adjacent to the existing Big Stone Plant unit I in Grant County, South Dakota. At the September 27, 2005, commission meeting, the Commission granted intervener party status pursuant to ARSD 20:10:22:40 to Clean Water Action, the South Dakota Chapter Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists, Mary Jo Stueve, Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy, Izaak Walton League of America - Midwest Office, and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA). The formal evidentiary hearing was held as scheduled on June 26- 29, 2006, in Room 412 of the Capitol Building. The Decision was issued on July 21, 2006. On July 28, 2006, intervenor Mary Jo Stueve filed a Notice and Application for Reconsideration. On August 3, 2006, Otter Tail Power Company filed Applicant's Answer to Petition for Rehearing. On August 14, 2006, Mary Jo Stueve filed a Notice and Application for Reconsideration Second Application. On August 16, 2006, staff filed its Answer to Petitions for Reconsideration.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Mary Jo Stueve's Application for Reconsideration? AND, shall the Commission Grant Mary Jo Stueve's Application for Reconsideration Second Application? AND, if either Motion is Granted, how shall the Commission Proceed?
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. On August 15, 2006, Xcel filed a letter with the Commission asking for a waiver of the one year deadline pursuant to SDCL 49-41B-24, and for an additional period of time before the Commission's Final Decision.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Request by Xcel Energy to Waive the One Year Deadline pursuant to SDCL 49-41B-24? And, shall the Commission Grant Xcel's Request for an Additional Period of Time before the Commission's Final Decision?
On August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ("EPAct 2005") was signed into law. Certain provisions in the EPAct 2005 amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act ("PURPA") of 1978. The EPAct 2005 adds five new federal standards to PURPA. The five standards regard net metering, fuel diversity, fossil fuel generation efficiency, smart metering, and interconnection for distributed resources. Under the EPAct 2005, the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has varying timelines within which to consider these standards and determine whether to adopt them. The Commission voted to open a docket to seek comments from interested persons or entities on how to proceed. The Commission requested comments on the following: 1) which electric utilities operating in South Dakota are affected by the standards and are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction? 2) Should the Commission open a docket for each utility or open a generic docket encompassing all of the affected utilities? 3) Should the Commission combine all of the standards, some of the standards, or have separate dockets for each standard? 4) Should the Commission hold evidentiary hearings with direct testimony and cross-examination? 5) If the Commission decides to implement any of the standards, should it do so through a rulemaking? 6) With respect to the net metering standard, should the Commission find it is not required to consider this standard given that the Legislature has already considered net metering in a past legislative session? Comments were received from the South Dakota Rural Electric Association and South Dakota Electric Utility Companies. On August 11, 2006, the Commission received a Petition to Intervene from MidAmerican Energy Company. On August 14, 2006, the Commission received a Petition to Intervene from Itron, Inc. On August 15, 2006, the Commission received a Petition to Intervene from NorthWestern Energy, Montana-Dakota Utilities, and Xcel Energy.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to MidAmerican Energy Company, Itron, Inc., NorthWestern Energy, Montana-Dakota Utilities, and Xcel Energy?
Natural Gas
On July 21, 2006, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (Montana-Dakota), a Division of MDU Resources Group, Inc., submitted for Commission approval Section No. 4, 5th Revised Sheet No. 1 and the underlying Amendment No. 3 dated June 15, 2006 to the current Agreement between Montana-Dakota and Merillat Corporation (Merillat). The existing agreement with Merillat was effective on November 1, 2003 pursuant to the Commission's Order issued on October 28, 2003 (Docket No. NG03-005) as subsequently amended to extend the term of the agreement in Docket Nos. NG04-006 and NG05-013. Amendment No. 3 provides for service to continue to Merillat for a one-year period ending October 31, 2007 under the terms of the original contract.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Amendment to the Contract and Approve the Tariff Revisions?
Application by MidAmerican Energy for approval of revisions to its tariffed Monthly Metered Transportation Service and Interruptible Monthly Metered Transportation Service which would update the volumetric administrative charge. The currently approved tariff specifies an annual true up of this charge which this filing would accomplish.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Tariff Revisions?
Telecommunications
On August 11, 2005, Ernest Communications, Inc. filed an application seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange services throughout South Dakota and local exchange services in Qwest service territories. On August 14, 2006, Ernest Communications, Inc. requested that its application be withdrawn at this time.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Request to Withdraw the Application?
On March 20, 2006, Northstar Telecom, Inc. filed an application seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide resold local exchange services within Qwest's South Dakota service territory and interexchange service within the State of South Dakota and to provide local services using unbundled network elements (UNE) or UNE replacement through a commercial agreement with Qwest. On July 28, 2006, Northstar Telecom, Inc. requested that its Application be withdrawn without prejudice.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Request to Withdraw the Filing Without Prejudice?
3. 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 June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation. On July 28, 2006, the Golden West Companies filed an Application for Reconsideration of the July 11, 2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; a Memorandum in Support of Application for Reconsideration of the July 11, 2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; and a Motion to Suspend Procedural Schedule.
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 June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation. On July 28, 2006, the Golden West Companies filed an Application for Reconsideration of the July 11, 2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; a Memorandum in Support of Application for Reconsideration of the July 11, 2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; and a Motion to Suspend Procedural Schedule.
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 June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation. On July 28, 2006, the Golden West Companies filed an Application for Reconsideration of the July 11, 2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; a Memorandum in Support of Application for Reconsideration of the July 11, 2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; and a Motion to Suspend Procedural Schedule.
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 June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation. On July 28, 2006, the Golden West Companies filed an Application for Reconsideration of the July 11, 2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; a Memorandum in Support of Application for Reconsideration of the July 11, 2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; and a Motion to Suspend Procedural Schedule.
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 June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation. On July 28, 2006, the Golden West Companies filed an Application for Reconsideration of the July 11, 2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; a Memorandum in Support of Application for Reconsideration of the July 11, 2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; and a Motion to Suspend Procedural Schedule.
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 June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation. On July 28, 2006, the Golden West Companies filed an Application for Reconsideration of the July 11,2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; a Memorandum in Support of Application for Reconsideration of the July 11,2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; and a Motion to Suspend Procedural Schedule.
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. On June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation. On July 28, 2006, the Golden West Companies filed an Application for Reconsideration of the July 11, 2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; a Memorandum in Support of Application for Reconsideration of the July 11, 2006, Decision of the Public Utilities Commission Granting the Request of WWC License, LLC to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners; and a Motion to Suspend Procedural Schedule.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Motion to Reconsider the Commission's Decision of July 11, 2006, Regarding the Use of the Office of the Hearing Examiners? AND, if Granted What is the Commission's Decision? AND, how shall the Commission Proceed?
On June 1, 2006, Integrated Services Inc. filed an application seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange telecommunications services, including 1+ and 101XXXX outbound dialing, 800/888 Toll-Free inbound dialing, directory assistance, data services and postpaid calling card services to residential customers and small and mid-sized business customers within the State of South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Certificate of Authority to Integrated Services Inc.?
On June 16, 2006, 360networks (USA) Inc. filed an application seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide competitive local exchange access (network) services within Qwest's service territory including switched access and transport, to commercial interconnecting carriers throughout South Dakota. Applicant plans to deploy dedicated network facilities and switching equipment consisting of high capacity broadband facilities and switching equipment. Applicant's network may be supplemented through resale of incumbent carrier services and/or leasing portions of incumbent networks where Applicant does not maintain, nor is deploying facilities. With this application, the applicant also submitted a switched access tariff for which it is requesting approval of. On June 28, 2006, the South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention. The Commission granted SDTA intervention on July 20, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Certificate of Authority to 360networks (USA) Inc.? AND, if a Certificate of Authority is Granted, shall the Commission Approve the Exemption from Developing Company Specific Cost-Based Switched Access Rates and Approve 360networks (USA) Inc.'s Switched Access Tariff as Filed?
On June 30, 2006, City of Brookings Municipal Telephone Department filed a 2005 switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement and minutes of use that are included in the revenue requirement and minutes of use used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carriers Association. On August 1, 2006, AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. filed a Petition to Intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc.?
On July 3, 2006, Heartland Telecommunications of Iowa d/b/a HickoryTech (Heartland) filed a Petition for a Waiver of ARSD Sections 20:10:32:52 to 20:10:32:54, inclusive. Heartland's study area is comprised primarily of a geographic area contained within the state of Iowa, but also includes small portions of rural territory in South Dakota and Minnesota. Heartland's service area in South Dakota consists of West Akron and West Hawarden. Heartland states that it will comply with the final rulemaking order of the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) to determine the annual reporting and certification requirements for all carriers with eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation (RMU 06-1). Heartland asserts that for companies that have a very small portion of their overall study area in South Dakota, the requirement of certifying the use of federal Universal Service Fund monies per the requirements of the above referenced rules are "unduly burdensome and unnecessary" for the Commission to certify that Heartland is using the federal high cost support for the uses it is intended. Because its study area is largely contained within the state of Iowa and because it will comply with the IUB requirements for ETC certification, Heartland requests that it be allowed to file a copy of its Iowa ETC certification with the SDPUC; and that the SDPUC accept such filing as sufficient to make the determination as to include Heartland on the list of certified carriers it provides to the FCC on or before October 1 of each year.
TODAY, shall the Commission Dismiss and Close the Docket?
On June 30, 2006, the Local Exchange Carriers Association (LECA) filed revised switched access tariff pages. These revisions are necessitated by revisions in the individual member companies' revenue requirements and access minutes of use. The revised tariff pages are proposed to be effective upon Commission approval of the corresponding cost studies. On August 1, 2006, AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. filed a Petition to Intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc.?
9. In the Matter of the Approval of Agreements in Dockets TC06-091 and TC06-092
On July 19, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Reciprocal Transportation Agreement between Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Communications and PrairieWave Black Hills, LLC. According to the parties, Swiftel and PrairieWave Black Hills "have agreed to operate in accordance with the terms contained in the Reciprocal Compensation Agreement between Swiftel and Prairie Wave Telecommunications, Inc . . . dated January 7, 2004, and approved in TC04-005."
On July 21, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Type 1 and Type 2 Paging Connection Service Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Metrocall, 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 Above Agreements?
On July 25, 2006, Great Plains Communications, Inc. (Great Plains) filed a request for a 30 extension of the August 1 due date for filing the Annual ETC Certification and a Petition For Waiver of ARSD Sections 20:10:32:52 to 20:10:32:54, inclusive. Great Plains's study area is comprised primarily of a geographic area contained within the state of Nebraska, but also includes small portions of rural territory in South Dakota. Great Plains's service area in South Dakota consists of North Cody, North Crookston, North Gordon, and North Kilgore. Great Plains asserts that for companies that have a very small portion of their overall study area in South Dakota, the requirement of certifying the use of federal Universal Service Fund monies per the requirements of the above referenced rules are "unduly burdensome and unnecessary" for the Commission to certify that Great Plains is using the federal high cost support for the uses it is intended. Because its study area is largely contained within the state of Nebraska and because it will comply with the Nebraska Public Service Commission requirements for ETC certification, Great Plains requests that it be allowed to file a copy of its Nebraska ETC certification with the SDPUC; and that the SDPUC accept such filing as sufficient to make the determination as to include Great Plains on the list of certified carriers it provides to the FCC on or before October 1 of each year.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Waiver of ARSD Sections 20:10:32:52 to 20:10:32:54? AND, shall the Commission Grant the 30 Day Extension Request of Great Plains Communications, Inc.?
11. In the Matter of the Request for Certification Regarding its Use of Federal Universal Service Support in dockets TC06-094, TC06-095, T06-096, TC06-099, TC06-100, TC06-101, TC06-103, TC06-104
On July 25, 2006, Kennebec Telephone Co., Inc. (Kennebec) provided information constituting Kennebec's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Kennebec will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On July 25, 2006, Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Interstate) provided information constituting Interstate's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Interstate will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254. On August 1, 2006, Interstate filed revised Exhibits A & B.
On July 25, 2006, Stockholm-Strandburg Telephone Company d/b/a ITC (Stockholm) provided information constituting Stockholm's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Stockholm will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254. On August 1, 2006, Stockholm filed revised Exhibits A & B.
On July 27, 2006, Santel Communications Cooperative (Santel) provided information constituting Santel's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Santel will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254. On August 3, 2006, Santel filed revised Exhibits A & B.
On July 27, 2006, RCC Minnesota, Inc. (RCC) provided information constituting RCC's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that RCC will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On July 27, 2006, Wireless Alliance, LLC (Wireless Alliance) provided information constituting Wireless Alliance's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Wireless Alliance will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On July 27, 2006, Midstate Communications, Inc. (Midstate) provided information constituting Midstate's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Midstate will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On July 27, 2006, Midstate Telecom, Inc. (MTI) provided information constituting MTI's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that MTI will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal service provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
TODAY, shall the Commission Provide a Certification to the Federal Communications Commission and to the Universal Service Administration Company Regarding the Plan for the Use of Federal Universal Services Support as Proposed in Each of the Above Dockets?
On July 27, 2006, Qwest Corporation (Qwest) filed a request with the Commission to waive the NeuStar Pooling Administrator's utilization threshold requirements in the Flandreau rate center to meet a specific customer's need in the community. Qwest submitted a request for a thousands block to The Pooling Administrator on July 20, 2006. In order for the request to be approved, Qwest will require a waiver of the current usage threshold for new numbering requests.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Waiver of the FCC's Utilization Threshold Requirements?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held September 12, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 412, State Capitol Building.
2. Commissioners and staff will be attending the South Dakota Association of Telephone Cooperatives Annual Meeting in Spearfish, SD August 21 – 22, 2006.
3. Commissioners and staff will be making a presentation on energy efficiency at the State Fair Dakotaland Stage at 2:00 p.m. on September 2, 2006.
4. The PUC offices will be closed Monday, September 4, 2006, in observance of Labor Day.
5. A hearing in Docket EL06-011 will be held September 19, 2006, in Room 412, State Capitol Building, Pierre. The hearing will begin at 8:30 a.m.
6. A hearing in Docket EL06-014 will be held September 20, 2006, in Room 412, State Capitol Building, Pierre. The hearing will begin at 8:30 a.m.
7. A hearing in Docket CE06-003 will be held September 27, 2006, in Brookings - SDSU - Union Center - Lewis and Clark Room #262. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m.
______________________
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
August 16, 2006
