Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, October 31, 2006, at 9:30 A.M. MT CT
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 October 30, 2006. Lines are limited and are given out on first come/first serve basis, subject to possible reassignment to accommodate persons who must appear in a proceeding. 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 requests that persons who will only be listening to proceedings and not actively appearing in a case listen via the Web cast to free phone lines for those who have to appear. 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.
CORRECTED 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 December 2, 2005, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation d/b/a Xcel Energy, submitted an application for a Construction Permit to build the following facilities: 1. Two new 0.4 mile 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines connecting the Western Area Power Administration White Substation located southeast of White, South Dakota, and a new Xcel Energy Brookings County Substation; 2. A new 345 kV/115kV Brookings County Substation located approximately 0.4 miles east of the White Substation; 3. A new 9.65 mile 115 kV transmission line from the Brookings County Substation to the Minnesota/South Dakota border; and 4. Improvements to the White Substation to accommodate the new 345 kV lines. The application comprises the western portion of the Buffalo Ridge - White transmission project which connects the White Substation to the Buffalo Ridge Substation southeast of Lake Benton, Minnesota. On February 2, 2006, the Brookings County Commission late filed an Application for Party Status. Party Status was granted to the Brookings County Commission at the February 28, 2006, meeting. On October 9, 2006, Xcel submitted a letter to amend certain portions of its application. On October 20, 2006, a stipulation was filed with the Commission.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Stipulation? AND, shall the Commission Approve the Construction Permit?
On July 11, 2006, White Wind Farm, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Navitas Energy, Inc., filed an application seeking an Energy Conversion Facility Permit to construct and operate the White Wind Farm. The White Wind Farm is a proposed 200 MW wind energy electricity generating facility and ancillary services located on approximately 93 acres in Sherman Township, southeast of White, South Dakota in Brookings County. The project consists of up to 105 2 MW wind turbine generators, associated electric collector lines, a collection substation and interconnection and upgrades to the WAPA White Substation. On September 8, 2006, Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (ITC) filed an Application for Party Status. The South Dakota Rural Electric Association (SDREA) filed a Petition to Intervene on September 11, 2006. On September 19, 2006, the Local Review Committee filed a request for $2,000 from the Commission in order to hire a consultant to assist in carrying out the review committee's responsibilities. Sioux Valley Electric filed a Petition to Intervene on October 18, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to Sioux Valley Electric?
Natural Gas
Application by MidAmerican Energy Company to utilize its Purchased Gas Adjustment during the months of January through March of 2007 to share positive net margins earned on sales for resale made using natural gas stored at one of its Waterloo Iowa liquefied natural gas facility storage tanks. MidAmerican states that if the project does not result in a positive net margin from sales for resale, MidAmerican will not attempt to recover the negative net margin from retail customers.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Fuel Incentive and Proposal to Credit Margins through the Purchased Gas Adjustment?
Telecommunications
On May 19, 2006, RC Communications, Inc. d/b/a RC Services filed a petition for designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier in the Milbank Exchange of Qwest Corporation. RC Services is a competitive local exchange carrier currently providing telecommunications service in the community of Corona, a part of the Milbank exchange. RC Services offers these services utilizing its own facilities or a combination of its own facilities and resale of another carrier's facilities, pursuant to 47 CFR Section 54.201(d) (1).
TODAY, shall the Commission Designate RC Communications, Inc. d/b/a RC Services as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier? AND, 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 3, 2006, James Valley Wireless, L.L.C. (JVW) filed a Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) for its proposed wireless personal communications service operations. JVW requests that its proposed wireless operation be designated as eligible to receive all available support from the federal Universal Service Fund including, but not limited to, support for rural, insular and high-cost areas and low-income customers. JVW requests that it be designated as an ETC in the James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company's service area and the Redfield exchange of Qwest Corporation.
TODAY, shall the Commission Designate James Valley Wireless, L.L.C. as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier? AND, 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 August 9, 2006, SSTelecom, Inc. filed a Petition for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) in Qwest Corporation's (Qwest) Milbank exchange. SSTelecom is a competitive local exchange carrier currently in the process of overbuilding the urban areas of Milbank. SSTelecom will offer services utilizing its own facilities or a combination of its own facilities and resale of Qwest's facilities, pursuant to 47 CFR Section 54.201(d) (1).
TODAY, shall the Commission Designate SSTelecom, Inc. as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier within the Qwest Exchange of Milbank? AND, 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 September 14, 2006, Venture Communications Cooperative (Venture) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Venture and Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) (47 U.S.C. Section 252), SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Venture filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) the definition of InterMTA Tariff, (2) the definition of Third Party Provider, (3) the definition of Wireline Local Calling Area, (4) ISP bound traffic, (5) Resale of Service, (6) concerning interconnection facilities between the Parties, (7) SS7 Messages, (8) concerning land to mobile traffic-direct interconnection, (9) Dialing Parity, (10) Telecommunications Traffic, (11) InterMTA Traffic, (12) Venture Provided Direct Interconnection Facilities, (13) Bill and Keep, (14) Billing and Payment, (15) Regulatory Approval, and (16) Rates and Factors. Venture "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: 1. Order arbitration of the unresolved issues identified in this Petition between Venture and Alltel; 2. Issue an order directing Venture and Alltel to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit 1 and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by Venture herein, at the hearing on such issues, and in Exhibit 1; 3. 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 1) to the date on which the Commission approves the Parties' executed Agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; 4. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the Parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission; and 5. 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 October 6, 2006, the South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition to Intervene. Intervention was granted to SDTA at the October 19, 2006, commission meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission Assess a Deposit Not to Exceed $75,000 on the Parties to the Docket Pursuant to SDCL 49-31-44?
5. In the Matter of Approving Agreements in Dockets TC06-161, TC06-162, TC06-163, TC06-164, TC06-165, TC06-166, TC06-167, TC06-168, TC06-170, and TC06-171.
On October 10, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of an Interconnection Agreement between Sancom, Inc. and Alltell Communications, Inc.
On October 9, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Reciprocal Interconnection, Transport and Termination Agreement between Vivian Telephone Company and WWC License, L.L.C.
On October 9, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Reciprocal Interconnection, Transport and Termination Agreement between Union Telephone Company and WWC License, L.L.C.
On October 9, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Reciprocal Interconnection, Transport and Termination Agreement between Sioux Valley Telephone Company and WWC License, L.L.C.
On October 9, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Reciprocal Interconnection, Transport and Termination Agreement between Kadoka Telephone Company and WWC License, L.L.C.
On October 9, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Reciprocal Interconnection, Transport and Termination Agreement between Bridgewater-Canistota Telephone Company and WWC License, L.L.C.
On October 9, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Reciprocal Interconnection, Transport and Termination Agreement between Armour Independent Telephone Company and WWC License, L.L.C.
On October 9, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Reciprocal Interconnection, Transport and Termination Agreement between Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. and WWC License, L.L.C.
On October 11, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a wireline Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, LLC.
On October 11, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of the Qwest Local Services Platform Agreement ("QLSP") between Qwest Corporation ("Qwest") and Granite Telecommunications, LLC ("Granite"). The agreement provides for Granite's purchase from Quest of mass market switching and shared transport elements that Granite may combine with local loops purchased from the separate interconnection agreement between Qwest and Granite. Despite Qwest's belief the QLSP agreement should not be subject to the filing obligations under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act, Qwest filed the agreement in compliance with the Commission's Order dated October 29, 2004, in Docket TC04-144.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Agreements Above?
On October 16, 2006, Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) filed a petition to arbitrate, pursuant to SDCL 49-31-81 and ARSD 20:10:32:29-32, and Section 252(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), certain terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Sprint and Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (ITC). Sprint filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Should the definition of End User in this Agreement include end users of a service provider for which Sprint provides interconnection, telecommunications services or other telephone exchange services? (2) Should the Interconnection Agreement permit the parties to combine wireless and wireline traffic on interconnection trunks? (3) Should the Interconnection Agreement permit the parties to combine all traffic subject to reciprocal compensation charges and traffic subject to access charges onto interconnection trunks? (4) Should the Interconnection Agreement contain provisions for indirect interconnection consistent with Section 251(a) of the Act? (5) In an indirect interconnection scenario, is the ILEC responsible for any facility or transit charges related to delivering its originating traffic to Sprint outside of its exchange boundaries? (6) What direct interconnection terms should be contained in the Interconnection Agreement? (7) What are the appropriate rates for direct interconnection facilities? (8) When a two-way interconnection facility is used, should Sprint and Interstate share the cost of the interconnection facility between their networks based on their respective percentages of originated traffic? (9) What is the appropriate reciprocal compensation rate for the termination of telecommunications traffic, as defined by Sprint in the Agreement? (10) Should Sprint's proposed language regarding Local Number Portability be adopted and incorporated into the Interconnection Agreement? (11) Should the Interstate-proposed Directory Listing provisions, as modified by Sprint, be adopted and incorporated into the Interconnection Agreement? Sprint respectfully requests the Commission to arbitrate each of the remaining disputes between Sprint and Interstate, to find in Sprint's favor and to adopt Sprint's proposed contract language.
TODAY, shall the Commission Assess a Deposit Not to Exceed $75,000 on the Parties to the Docket Pursuant to SDCL 49-31-44? AND, shall the Commission Grant the Request to Consolidate?
On October 16, 2006, Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) filed a petition to arbitrate, pursuant to SDCL 49-31-81 and ARSD 20:10:32:29-32, and Section 252(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), certain terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Sprint and Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Communications (Swiftel). Sprint filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Should the definition of End User in this Agreement include end users of a service provider for which Sprint provides interconnection, telecommunications services or other telephone exchange services? (2) Does the Telecommunications Act authorize the Commission to arbitrate terms and conditions for interconnection obtained under Section 251(a) of the Telecommunications Act? If yes, what terms and conditions should the Commission impose on the parties in this proceeding? (3) Should the Interconnection Agreement permit the parties to combine wireless and wireline traffic on interconnection trunks? (4) Should the Interconnection Agreement permit the parties to combine all traffic subject to reciprocal compensation charges and traffic subject to access charges onto the interconnection trunks? (5) What is the appropriate reciprocal compensation rate for the termination of telecommunications traffic? (6) Should Sprint's proposed language regarding Local Number Portability be adopted and incorporated into the Interconnection Agreement? (7) Should the ILEC-proposed Directory Listing provisions, as modified by Sprint, be adopted and incorporated into the Interconnection Agreement? (8) Termination: A) Should the termination provision of the Interconnection Agreement permit the existing Interconnection Agreement to remain in effect while the parties are in the process of negotiating and/or arbitrating a replacement Interconnection Agreement? B) Should the Interconnection Agreement contain provisions that allow the parties to terminate the Agreement for: 1) a material breach; 2) if either party's authority to provide service is revoked or terminated; or, 3) if either party becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy? (9) What 911 liability terms should be included in the Interconnection Agreement? (10) What Force Majeure terms should be included in the Interconnection Agreement? Sprint respectfully requests the Commission to arbitrate each of the remaining disputes between Sprint and Swiftel, to find in Sprint's favor and to adopt Sprint's proposed contract language.
TODAY, shall the Commission Assess a Deposit Not to Exceed $75,000 on the Parties to the Docket Pursuant to SDCL 49-31-44? AND, shall the Commission Grant the Request to Consolidate?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held November 14, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 412, State Capitol Building, Pierre, SD.
2. Commission meetings are scheduled for November 28 and December 5, 2006.
3. A hearing in RM06-003 will be held November 7, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 412, State Capitol Building, Pierre, SD.
4. The Commission offices will be closed Friday, November 10, 2006, in observance of Veterans Day.
5. A hearing in EL06-019 will be held November 20 – 21, 2006, in Room 412, State Capitol Building, Pierre, SD.
____________________
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
October 24, 2006
