Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, November 14, 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 November 13, 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.
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 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.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Proceed?
Application by Xcel energy for approval to refund to customers proceeds received as a result of a settlement reached for overpayments for uranium enrichment services performed by the Department of Energy. Xcel also requests that legal fees incurred in pursuit of this settlement be deducted from the proceeds and the net amount be returned to customers through the fuel adjustment clause.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Refund?
Telecommunications
On July 26, 2006, American Fiber Network, Inc. (AFN), applied to the Commission for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a provider of resold local exchange telecommunication services; resold interexchange telecommunication services; resold switched and dedicated local exchange telecommunication services; and operator services within and throughout the state of South Dakota currently served by the Incumbent LEC Qwest.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Certificate of Authority?
On September 8, 2006, The City of Brookings Municipal Utilities – Telephone Division d/b/a Swiftel Communications (Swiftel) filed a revised service territory map which includes new local exchange service territories as a result of recent annexation by the City of Brookings. Swiftel is asking the Commission to accept the revised service territories in accordance with SDCL 49-31-69 and 49-31-3.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Revised Service Territory?
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. On October 27, 2006, Alltel filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. Venture filed an Opposition to Alltel's Request.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners?
On October 11, 2006, VCI Company ("VCI") applied to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") for an order amending its Certificate of Authority to permit VCI to require prepayments for the offering of prepaid local exchange services in the State of South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Amended Certificate of Authority to VCI Company?
5. In the Matter of Approving Amendments to Agreements in Dockets TC06-172 and TC06-179
On October 13, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of an Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Northern Valley Communications. According to the parties, the Amendment incorporates the Triennial Review Order (TRO) and the Triennial Review Remand Order (TRRO) into the already existing Interconnection Agreement between the parties.
On October 24, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of an amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and MCImetro Access Transmission Services, LLC regarding MCI's CLEC consolidation for the state of South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Amendments to Agreements Above?
6. In the Matter of Approving Agreements in Dockets TC06-173, TC06-174 and TC06-177.
On October 13, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a wireline Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and PrairieWave Black Hills, LLC.
On October 13, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a wireline Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and PrairieWave Telecommunications, Inc.
On October 18, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Resale Agreement between Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. and Midcontinent Communications.
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. On November 3, 2006, The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition to Intervene
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to SDTA? 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 City of Brookings 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. On November 3, 2006, The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition to Intervene
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to SDTA? AND, shall the Commission Grant the Request to Consolidate?
On October 20, 2006, Sprint Communications L.P. filed a petition seeking authorization to provide local exchange services in the rural area served by the City of Brookings Municipal Utilities - Telephone Division d/b/a Swiftel Communications ILEC in the Brookings rate center. On November 7, 2006, the South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to SDTA?
On October 24, 2006, Sprint Communications L.P. filed a petition seeking authorization to provide local exchange services in the rural areas served by the Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. ILEC in the Castlewood, Elkton, Estelline, Hayti, Lake Norden and White rate centers. On November 7, 2006, the South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to SDTA?
On October 24, 2006, Venture Communications Cooperative (Venture) filed a Petition for Suspension or Modification of Local Dialing Parity and Reciprocal Compensation Obligations. In its Petition, Venture states that it seeks to modify the dialing parity and reciprocal compensation obligations in 47 U.S.C. § 25l (b) (3) and (5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Venture is requesting "modification of the dialing parity requirement such that Venture is not required to provide local dialing and it is not required to transport traffic outside of its service territory or beyond the wireline local calling area. Venture also requests a modification of the reciprocal compensation requirements such that it is not required to pay reciprocal compensation on traffic terminating to a wireless carrier within the same MTA that is handed off to an IXC in accordance with Venture's wireline local calling areas. Venture also requests a modification of the symmetrical compensation requirement and requests that the Commission base compensation for wireless carrier's on the wireless carrier's forward looking cost study. Venture also requests immediate temporary suspension of the 251(b) (3) and (5) requirements as described above pending this Commission's consideration of this request." The South Dakota Telecommunications Association filed a Petition for Intervention on November 6, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to SDTA and Any Other Parties that May have Filed?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held November 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 468, State Capitol Building, Pierre, SD.
2. Commission meetings are scheduled for December 5 and 19, 2006.
3. The Commission offices will be closed Friday, November 10, 2006, in observance of Veterans Day.
4. 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
November 7, 2006
