Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Wednesday, December 6, 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 December 5, 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)
Consumer Complaints
On June 7, 2006, Global Polymer Industries, Inc. (Polymer) filed a complaint against the City of Arlington regarding adequate electrical service pursuant to SDCL 49-34A-58. Polymer is requesting that the Commission allow Polymer to contract with another electric utility for its retail electric service. The South Dakota Municipal Electric Association (SDMEA) filed a Petition to Intervene on July 12, 2006, which was denied at the August 8, 2006, commission meeting. Polymer and the City of Arlington filed a Stipulation and Order on November 29, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Stipulation and Dismiss and Close the Docket?
Electric
On October 26, 2006, Tatanka Wind Power, LLC ("Tatanka") and its parent company Acciona Wind Energy USA, LLC ("Acciona") have proposed the Tatanka Wind Farm, which will consist of up to 120 wind-powered generators to yield a new capacity of up to 180 MWs. As presently envisioned, however, the South Dakota portion of the project will consist of approximately 90 MWs of generating capacity. In connection with this project (the "Project"); a question has arisen as to whether the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over the Project, therefore subjecting the Project to the statutory permit requirements of SDCL 49-41B and ARSD 20:10:22. Thus, Tatanka has filed a petition for a declaratory ruling pursuant to SDCL ยง 1-26-15 and ARSD 20:10:01:34. Tatanka amended its petition on November 8, 2006. Staff filed a Brief Regarding Jurisdiction on November 20, 2006.
TODAY, what is the Commission's Decision?
Telecommunications
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?
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?
On October 20, 2006, Sprint Communications L.P. filed a petition seeking authorization to provide local exchange services in the rural area served by Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Communications in the Brookings rate center. On November 7, 2006, the South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention. Sprint filed Opposition to SDTA's Intervention on November 20, 2006.
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. Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative (ITC) filed a Petition for Intervention on November 8, 2006. Sprint filed Opposition to SDTA's Intervention on November 20, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to SDTA?
On October 27, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of an amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Avera Communications, LLC to incorporate the Triennial Review Order and the Triennial Review and Remand Order into the Interconnection Agreement.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Amendment to the Agreement?
On October 31, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a commercial agreement between Qwest Corporation and Trans National Communications International, Inc relating to the provisioning of switching and shared transport. Despite Qwest's belief this 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 Agreement?
On November 6, 2006, MCC Telephony of the Midwest, Inc. d/b/a Mediacom ("MCC") filed a petition for a certificate of authority to provide facilities-based and resold basic local exchange services. Services proposed will include non-switched, switched local services and special access services in the Brookings rural exchange area. Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Telecommunications (Swiftel) filed a Petition for Intervention on November 21, 2006. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on November 22, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to SDTA? AND, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to Swiftel?
On November 6, 2006, MCC Telephony of the Midwest, Inc. d/b/a Mediacom ("MCC") filed a petition for a certificate of authority to provide facilities-based and resold basic local exchange services. Services proposed will include non-switched, switched local services and special access services in the Castlewood, Elkton, Estelline, Hayti, Lake Norden and White rural exchange areas. On November 10, 2006, Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (ITC) filed a Petition for Intervention. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention on November 22, 2006. Intervention was granted to ITC at the November 28, 2006, commission meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to SDTA?
On November 15, 2006, Commission Staff filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause due to Dish Network's failure to register as a telemarketer and the solicitations it made to individuals registered with the South Dakota Do Not Call Registry. Upon further investigation, Staff determined that Dish Network is a subsidiary of EchoStar Satellite, LLC.
TODAY, shall the Commission Amend the Docket to Include EchoStar Satellite, LLC as a Party? AND, shall the Commission Issue an Order to Show Cause?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held December 19, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 412, State Capitol Building, Pierre, SD.
2. Commission meetings are scheduled for January 2 and January 23, 2007.
3. The Commission offices will be closed Monday, December 25, 2006, in observance of Christmas.
4. The Commission offices will be closed Monday, January 1, 2007, in observance of New Years.
____________________
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
November 30, 2006
