Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
July 8, 2008, at 9:30 A.M.
Floyd Matthews Training Center, Joe Foss Building
523 E Capitol Ave
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 July 7, 2008. Lines are limited and are given out on a first come, first served 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
Administration
- Approval of the Minutes of the Commission Meeting Held on May 6, 2008, and the Ad Hoc Meeting Held on May 28, 2008. (Staff: Demaris Axthelm)
Consumer Reports
- Status Report on Consumer Utility Inquiries and Complaints Received by the Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Deb Gregg)
Electric
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. A hearing in this matter was held May 30, 2007. Staff filed a letter of recommendations on June 13, 2007. At its July 11, 2007, meeting the Commission voted to not accept PURPA Standard 14 and hold additional workshops on PURPA Standard 15. Interconnection workshops were held March 18 – 19, 2008, and April 10, 2008. An additional workshop was held on June 25, 2008.
TODAY, what is the Commission's Decision Regarding PURPA Standard 12, Fuel Diversity, and PURPA Standard 13, Fossil Fuel Generation Efficiency?
Application by Otter Tail Power Company for approval to amend its M-42S tariff to add the following wording to this tariff: "Due to the U.S. Government Energy Act of 2005, after July 1, 2008, the Company will no longer install Mercury Vapor fixtures for new installations." As of January 1, 2008, the U.S. Government Energy Act of 2005 prohibits mercury vapor lamp ballasts from being manufactured or imported in the United States. As such Otter Tail will no longer be able to purchase mercury vapor fixtures.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Tariff Revisions?
Telecommunications
1. TC06-180 In the Matter of the Application of Sprint Communications Company L.P. for Authority to Provide Local Exchange Services in Certain Rural Areas Served by Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Kara Semmler)
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. The Commission granted intervention to SDTA at its December 6, 2006, meeting. On January 11, 2008, a Joint Motion for Delay was filed by the Parties. The joint Motion for Delay was granted at the January 29, 2008 Commission meeting. On May 13, 2008, Sprint filed a Motion to Request the Commission Enter a Protective Order. The Protective Order was granted at the May 20, 2008, commission meeting. A Joint Motion for Delay was filed on July 1, 2008.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Joint Motion for Delay?
2. TC06-184 In the Matter of the Filing by Long Lines Wireless, LLC for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer)
On October 30, 2006, Long Lines Wireless, LLC filed a petition for designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier in South Dakota for the following service area: the counties of Union, Clay, Yankton, Bon Homme, Lincoln, Turner, Minnehaha, McCook, Lake, Moody, Brookings, Jackson, Harding, Butte, Lawrence, Custer, Fall River, Bennett, Perkins, Meade, Pennington, Shannon, and Haakon. Long Lines Wireless will provide service to the requested service area via its own facilities, not through any resale methods. On March 25, 2008, the Commission deferred the item. On May 19, 2008, Long Lines Wireless, LLC filed modifications to the Petition.
TODAY, shall the Commission Designate Long Lines Wireless, LLC as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier?
3. In the Matter of the Petition for Arbitration Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Resolve Issues Relating to an Interconnection Agreement in Dockets TC07-111, TC07-112, TC07-113, TC07-114, TC07-115, and TC07-116
On October 19, 2007, each of the parties above (Parties) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement with Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. The Parties filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of:
(1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for IntraMTA Traffic proposed by the Parties appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)?
(2) What is the appropriate Percent InterMTA Use factor to be applied to non-IntraMTA traffic exchanged between the parties?
(3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of IntraMTA Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed?
(4) What is the obligation of the parties with respect to dial parity?
(5) What is the appropriate effective date and term of the Agreement?
The Parties request the following relief:
A. Issuance of an Order requiring arbitration of any and all unresolved Issues between the Parties and WWC;
B. Issuance of an Order directing the Parties and Alltel to submit to this Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting:
(i) The agreed-upon language in Exhibit A, and
(ii) The resolution of any unresolved issues in accordance with the positions and recommendations made by the Parties as set forth herein at the arbitration hearing to be scheduled by this Commission;
C. Issuance of an Order directing the parties to pay interim compensation for transport and termination of telecommunications traffic from January 1, 2007 (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;
D. Issuance of an Order asserting this Commission jurisdiction over this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by this Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and
E. Any other, further and different relief as the nature of this matter may require or as may be just, equitable and proper to this Commission.
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 December 17, 2007, a Stipulation for Scheduling Order was filed. The Stipulation for Scheduling Order was approved at the January 29, 2008, commission meeting. On June 10, 2008, a Joint Stipulation for Amended Scheduling Order and Decision Date was filed.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Joint Stipulation for Amended Scheduling Order and Decision Date?
4. In the Matter of the Petitions for Suspension or Modification of 47 U.S.C. Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended in Dockets TC08-006, TC08-007, TC08-008, TC08-009, TC08-010, TC08-011, TC08-012, TC08-013, TC08-014, TC08-015, TC08-016, TC08-017, TC08-018, TC08-019, TC08-020, TC08-021, TC08-022, TC08-023, TC08-024, TC08-025, TC08-026, and TC08-027.
TC08-012 In the Matter of the Petition of RC Communications, Inc., and Roberts County Telephone Cooperative Association for Suspension or Modification of 47 U.S.C. Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Rolayne Ailts Wiest)
TC08-018 In the Matter of the Petition of Union Telephone Company for Suspension or Modification of 47 U.S.C. Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Rolayne Ailts Wiest)
TC08-019 In the Matter of the Petition of Armour Independent Telephone Company for Suspension or Modification of 47 U.S.C. Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Rolayne Ailts Wiest)
On February 8, 2008, each of the above-named petitioners (Petitioners) filed a petition with the Commission for a suspension and modification of the number portability requirement in Section 251(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. On April 8, 2008, the Commission issued Orders Granting Intervention in each of the above dockets granting intervention in one or more of the above dockets to: Midcontinent Communications; Alltel Communications LLC; Verizon Wireless LLC, CommNet Cellular License Holding LLC, Missouri Valley Cellular, Inc., Sanborn Cellular, Inc., Eastern South Dakota Cellular, Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless; the South Dakota Telecommunications Association; MCC Telephony of the Midwest, Inc. d/b/a Mediacom; and Sprint Communications Company L.P. On June 26, 2008, the Petitioners filed a joint Motion for Modification of the Stipulation for Procedural Schedule (Motion).
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Motion and Modify the Procedural Schedule Accordingly? OR, how shall the Commission Proceed?
5. In the Matter of the Request for Certification Regarding the Use of Federal Universal Service Support in Dockets TC08-063, TC08-067, TC08-071, TC08- 072, TC08-073, TC08-075, TC08-076, TC08-077, TC08-078, TC08-079, TC08-080, TC08-081, TC08-082, TC08-083, TC08-084, TC08- 090, and TC08-093
On May 28, 2008, James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company (James Valley) provided information constituting James Valley's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that James Valley will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On May 29, 2008, 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 provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On May 29, 2008, Faith Municipal Telephone Company (Faith) provided information constituting Faith's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Faith will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
TC08-072 In the Matter of the Request of Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority for Certification Regarding its Use of Federal Universal Service Support. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best/Terri LaBrie Baker, Staff Attorney: Karen E. Cremer)
On May 30, 2008, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority (CRSTTA) provided information constituting CRSTTA's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that CRSTTA will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
TC08-073 In the Matter of the Request of City of Brookings Municipal Telephone for Certification Regarding its Use of Federal Universal Service Support. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best/Terri LaBrie Baker, Staff Attorney: Karen E. Cremer)
On May 30, 2008, Brookings Municipal Telephone (Brookings) provided information constituting Brookings's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Brookings will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On May 30, 2008, Beresford Municipal Telephone Company (Beresford) provided information constituting Beresford's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Beresford will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On May 30, 2008, RT Communications, Inc. (RT) provided information constituting RT's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that RT will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On May 30, 2008, Sioux Valley Telephone Company (Sioux Valley) provided information constituting Sioux Valley's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Sioux Valley will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On May 30, 2008, Kadoka Telephone Company (Kadoka) provided information constituting Kadoka's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Kadoka will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On May 30, 2008, Armour Independent Telephone Company (Armour) provided information constituting Armour's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Armour will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On May 30, 2008, Bridgewater-Canistota Independent Telephone Company (Bridgewater) provided information constituting Bridgewater's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Bridgewater will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On May 30, 2008, Union Telephone Company (Union) provided information constituting Union's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Union will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On May 30, 2008, Vivian Telephone Company (Vivian) provided information constituting Vivian's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Vivian will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On May 30, 2008, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Golden West) provided information constituting Golden West's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Golden West will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On May 30, 2008, Knology Community Telephone, Inc. (Knology) provided information constituting Knology's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Knology will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On June 2, 2008, Valley Telephone Company (Valley) provided information constituting Valley's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Valley will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal provisions of 47 U.S.C. Section 254.
On June 2, 2008, Farmers Mutual Telephone Company (Farmers Mutual) provided information constituting Farmers Mutual's plan for the use of its federal universal service support and to otherwise verify that Farmers Mutual will use all federal universal service support received in a manner that is consistent with the federal universal 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?
6. TC08-088 In the Matter of the Filing by Citizens Telecommunications Company of Minnesota, LLC for a Waiver of ARSD 20:10:32:56. (Staff Analysts: Harlan Best/Terri LaBrie Baker, Staff Attorney: Karen E. Cremer)
On June 2, 2008, Citizens Telecommunications Company of Minnesota, LLC (Citizens) filed a waiver of the Commission's ETC filing requirements pursuant to ARSD section 20:10:32:56, on the ground that the reporting requirements in support of ETC certification are unduly burdensome and unnecessary. Citizens' study area consists primarily of a geographic area contained within the state of Minnesota. Citizens' service area in South Dakota consists of the West Jasper exchange. West Jasper is the rural portion of an exchange where the larger portion of the exchange and the central office is located in Minnesota. Citizens has no wire centers in South Dakota. For companies such as Citizens which have a very small portion of their overall study area in South Dakota, the requirement of certifying the use of universal service fund monies in accordance with the requirements of ARSD sections 20:10:32:52 - 20:10:32:54 is unduly burdensome and unnecessary for the Commission to certify that Citizens is using federal high cost support for its intended purposes. Because its study area is largely contained within the state of Minnesota and because it will comply with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission requirements for ETC certification, Citizens requests that it be allowed to file a copy of its Minnesota ETC certification with the SDPUC; and that the SDPUC accept such filings as sufficient to make the determination as to include Citizens on the list of certified carriers it provides to the FCC and the USAC on or before October 1 of each year.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Waiver?
Administration
The Qwest Performance Assurance Plan (QPAP) in each of the relevant 14 states includes language regarding reviewing the QPAP by the state commissions. Certain states also have provisions for conducting an analysis, upon the occurrence of certain triggering events, on whether the QPAP should be phased out entirely and/or identifying any sub-measures, if any, that should continue as part of the QPAP. The triggering event varies from state to state. Qwest Corporation has sought, is seeking, or has indicated plans to seek 272 relief in many states. Therefore, the staffs of the 14 member commissions of the Regional Oversight Committee recommend a multi-state collaborative review of the QPAP be conducted utilizing a consultant. The consultant's review will include the participation of and consultation with the QPAP stakeholders; Qwest, Competitive Local Exchange Carriers with business in the relevant region, and the appropriate participating state public utilities commissions.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Proceed?
Announcements
- The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held July 29, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. in Floyd Mathews Training Center, 523 E Capitol Ave, Joe Foss Building, Pierre, SD.
- Commission meetings are scheduled for August 12 and August 26, 2008.
- The Public Utilities Commission offices will be closed Friday, July 4, 2008, in observance of Independence Day.
- Grain Warehouse Rules Hearing will be held July 14, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 464, State Capitol Building, Pierre, SD.
- Commissioners and Staff will be attending the National Association of Regulatory Commission meeting in Portland, OR, July 21 – 23, 2008.
- A hearing in dockets TC07-111 through TC07-116 will be held July 29 – August 1, 2008, in the Floyd Matthews Training Center, Foss Building, Pierre, SD. The hearing will begin at 1:30 p.m. on July 29.
- A Hearing for Docket TC07-117 will be held August 5, 2008, in the Capital Lake Visitors Center, 650 E Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD. The hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m.
- A hearing in dockets TC06-178, TC06-180, TC06-188 and TC06-189 will be held August 20 – August 22, 2008, in the Capital Lake Visitors Center, 650 E Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD. The hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. on August 20.
/S/Heather K. Forney _
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
July 2, 2008
