Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
December 9, 2008, at 8:30 A.M.
Room 464, Capitol Building
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 8, 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 Ad Hoc Commission Meeting Held on October 30, 2008 (Staff: Demaris Axthelm)
Consumer Reports
- Status Report on Consumer Utility Inquiries and Complaints Received by the Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Deb Gregg)
Pipeline Safety
1. PS08-004 In the Matter of the Petition of Commission Pipeline Safety Program Manager for a Declaratory Ruling on Jurisdiction of Low Income Housing Propane System. (Staff Analysts: Nathan Solem/Stacy Splittstoesser, Staff Attorney: Kara Semmler)
On October 29, 2008, the Commission Pipeline Safety Program Manager filed a request for a declaratory ruling as to whether a propane gas delivery system, where costs thereof are paid through a government subsidy, and where user rents cannot be modified based on actual cost, is a master meter system according to SDCL 49-34B-1(10) and thus within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The propane delivery system at issue is located at a facility for low income residents and has been part of the South Dakota Pipeline Program since at least 1997. The Pipeline Safety Program Manager now questions whether the facility is jurisdictional.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Rule on Staff's Petition for Declaratory Ruling?
Telecommunications
1 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 TC07-112, TC07-113, TC07-114, TC07-115, and TC07-116
TC07-115 In the Matter of the Petition of Santel Communications Cooperative, Inc. for Arbitration Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to Resolve Issues Relating to an Interconnection Agreement with Alltel Communications, Inc. (Staff Analyst: Bob Knadle, Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer)
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. 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. The Commission approved the Joint Stipulation for Amended Scheduling Order and Decision Date at its July 8, 2008, meeting. On November 14, 2008, a Joint Stipulation to Supplement Record on Consolidated Arbitration Hearing was filed. The Commission Approved the Joint Stipulation to Supplement Record on Consolidated Arbitration Hearing at its November 25, 2008, meeting.
TODAY, the Commission Shall Hear Oral Arguments.
On February 14, 2008, Access Point, Inc. ("Access") filed an application for a certificate of authority to provide local exchange service in Qwest Exchanges in South Dakota by utilizing a combination of unbundled network elements and resold services obtained from other local exchange carriers pursuant to interconnection and or commercial agreements. The company intends to initiate service upon approval of its application and all filed agreements.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant a Certificate of Authority to Access Point, Inc.?
On August 14, 2008, Midcontinent Communications (Midcontinent) filed an application to amend its certificate of authority to provide local exchange service in the Crooks and Baltic exchanges of Alliance Communications (Alliance), a rural telecommunications carrier. In the Crooks and Baltic exchanges Midcontinent will use Alliance resold services for residential telephone services. In addition to providing local exchange services for commercial and residential customers, Midcontinent also will provide intrastate interexchange services for commercial and residential customers and interstate interexchange services for commercial and residential customers. In the Crooks and Baltic exchanges Midcontinent Communications will use a hybrid fiber coax (HFC) network of its cable plant to provide primary transport for residential and commercial telephone services. This application is a competitive response to the provision of video programming in the geographical area by the incumbent carrier, Alliance. Section 47 U.S.C. 251(f) (1) (C) is applicable to the application. As such, the exemption provided by 47 U.S.C. 251(f) (1) (A) does not apply to Alliance. Midcontinent has requested interconnection pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 251(f)(1)(A) with Alliance, requests confidential treatment of its financial information, and requests a waiver from providing services to the entire Alliance service area to provide local exchange service in the Baltic and Crooks exchanges of Alliance. Alliance filed a Petition to Intervene and for Exemption Pursuant to 47 USC Chapter 251(f). On September 5, 2008, the South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition to Intervene. Alliance was granted intervention at the September 23, 2008, commission meeting. Midcontinent filed its Opposition to SDTA's Petition to Intervene on September 22, 2008. Intervention was granted to Alliance and SDTA at the October 7, 2008, commission meeting.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Proceed?
On October 21, 2008, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority (CRST) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection and Reciprocal Compensation Agreement (Agreement) between CRST and Alltel Communications, LLC (Alltel), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. CRST filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of:
(1) What are the appropriate definitions to be included in the Agreement between the Parties?
(a) The definition of InterMTA traffic.
(b) The definition of Local Traffic, Telecommunications Traffic, and Third Party Provider.
(c) The definition of Wireline Local Calling Area.
(d) Other definition differences.
(2) What is the appropriate scope of Reciprocal Compensation Traffic?
(3) What is the appropriate treatment of ISP bound traffic?
(4) What are the appropriate interconnection facilities between the Parties?
(5) Is the inclusion of SS7 messages appropriate?
(6) What is the obligation of the parties with respect to dialing parity?
(7) Should compensation for Telecommunications Traffic be symmetrical?
(8) What is the appropriate compensation rate for InterMTA traffic?
(9) 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?
(10) Are the reciprocal compensation rates for IntraMTA Traffic and the Traffic Factors proposed by CRST appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)?
(11) What is the appropriate time frame for bringing claims for disputes arising under the Agreement?
(12) What is the appropriate effective date and term of the Agreement?
CRST requests the following relief:
A. Issuance of an Order requiring arbitration of any and all unresolved issues between CRST and Alltel;
B. Issuance of an Order directing CRST and Alltel to submit to this Commission for approval of an interconnection agreement reflecting:
(i) the agreed-upon issues between the parties to be included in the language of Exhibit B; and
(ii) the resolution of any unresolved issues in accordance with the positions and recommendations made by CRST 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 agreed to by the Parties) 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 retain jurisdiction over this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by this Commission in accordance with Section 252(e);
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.
TODAY, shall the Commission Assess a Filing Fee Not to Exceed $75,000 on the Parties to the Docket Pursuant to SDCL 49-31-44?
On November 12, 2008, OrbitCom filed a petition requesting to change its switched access rates. OrbitCom seeks to change its current switched access rates, which mirror Qwest rates, to the rates charged by other similarly situated competitive local exchange carriers. AT&T Communications of the Midwest filed a Petition for Intervention on November 21, 2008.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to Any Parties that May Have Filed?
On November 12, 2008, the Commission received a filing for approval of a Resale Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Avera Communications, L.L.C.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Interconnection Agreement?
Leadership
1. Election of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Commission. (General Counsel: John Smith)
South Dakota Codified Law 49-1-8 states in part that, "The members of the Commission shall elect a chairperson by majority vote and prescribe his duties." Traditionally, the three Commissioners have elected a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson every two years. SDCL 49-1-12 requires that, "Every vote and official action of the Public Utilities Commission shall be entered of record and its proceedings shall be public upon the request of either party or any person interested." Accordingly, the determination of the Commission's leadership structure shall be made at this public meeting.
TODAY, how shall the Commission Provide for its Executive Leadership?
Announcements
- The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held December 30, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 464 of the State Capitol Building, Pierre, SD.
- Commission meetings are scheduled for January 27 and February 10, 2009.
- Commissioners and Staff will be attending the SDTA/PUC Forum in Sioux Falls, SD, December 11-12, 2008.
- The PUC offices will be closed Thursday, December 25, 2008, and Friday, December 26, 2008, in observance of Christmas.
- The PUC offices will be closed Thursday, January 1, 2009, in observance of New Years.
- A public hearing in docket EL08-031 will be held at 6:00 p.m. on January 5, 2009, in the Daktronics Banquet Room A of the Swiftel Center, 824 32nd Avenue, Brookings, SD
- The PUC offices will be closed Monday, January 19, 2009, in observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
/S/ Heather K. Forney_______
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
December 2, 2008
