Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, July 11, 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 July 10, 2006. The lines are limited and are given out on first come/first serve basis. 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 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 February 16, 2005, WWC License LLC (WWC) filed a complaint against Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Golden West), and Vivian Telephone Company, Sioux Valley Telephone Company, Union Telephone Company, Armour Independent Telephone Company, Bridgewater-Canistota Telephone Company and Kadoka Telephone Company (affiliated companies). On March 8, 2005, Golden West filed an Answer and Counterclaim. The procedural history of the parties' numerous motions, responses thereto and Commission's decisions thereon is set forth in the Commission's order of August 26, 2005. On September 7, 2005, WWC filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint requests a damages order against Golden West and its affiliates in the total amount of $935,974.13 for overpayments, transiting charges and InterMTA charges billed at intrastate rates, plus interest from June 1, 2005, less credits since June 1, 2005, double damages and attorney fees pursuant to SDCL 49-13-14.1. On September 8, 2005, the Commission issued its Order Setting Procedural Schedule. Golden West filed an Amended Answer and Amended Counterclaim on September 15, 2005. The Amended Counterclaim requests a damages order in favor of Golden West and against WWC for underpayment as a result of the improper and unadjusted InterMTA Factor, interest on all amounts found to be due and costs, disbursements and attorney's fees. The South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition to Intervene on September 20, 2005. Intervention was granted to SDTA at the October 4, 2005, commission meeting. On January 6, 2006, WWC filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Golden West Companies and SDTA filed a Joint Motion in Limine on January 6, 2006. On January 9, 2006, WWC filed a Motion to Compel Production of Discovery Responses. The Commission heard oral arguments on January 17, 2006, regarding the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the Motion in Limine. At its January 27, 2006, the commission granted the Motion in Limine, but denied the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. WWC filed a Motion to Substitute Corrected Exhibit.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Motion to Substitute Corrected Exhibit?
Electricity
On March 29, 2006, Black Hills Power Inc. filed a request to change a service territory boundary with Butte Electric described as the South ½ of Section 10, T5N, R4E, East of the Black Hills Meridian, Lawrence County, South Dakota. This filing is to implement a change originally agreed to on October 24, 1989, allowing Butte Electric to serve this area but inadvertently not filed nor changed at that time.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Request for an Electric Service Territory Boundary Change?
Petition filed by Redfield Energy, LLC to be provided electric service by NorthWestern Energy outside of NorthWestern Energy's established service territory pursuant to SDCL 49-34A-56. The petition states that Redfield Energy believes NorthWestern can furnish electric service to meet the customer's needs consistent with the factors of SDCL49-34A-56 and that the customer has a strong preference to be served by NorthWestern Energy. The customer's facility is to be located in the existing territory of Northern Electric Cooperative, Inc. On June 13, 2006, Northern Electric Cooperative filed a Petition for Intervention.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Petition for Intervention?
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? Shall the Commission find it is not required to consider the net metering standard?
Application by Black Hills Power, Inc. (BHP) for approval to increase rates for electric service to customers in its service territory by $9,593,688 annually or approximately 9.5% based on BHP's 2005 test year. The company states the proposed increase for a residential customer would be $5.16 per month based on usage of 600 kWh. The proposed rates may potentially affect approximately 60,434 customers in BHP's service territory.
TODAY, shall the Commission suspend the imposition of the tariff for 90 days beyond July 30, 2006? AND, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual expenses not to exceed $100,000?
Gas and Electric
Northwestern Corporation ("NorthWestern") and Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited ("BBIL") have entered into an agreement and plan of merger, dated as of April 25, 2006, which is pending approval of the stockholders of Northwestern at its annual meeting to be held on August 2, 2006. In connection with this transaction (the "Transaction"), a question has arisen as to whether the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction to approve the Transaction. Thus, NorthWestern and BBIL have filed a petition for a declaratory ruling pursuant to SDCL § 1-26-15 and ARSD 20:10:01:34. If the Commission concludes that it does in fact have jurisdiction, a second question is presented, namely, will the Commission approve the transaction. On June 21, 2006, Missouri River Energy Services filed a Petition to Intervene and a Provisional Request for Conditions to Approval of Merger. Petitions to Intervene were also filed by Heartland Consumers Power District and South Dakota Power Company on June 21, 2006, and by East River and Basin Electric on June 22, 2006.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant Intervention to Missouri River Energy Services, Heartland Consumers Power District, South Dakota Power Company, East River Electric, and Basin Electric?
Telecommunications
On November 4, 2005, AmeriVon LLC filed an application seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange services throughout South Dakota on a resale basis. The applicant intends to offer interexchange services, including MTS and travel card services to primarily residential and small business customers.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant a Certificate of Authority to AmeriVon LLC?
On February 27, 2006, Midstate Telecom, Inc. filed a petition for designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier in the Chamberlain Exchange of Qwest Corporation. Midstate Telecom, Inc. is a competitive local exchange carrier providing voice grade dial tone services through its own facilities in the Chamberlain exchange.
TODAY, shall the Commission enter an Order designating Midstate Telecom, Inc. as an ETC for its requested ETC service area?
3. In the Matter of the Petition for Arbitration of Interconnection Agreements in Dockets TC06-036, TC06-037, TC06-038, TC06-039, TC06-040, TC06-041, and TC06-042.
On May 3, 2006, Armour Independent Telephone Co. (Armour) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Armour and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Armour filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Armour appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Armour "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Armour] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Armour] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Armour] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. 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 A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006. On June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation.
On May 3, 2006, Bridgewater-Canistota Independent Telephone Company (Bridgewater) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Bridgewater and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Bridgewater filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Bridgewater appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Bridgewater "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Bridgewater] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Bridgewater] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Bridgewater] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. 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 A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006. On June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation.
On May 3, 2006, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. (Golden West) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Golden West and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Golden West filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Golden West appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Golden West "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Golden West] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Golden West] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Golden West] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. 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 A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006. On June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation.
On May 3, 2006, Kadoka Telephone Company (Kadoka) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Kadoka and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Kadoka filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Kadoka appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Kadoka "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Kadoka] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Kadoka] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Kadoka] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. 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 A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006. On June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation.
On May 3, 2006, Sioux Valley Telephone Company (Sioux Valley) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Sioux Valley and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Sioux Valley filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Sioux Valley appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Sioux Valley "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Sioux Valley] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Sioux Valley] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Sioux Valley] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. 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 A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006. On June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation.
On May 3, 2006, Union Telephone Company (Union) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Union and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Union filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Union appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Union "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Union] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Union] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Union] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. 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 A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006. On June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation.
On May 3, 2006, Vivian Telephone Company (Vivian) filed a petition for arbitration of certain unresolved terms and conditions of a proposed Interconnection Agreement between Vivian and WWC License L.L.C. (WWC), pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SDCL 49-31-81, and ARSD 20:10:32:29. Vivian filed a list of unresolved issues consisting of: (1) Is the reciprocal compensation rate for Local Traffic proposed by Vivian appropriate pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(d)(2)? (2) What is the appropriate Percent InterLATA Use factor to be applied to non-local traffic exchanged between the parties? (3) What is the appropriate manner by which the minutes of use of Local Traffic terminated by the parties, one to the other, should be calculated and billed? Vivian "respectively requests that the Commission grant the following relief: A. Order arbitration of any unresolved issues between [Vivian] and WWC; B. Issue an order directing [Vivian] and WWC to submit to the Commission for approval an interconnection agreement reflecting: (i) the agreed-upon language in Exhibit A and (ii) the resolution in this arbitration proceeding of any unresolved issues in accordance with the recommendations made by [Vivian] herein, at the hearing on such issues and in Exhibit A; C. 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 A) to the date on which the Commission approves the parties' executed interconnection agreement in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act [footnote omitted]; D. Retain jurisdiction of this arbitration until the parties have submitted an executed interconnection agreement for approval by the Commission in accordance with Section 252(e) of the Act; and E. 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 May 15, 2006, Golden West filed a Motion for Consolidation of dockets TC06-036 – TC06-042. SDTA filed a Petition for Intervention on June 5, 2006. On June 16, 2006, WWC filed a Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners Pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18.3. The Golden West Companies filed a Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Request to Use the Office of Hearing Examiners? AND, shall the Commission Grant the Motion Seeking Order Requiring Payment of Interim Compensation?
4. In the Matter of the Filing for Approval of Agreements in Dockets TC06-043, TC06-059, and TC06-060.
On May 4, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of an Interconnection and Reciprocal Compensation Agreement between James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company and Alltel Communications, Inc. According to the parties, this Agreement is intended to provide "specific Interconnection and Reciprocal Compensation arrangements between the parties."
On June 6, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Wireline Adoption Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and SSTelecom, Inc. d/b/a ITC. According to the parties, "SSTelecom, Inc/ d/b/a ITC wishes to adopt in its entirety, the terms of the Interconnection Agreement and any associated amendments, if applicable . . . between IDT America Corp. and Qwest Corporation . . . that was approved by the Commission on May 13, 2004. . . ."
On June 8, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Type 1 and Type 2 Paging Connection Service Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Kentec Communications, Inc. According to the parties, "[t]his Agreement covers Type 1 and Type 2 Paging Connection Service which consists only of those one-way intraLATA/intrastate land-to-pager trunks."
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve the Agreements in the Above Referenced Dockets?
5. In the Matter of the Filing for Approval of Amendments to Agreements in Dockets TC06-055, TC06-056, TC06-057, TC06-058, TC06-061, and TC06-062.
On June 1, 2006 the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Triennial Review Order and Triennial Review Remand Order Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and DIECA Communications, Inc. d/b/a Covad Communications Company. According to the parties, this Amendment deletes, changes or adds terms and conditions for certain UNEs.
On June 2, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Triennial Review Order and Triennial Review Remand Order Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Sprint Communications Company, L.P. According to the parties, this Amendment amends, modifies and revises the Agreement to the extent that it adds certain UNEs, as set forth in an attachment to the Agreement.
On June 2, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Triennial Review Order and Triennial Review Remand Order Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and ACN Communication Services, Inc. According to the parties, this Amendment deletes, changes or adds terms and conditions for certain UNEs.
On June 2, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of an Out of Hours Project Coordinated Installations Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and XO Communications Services, Inc. According to the parties, this Amendment adds terms, conditions and rates for Out of Hours Project Coordinated Installations.
On June 8, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Cageless Single Bay Adjustment Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Midco Communications, Inc. d/b/a Midcontinent Communications, Inc. According to the parties, this Amendment adds terms, conditions and rates for Cageless Single Bay Adjustment.
On June 8, 2006, the Commission received a filing for the approval of a Triennial Review Order and Triennial Review Remand Order Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Integra Telecom. According to the parties, this Amendment changes or adds terms and conditions for certain UNEs.
TODAY, shall the Commission Approve Amendments to the Agreements in the Above Referenced Dockets?
On June 16, 2006, 360networks (USA) inc. filed an application seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide competitive local exchange access (network) services within Qwest's service territory including switched access and transport, to commercial interconnecting carriers through South Dakota. Applicant plans to deploy dedicated network facilities and switching equipment consisting of high capacity broadband facilities and switching equipment. Applicant's network may be supplemented through resale of incumbent carrier services and/or leasing portions of incumbent networks where Applicant does not maintain, nor is deploying facilities. With this application, the applicant also submitted a switched access tariff for which it appears to be requesting approval of. On June 28, 2006, the South Dakota Telecommunications Association (SDTA) filed a Petition for Intervention.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant the Petition for Intervention to SDTA?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held August 8, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 412, State Capitol Building.
2. Commission meetings are scheduled for August 22 and September 12 (tentative), 2006.
3. The PUC offices will be closed Tuesday, July 4, 2006, in observance of Independence Day.
4. Oral arguments in docket EL05-022 will be heard immediately following the July 11, 2006, Commission meeting in Room 412, State Capitol Building.
5. Commissioners and staff will be attending the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners meeting in San Francisco, CA July 30 – August 2, 2006.
6. A hearing in Docket CT05-001 will be held August 7, 2006, in Room 412, State Capitol Building, Pierre. The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m.
7. Commissioners and staff will be attending the South Dakota Telecommunications Association Annual Meeting in Spearfish, SD August 21 – 22, 2006.
______________________
Heather K. Forney
Deputy Executive Director
heather.forney@state.sd.us
July 3, 2006
