PROCEDURAL HISTORY. A. On or about August 8, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the County, G.F. et al. v.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On July 11, 2008, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois”) and Norlight, Inc. d/b/a Cinergy Communications (“Norlight”), filed a joint petition for approval of the 4th Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated July 2, 2008 (“Agreement”) under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 252 et seq.) (“the Act”). The 4th Amendment to the Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of AT&T Illinois and by Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of Norlight, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on August 14, 2008. Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on August 13, 2008. At the hearing on August 14, 2008, Norlight did not appear. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently Xx. Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 27, 2003, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (SBC Illinois) (“SBC”) and Oneida Network Services, Inc. (“Oneida”), filed a joint Petition for approval of a negotiated Traffic Termination Agreement dated January 2, 2003 (the “Agreement”), under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement was submitted with the Petition. A statement in support of the Petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of SBC Illinois and by Xxxx Xxxxx on behalf of Xxxxxx, stating that the facts contained in the Petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on March 11, 2003. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on March 11th, SBC, Oneida, and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On December 14, 2021, PG&E filed the Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in its 2021 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding, A.00-00-000 (“2021 NDCTP Application”). A4NR, Cal Advocates, NCTC, SLO County, TURN and WEM each filed timely protests or responses to the 2021 NDCTP Application, to which PG&E responded on January 24, 2022. Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) filed a motion for party status on February 15, 2022. During the telephonic prehearing conference held on February 17, 2022, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Xxxxx granted party status to SCE and to DHK. At the prehearing conference the parties specified issues agreed to be within the scope of proceeding, and those issues lacking consensus as to whether they were appropriately included within the scope of the proceeding. On April 19, 2022, Commissioner Xxxxx issued the Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memo and Ruling (“Scoping Memo”) which established the issues to be considered in the 2021 NDCTP. The Scoping Memo also requested comments on (1) whether the 2021 NDCTP should be consolidated with A.00-00-000, the Joint Application of SCE and San Diego Gas & Electric Company for the 2021 NDCTP (“SONGS NDCTP”); and (2) whether the Commission should conduct a site visit and/or public participation hearing for Humboldt Bay Power Plant (“HBPP”). PG&E, TURN, SCE, NCTC, SLO County, WEM and A4NR each filed comments on the Scoping Memo on April 29, 2022.1 yak tityu tityu yak tilhini Northern Chumash Cultural Preservation Kinship (“YTT Kinship”) and Xxxxx Xxxxx moved for party status on March 7, 2022, and April 22, respectively; these motions were granted by email ruling on May 20, 2022. The Settling Parties actively and thoroughly reviewed the 2021 NDCTP Application, PG&E’s supporting testimony and site-specific decommissioning cost estimates. To enhance their understanding of the issues, the Settling Parties submitted, and PG&E responded to, a substantial number of data requests. On May 31, 2022, A4NR, Cal Advocates, NCTC, TURN SLO County, and WEM each served direct testimony. PG&E served rebuttal testimony addressing the issues raised by those parties who filed direct testimony on June 30, 2022. On July 7, 2022, XXX Xxxxx issued an Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Noticing Date and Time of Public Participation Hearing and Authorizing PG&E to Deviate from The Notice Requirement Timelines of Rule 13.1(b). On August 10, 2022, XXX Xxxxx canceled the public participation hearing...
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 17, 2009, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois”) and Aero North Communications Inc. (“Aero North”), filed a joint petition for approval of the Interconnection Agreement dated August 10, 2009 under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 252 et seq.) (“the Act”). A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of AT&T Illinois and by Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Aero North, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 3, 2009. Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on September 3, 2009. At the hearing, Aero North did not appear. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently Xx. Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On June 13, 2005, Xxxxx City Telephone Company (“Xxxxx”) and United States Cellular Operating Company of Chicago, LLC, USCOC of Illinois RSA#1, LLC, USCOC of Illinois RSA#4, LLC, and USCOC of Rockford, LLC (collectively “US Cellular”) (Xxxxx and US Cellular are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of a negotiated traffic termination agreement (“Agreement”) entered into on or about May 13, 2005, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The Agreement was filed with the joint petition and supported by the statement of Xxxx XxXxxxx, Assistant General Counsel for FairPoint Communications, Inc., the parent company of Xxxxx. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in this matter before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on July 6, 2005. Appearances were entered by counsel on behalf of Xxxxx, US Cellular, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunication’s Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the Agreement. At the conclusion of the hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received. Nor are there any contested issues in this proceeding.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. A. On August 7, 2016, PWW filed a Notice of Intent to file rate schedules.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. A. On October 3, 2014, Xxxx Xxxxx filed a class action complaint in Xxxxx v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02208 (W.D. Ark.) alleging, among other things, that Toyota (as defined below) designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised and sold certain Tacoma vehicles that allegedly lacked adequate rust protection on the vehicles’ frames that would allegedly result in premature rust corrosion and that Xxxx Xxxxx and others similarly situated sustained economic losses as a result thereof.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On April 25, 2003, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and AccuTel of Texas, Inc. d/b/a 1-800-4-A- PHONE (“AccuTel”), filed a Joint Petition for approval of the First Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated April 11, 2003 (the “Amendment”), under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment was submitted with the Petition. A statement in support of the Petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx on behalf of SBC Illinois and by Xxx Xxxxxx on behalf of AccuTel, stating that the facts contained in the Petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on June 3, 2003. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on June 3, SBC and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On May 7, 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a petition in this docket proposing its Energy Efficiency Plan (the saveawatt petition). By this filing, Duke Energy Carolinas requested approval of a new saveawatt approach to energy efficiency (EE) programs; a portfolio of EE programs; and an XX xxxxx (Xxxxx XX) to compensate and reward it for verified energy efficiency results and to recover the amortization of, and a return on, 90% of the costs avoided by the saveawatt approach. More specifically, Duke Energy Carolinas requested that the Commission, after hearing, issue an order approving
