PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On October 21, 2003, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (SBC Illinois) (hereinafter “IBTC”) and Cypress Communications Operating Company, Inc. (“Cypress”), filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a joint Petition for approval of the First Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated September 25, 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, Xx. on behalf of IBTC, and by Xxxxxxx X. XxXxxx on behalf of Cypress, stating that the facts contained in the Petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Commission Staff (“Staff”) filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. Pursuant to notice given in accordance with the law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was heard by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on November 12, 2003. Counsel for IBTC and Staff appeared at the hearing and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. The Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On February 26, 2010, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Frontier North, Inc., and Frontier Communications of the Carolinas, LLC (“Frontier”), and Communications Venture Corporation d/b/a INdigital telecom (“INdigital”), filed a joint petition for approval of the Interconnection Agreement 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 Xxxxxxx on behalf of Frontier and by Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx on behalf of INdigital, 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 February 19, 2014. Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on January 29, 2014. At the hearing INdigital did not appear. Frontier 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. 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 June 13, 2005, El Paso Telephone Company (“El Paso”) 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”) (El Paso 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 El Paso. 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 El Paso, US Cellular, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx 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. 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 this 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 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.
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. A. On August 7, 2016, PWW filed a Notice of Intent to file rate schedules.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On September 8, 1998, a document entitled the Unitil Restructuring Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement") was executed and filed by the following parties (the “Settling Parties”): the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire (“BIA”); Cabletron Systems, Inc. (“Cabletron”); Enron Energy Services, Inc. (“Enron”); Freedom Partners, L.L.C. (“Freedom”); the Staff of the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (“Staff”), the Office of Consumer Advocate (“OCA”); the Retail Merchants Association of New Hampshire (“RMA”), and the Unitil Companies: Concord Electric Company (“CECo”), Exeter & Hampton Electric Company (“E&H”), Unitil Service Corp. (“USC”), and Unitil Power Corp. (“UPC”) (collectively “Unitil”).1 The Settlement Agreement was intended to resolve most of the contested issues pertaining to Unitil in our restructuring proceeding, DR 96-150, to provide retail access and customer choice for Unitil’s customers by March 1, 1999, and to terminate Unitil’s involvement in the ongoing Federal litigation.2 A duly noticed Prehearing Conference was held on September 18, 1998. Technical sessions were conducted on September 18 and September 24, 1998, and intervenor testimony was filed on October 7, 1998 by the Governor’s Office of 1In addition to the above-stated parties, the Commission granted intervention to the Governor’s Office of Energy and Community Service (“GOECS”), the Campaign for Ratepayers’ Rights (“CRR”), State Representative Xxx X. Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxx of PJA Energy Systems Designs, Granite State Electric Company (“GSEC”) and the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2Under the Settlement the parties agreed to disagree on two issues to be presented to the Commission for determination: 1) use of the Unitil name and logo; and 2) the allocation of partial payments between a supplier and the distribution company for consolidated billing under the Trading Partner Agreement. Energy and Community Services (“GOECS”), Enron, Staff and the OCA (jointly), and Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx, Xx., P.E., Chief Engineer of the Commission. On October 12, 1998, the parties conducted a technical session and settlement conference and on October 16, Unitil filed rebuttal testimony. As a result of the technical sessions and the settlement conference, Unitil and the other parties conducted further negotiations and agreed to an Amended Settlement on October 20, 1998. The Amended Settlement addressed a number of issues and concerns raised in the testimony of Representa...
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On February 9, 2005, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC”) and CenturyTel Fiber Company II, LLC (“CenturyTel”), filed a joint petition for approval of the Second Amendment to the parties’ Interconnection Agreement dated February 2, 2005 (“Amendment”), under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“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, Xx., on behalf of SBC, and by Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx, on behalf of CenturyTel, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct. On March 21, 2005, Staff filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was assigned to a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Commission. The ALJ determined that there were no disputed issues in this proceeding and that no evidentiary hearings would be required. This matter was marked “Heard and Taken” on April 6, 2005.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On May 7, 2007, Duke Energy Carolinas filed a petition in this docket proposing its Energy Efficiency Plan (the save-a-watt petition). By this filing, Duke Energy Carolinas requested approval of a new save-a-watt 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 save-a-watt approach. More specifically, Duke Energy Carolinas requested that the Commission, after hearing, issue an order approving
