PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On October 20, 2005, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Illinois Bell”) and Megacomm Corporation d/b/a MegaPage (“Megacomm”), filed a joint petition for approval of a Paging Interconnection Agreement dated September 27, 2005, 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 Xxxxx X. Xxxx on behalf of Illinois Xxxx and by Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx on behalf of Megacomm, 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 November 17, 2005. Staff filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on November 17, Illinois Bell and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 19, 2005, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and XO Communications Services, Inc. (“XO Communications”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 12th Amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Amendment”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Illinois, and by Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of XO Communications , stating that the facts contained in the petition are, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 7, 2005. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and marked the record “Heard and Taken” on September 6 , 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-6-05).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On March 26, 2002, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech”) and McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (“XxXxxx”) (Xxxxxxxxx and XxXxxx are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the negotiated portions of an interconnection agreement (“Agreement”) dated March 26, 2002, 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 remaining portions of the Agreement were determined through an arbitration petition in Docket No. 01-0623. Ameritech and XxXxxx submit those portions of the Agreement to the Commission for review pursuant to the Order entered in Docket No. 01-0623. A copy of the Agreement was filed with the joint petition. Also accompanying the joint petition is a statement in support of the joint petition from Xxxx Xxxxxx, Director-Negotiations for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company/Illinois Bell Telephone Company Negotiations. Pursuant to due notice, this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on April 10, 2002. Appearances were entered by counsel on behalf of Ameritech and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications 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.
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 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 November 3 , 2005, El Paso Telephone Company (“El Paso”) and NPCR, Inc., d/b/a Nextel Partners, as agent for Nextel WIP License Corp. and Nextel WIP Expansion Corp. (“Nextel”), filed a joint petition for approval, under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq. (“Act”), of an Agreement for Transportation and Termination of Traffic. The Agreement was submitted with the petition. Statements in support of the petition, along with sworn verifications, were filed by Xxxx XxXxxxx, on behalf of El Paso, and by Xxxx Xxxxx, on behalf of Nextel, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct. On November 29, 2005, Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx 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 December 1, 2005.
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 November 1, 2002, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech Illinois”) and Focal Communications Corporation of Illinois (“Focal”), filed a joint petition for approval of the Third Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated October 17, 2002 (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 Xxxx Xxxxxx, on behalf of Ameritech Illinois, and by Xxxxx Xxxxx, on behalf of Xxxxx, 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 December 4, 2002. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on December 4, Ameritech, Focal, 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 August 24, 2011, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Illinois Bell”) and Sonic Telecom, LLC (“Sonic”), filed a joint petition for approval of the Interconnection Agreement dated August 15, 2011, 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 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, on behalf of Xxxxxxxx Xxxx and by Xxxx Xxxxxx, on behalf of Sonic 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 November 2, 2011. Staff filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on November 2, Illinois Bell and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
