Iowa Utilities Bd Clause Samples
The "Iowa Utilities Bd" clause typically refers to provisions in contracts or regulatory documents that address compliance with the rules, orders, or requirements set by the Iowa Utilities Board, the state agency overseeing utility services in Iowa. This clause may require parties to adhere to specific standards for utility operations, reporting, or service delivery as mandated by the Board. For example, it could obligate a utility provider to obtain necessary approvals or follow certain procedures before making changes to rates or infrastructure. The core function of this clause is to ensure that all parties remain in compliance with state utility regulations, thereby reducing legal risk and promoting reliable utility service.
Iowa Utilities Bd. 119 S. Ct. 721 (1999) or Ameritech v. FCC, No. 98- 1381, 1999 WL 116994, 1999 Lexis 3671 (June 1, 1999), the affected provision shall be immediately invalidated, modified, or stayed, consistent with the action of the legislative body, court, or regulatory agency upon the written request of either Party. In such event, the Parties shall expend diligent efforts to arrive at an agreement regarding the appropriate conforming modifications to the Agreement. If negotiations fail, disputes between the Parties concerning the interpretation of the actions required or provisions affected by such governmental actions shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution process provided for in this Agreement. Without limiting the general applicability of the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge that on January 25, 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in AT&T Corp. v.
Iowa Utilities Bd. ▇▇▇ ▇.▇. ▇▇▇ (1999) (and on remand, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000)) and Ameritech v. FCC, No. 98-1381, 1999 WL 116994, 1999 Lexis 3671 (1999) and on appeal to and remand by the United States Supreme Court, Verizon v. FCC, et. al, ▇▇▇ ▇.▇. ▇▇▇ (2002). In addition, on April 27, 2001, the FCC released its Order on Remand and Report and Order in CC Dockets No. 96-98 and 99-68, 16 FCC Rcd 9151 (2001) (the “ISP Compensation Order”), which was remanded in WorldCom, Inc. v. ▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇.▇▇ ▇▇▇ (▇.▇. Cir. 2002) (all collectively referred to as the “Orders”). In entering into this Agreement, the Parties acknowledge and agree that the provisions set forth in this Agreement are based upon SBC- 13STATE’s obligations under FCC rules and regulations as they existed prior to their vacature by the D.C. Circuit in its USTA Decision. By executing this Agreement and any Amendments to such Agreement and carrying out the provisions herein, neither Party waives, but instead expressly reserves, all of its rights, remedies and arguments with respect to the Orders and any other federal or state regulatory, legislative or judicial action(s), including but not limited to any legal or equitable rights of review and remedies (including agency reconsideration and court review), and its rights under this Intervening Law paragraph. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, these rights also include but are not limited to SBC-13STATE’s right to exercise its option at any time in the future to adopt on a date specified by SBC- 13STATE the FCC ISP terminating compensation plan, after which date ISP-bound traffic will be subject to the FCC's prescribed terminating compensation rates, and other terms and conditions. If any reconsideration, agency order, appeal, court order or opinion, stay, injunction or other action by any state or federal regulatory or legislative body or court of competent jurisdiction stays, modifies, or otherwise affects any of the rates, terms and/or conditions (“provisions”) in this Agreement, specifically including but not limited to those arising with respect to the Orders, the affected provision(s) will be immediately invalidated, modified or stayed as required to effectuate the subject order upon the written request of either Party (“Written Notice”). In such event, the Parties shall have sixty (60) days from the Written Notice to attempt to negotiate and arrive at an agreement on the appropriate conforming modifications to...
Iowa Utilities Bd. 119 S. Ct. 721 (1999) or Ameritech v. FCC, No. 98-1381, 1999 WL 116994, 1999 Lexis 3671 (1999), the affected provision shall, as of the effective date of the action resulting in such invalidation, modification or stay, be invalidated, modified, or stayed, consistent with the action of the legislative body, court, or regulatory agency upon the written request of either Party. The Parties acknowledge that the Eighth Circuit has issued a decision in the appeal from the FCC order described above, but it is not yet clear what changes to this Agreement are appropriate. The Parties' failure to incorporate those changes in this Agreement as of the Effective Date shall not be construed as a waiver of the right to assert appropriate legal positions and make appropriate changes, once such determinations are made. Should the Parties be unable to agree within a reasonable time upon the effect of such invalidation, modification or stay on their interconnection arrangement, the Parties will continue to apply the original rate, term and/or condition. In such event, the Parties shall expend diligent efforts to arrive at an agreement regarding the appropriate conforming modifications to the Agreement. If negotiations fail, disputes between the Parties concerning the interpretation of the actions required or provisions affected by such governmental actions shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution process provided for in this Agreement. Upon determination of the appropriate conforming modifications, such modifications shall be applied as of the effective date of the action resulting in such invalidation, modification or stay.
Iowa Utilities Bd. ▇▇▇ ▇.▇. ▇▇▇ (1999) (and on remand, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000)) and Ameritech v. FCC, No. 98-1381, 1999 WL 116994, 1999 Lexis 3671 (1999) and on appeal to and remand by the United States Supreme Court, Verizon v. FCC, et. al, ▇▇▇ ▇.▇. ▇▇▇ (2002). The Parties further acknowledge that on May 24, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision in United States Telecom Association, et. al v. FCC, 290 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2002), in which the Court granted the petitions for review of the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-98 (FCC 99-238) ("the UNE Remand Order") and the FCC's Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 98-147 and Fourth Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-98 (FCC 99-355) (rel. Dec. 9, 1999) ("the Line Sharing Order"), specifically vacated the Line Sharing Order, and remanded both these orders to the FCC for further consideration in accordance with the decision and that on February 20, 2003, the FCC, on remand and pursuant to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Review of Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, CC Docket No. 01-338, FCC 01-361 (rel. Dec. 20, 2001), adopted its Triennial Review Order. In addition, on November 24, 1999, the FCC issued its Order In the Matter of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, (FCC 99-370), 15 FCC Rcd 1760 (rel. Nov. 24, 1999), including its Supplemental Order Clarification, (FCC 00-183), (rel. June 2, 2000), in CC Docket 96-98. The Parties further acknowledge that on April 27, 2001, the FCC released its Order on Remand and Report and Order in CC Dockets No. 96-98 and 99-68, 16 FCC Rcd 9151 (2001) (the “ISP Compensation Order”) which was remanded in WorldCom, Inc. v. ▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇.▇▇ ▇▇▇ (▇.▇. Cir. 2002). By executing this Agreement and any Amendments to such Agreement and carrying out the provisions herein, SBC-13STATE does not waive any of its legal rights, and expressly reserves all of its rights, remedies and arguments, including but not limited to those related to any of the foregoing decisions or proceedings or any remands thereof, including its right to seek legal review or a stay pending appeal of such decisions and its rights under this Intervening Law paragraph. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, these rights also include but are not limite...
Iowa Utilities Bd. ▇▇▇ ▇.▇. ▇▇▇ (1999) (and on remand, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000)) and on June 1, 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ameritech v. FCC, No. 98-1381, 1999 WL 116994, 1999 Lexis 3671 (1999). In addition, on July 18, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its opinion in Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, No. 96-3321, 2000 Lexis 17234, which is the subject of a pending appeal before the Supreme Court. The Parties further acknowledge that on November 5, 1999, the FCC issued its Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-96 (FCC 99-238), including the FCC's Supplemental Order issued In the Matter of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in CC Docket No. 96-98 (FCC 99-370) (rel. November 24, 1999), which is the subject of a pending request for reconsideration and a pending appeal. The Parties further acknowledge that on April 27, 2001, the FCC released its Order on Remand and Report and Order in CC Dockets No. 96- 98 and 99-68, In the Matter of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Intercarrier Compensation for ISP-bound Traffic (the “ISP Intercarrier Compensation Order.”) By executing this Agreement and any Amendments to such Agreement and carrying out the intercarrier compensation rates, terms and conditions herein, SBC-13STATE does not waive any of its rights, and expressly reserves all of its rights, under the ISP Intercarrier Compensation Order, including but not limited to its right to exercise its option at any time in the future to invoke the Intervening Law or Change of Law provisions and to adopt on a date specified by SBC-13STATE the FCC ISP terminating compensation plan, after which date ISP-bound traffic will be subject to the FCC's prescribed terminating compensation rates, and other terms and conditions. The Parties further acknowledge and agree that by executing this Agreement and any Amendments to such Agreement, neither Party waives any of its rights, remedies, or arguments with respect to such decisions or proceedings or any remands thereof, including its right to seek legal review or a stay pending appeal of such decisions and its rights under this Intervening Law paragraph.
Iowa Utilities Bd. ▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇. ▇▇▇ (1999) and on June 1, 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ameritech v. FCC, No. 98-1381, 1999 WL 116994, 1999 Lexis 3671 (1999). In addition, the Parties acknowledge that on November 5, 1999, the FCC issued its Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96-96 (FCC 99-238), including the FCC’s Supplemental Order issued In the Matter of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in CC Docket No. 96-98 (FCC 99-370) (rel. November 24, 1999), portions of which became effective thirty (30) days following publication of such Order in the Federal Register (February 17, 2000) and other portions of which became effective 120 days following publication of such Order in the Federal Register (May 17, 2000). The Parties further acknowledge and agree that by executing this Agreement, neither Party waives any of its rights, remedies, or arguments with respect to such decisions and any remand thereof, including its right to seek legal review or a stay pending appeal of such decisions or its rights under this Section 29.3.
Iowa Utilities Bd. ▇▇▇ ▇.▇. ▇▇▇ (1999) (and on remand Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000) or Ameritech v. FCC, No. 98- 1381, 1999 WL 116994, 1999 Lexis 3671 (June 1, 1999), the affected provision shall be immediately invalidated, modified, or stayed, consistent with the action of the legislative body, court, or regulatory agency upon the written request of either Party. In such event, the Parties shall expend diligent efforts to arrive at an agreement regarding the appropriate conforming modifications to the Agreement. If negotiations fail, disputes between the Parties concerning the interpretation of the actions required or provisions affected by such governmental actions shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution process provided for in this Agreement. Without limiting the general applicability of the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge that on January 25, 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in AT&T Corp. v.
Iowa Utilities Bd. 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (and on remand, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000)) and Ameritech v. FCC, No. 98-1381, 1999 WL 116994, 1999 Lexis 3671 (1999) and on appeal to and remand by the United States Supreme Court, Verizon v. FCC, et. al, 535 U.S. 467 (2002). In addition, on April 27, 2001, the FCC released its Order on Remand and Report and Order in CC Dockets No. 96-98 and 99-68, 16 FCC Rcd 9151 (2001) (the “ISP Compensation Order”), which was remanded in WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 288 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (all collectively referred to as the “Orders”). On May 9, 2003, the Public Utilities Act of Illinois was amended to add Sections 13-408 and 13-409, 220 ILCS 5/13- 408 and 13-409, and enacted into law ("Illinois Law"). The Illinois Law establishes a specific method for setting certain UNE rates in Illinois, mandates that the Illinois Commerce Commission (“ICC”) apply the method and determine the rates (“ICC Rates”), and expressly deems all affected interconnection agreements to be amended to contain the ICC Rates immediately upon the ICC's announcement of such adjusted rates, without further action. In entering into this Agreement, the Parties acknowledge and agree that the provisions set forth in this Agreement are based upon SBC-13STATE’s obligations under FCC rules and regulations as they existed prior to their vacatur by the D.C. Circuit in its USTA Decision and prior to the ICC’s promulgation of rates, terms and conditions pursuant to the Illinois Law. By executing this Agreement and any Amendments to such Agreement and carrying out the provisions herein, neither Party waives, but instead expressly reserves, all of its rights, remedies and arguments with respect to the Orders, the Illinois Law and any other federal or state regulatory, legislative or judicial action(s), including but not limited to any legal or equitable rights of review and remedies (including agency reconsideration and court review), and its rights under this Intervening Law paragraph. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, these rights also include but are not limited to SBC-13STATE’s right, to the extent SBC- 13STATE has not already invoked the FCC ISP terminating compensation in a particular SBC-13STATE state in which this Agreement is effective and incorporated the rates, terms and conditions of such plan into this Agreement, to exercise its option at any time to adopt on a date specified by SBC-13STATE the FCC ISP terminating compensat...
Iowa Utilities Bd. ▇▇▇ ▇.▇. ▇▇▇ (1999) (and on remand, Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000)) and Ameritech v. FCC, No. 98-1381, 1999 WL 116994, 1999 Lexis 3671 (1999) and on appeal to and remand by the United States Supreme Court, Verizon v. FCC, et. al, ▇▇▇ ▇.▇. ▇▇▇ (2002). In addition, on April 27, 2001, the FCC released its Order on Remand and Report and Order in CC Dockets No. 96-98 and 99-68, 16 FCC Rcd 9151 (2001) (the “ISP Compensation Order”), which was remanded in WorldCom, Inc. v. ▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇.▇▇ ▇▇▇ (▇.▇. Cir. 2002) (all collectively referred to as the “Orders”). On May 9, 2003, the Public Utilities Act of Illinois was amended to add Sections 13-408 and 13-409, 220 ILCS 5/13-408 and 13-409, and enacted into law ("Illinois Law"); the Parties also acknowledge and agree that the legality, validity and constitutionality of these statutory sections are the subject of litigation in Voices for Choices, et al. v. Illinois ▇▇▇▇ Telephone Company, et al., Case No. 03-C-3290 (N.D. Ill.) pending before Chief Judge ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Kocaras; and the parties acknowledge and agree that on June 9, 2003, Judge Kocaras enjoined enforcement of these same statutory sections. In entering into this Agreement, the Parties acknowledge and agree that the provisions set forth in this Agreement are based upon SBC- 13STATE’s obligations under FCC rules and regulations as they existed prior to their vacatur by the D.C. Circuit in its USTA Decision and prior to the ICC’s promulgation of rates, terms and conditions pursuant to the Illinois Law. By executing this Agreement and any Amendments to such Agreement and carrying out the provisions herein, neither Party waives, but instead expressly reserves, all of its rights, remedies and arguments with respect to the Orders, the Illinois Law and any other federal or state regulatory, legislative or judicial action(s), including but not limited to any legal or equitable rights of review and remedies (including agency reconsideration and court review), and its rights under this Intervening Law paragraph. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, these rights also include but are not limited to SBC-13STATE’s right, to the extent SBC- 13STATE has not already invoked the FCC ISP terminating compensation in a particular SBC-13STATE state in which this Agreement is effective and incorporated the rates, terms and conditions of such plan into this Agreement, to exercise its option at any time to adopt on a date specified by SBC-13ST...
Iowa Utilities Bd. 525 U.S. 366 (1999) (and on remand Iowa Utilities Board v. FCC, 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000) and on June 1, 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ameritech v. FCC, No. 98-1381, 1999 WL 116994, 1999 Lexis 3671 (1999). The Parties further acknowledge and agree that by executing this Agreement, neither Party waives any of its rights, remedies, or arguments with respect to such decisions and any remand thereof, including its rights under this paragraph.