PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On October 17, 2012, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Illinois Bell”) and tw telecom of illinois llc (“tw telecom”), filed a joint petition for approval of the Interconnection Agreement dated October 12, 2012, 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 Illinois Xxxx and by Xxxx Xxxxx on behalf of tw telecom, 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 19, 2012. Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on November 19, Illinois Xxxx, xx telecom 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 22, 2005, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and IDT America, Corp (“IDT America”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 2nd 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 on behalf of SBC Illinois, and by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx on behalf of IDT America, 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 14, 2005. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx 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 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and marked the record “Heard and Taken” on September 13, 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-13-05).
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 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 13, 2001, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech Illinois”) and RCN Telecom Services of Illinois, Inc. (“RCN”), filed a joint petition for approval of the First Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated May 18, 2001 (the “Agreement”), under Sections 252(a)(1) and 252 (e) 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 Ameritech Illinois, and by Xxxxxx X. Xxxx, on behalf of RCN, 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 August 15, 2001. Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on August 15, Staff and Ameritech 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. 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 May 6, 2004, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and Sage Telecom, Inc. (“Sage”), (collectively “Joint Petitioners”) filed a joint petition for approval of the First Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated April 30, 2004, 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 SBC Illinois and by Xxxxxx X. XxXxxxxxxx on behalf of Xxxx, 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, a Status session was held in this matter on June 7, 2004. SBC Illinois, Sage, and Commission Staff appeared by counsel. Petitions for Leave to Intervene filed by AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc. (“AT&T”) and MCI, Inc. (“MCI”) were granted. Staff stated that it had not yet filed a Verified Statement in this docket. On June 14, Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. The Parties filed replies (AT&T and XXX filed a joint reply to Staff’s Verified Statement and joint Exceptions to the Proposed Order; they are identified herein as AT&T/MCI). This matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on June 25, 2004. SBC Illinois, Sage, AT&T, MCI, and Staff appeared. Xx. Xxxxxxxxx testified on behalf of the Verified Statement, which was admitted into evidence, and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On October 17, 2002, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech”) and KBS Computer Services, Inc. (“KBS”) (Ameritech and KBS 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 interconnection agreement (“Agreement”) dated September 30, 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. 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, L.P. d/b/a Southwestern Bell Telephone Company/Illinois Bell Telephone Company Negotiations and Interconnection. Petitioners’ October 17th filing was docketed as Docket No. 02-0676. On January 6, 2003, Petitioners filed a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment to the aforementioned Agreement. A copy of the amendment as well as a statement in support of the amendment from Xxxx Xxxxxx accompanied the joint petition. The amendment specifically modifies the underlying Agreement by replacing the Appendix Performance Measurements in the underlying Agreement. Petitioners’ January 6th filing was docketed as Docket No. 03-0002. 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 October 30, November 12, December 10, December 13, December 18, December 30, 2002, and January 8, 2003. Appearances were entered by KBS and by counsel on behalf of Ameritech and Commission Staff (“Staff”). Docket Nos. 02-0676 and 03-0002 were consolidated at the request of Ameritech. At the conclusion of the January 8th hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On September 8, 2010, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois” or “Carrier”) and XO Communications Services, Inc. (“XO” or “Requesting Carrier”), filed a joint petition for approval of the Twentieth Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated August 30, 2010, 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 AT&T Illinois and by Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of XO stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 23, 2001, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech Illinois”) and Looking Glass Networks, Inc. (“Looking Glass”), filed a joint request for approval of the Negotiated Interconnection Agreement dated November 1, 2000 (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 request. A statement in support of the request was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx Xxxxx, on behalf of Ameritech Illinois, and Xxxx X. Xxxx, on behalf of Looking Glass, stating that the facts contained in the request for approval are true and correct. 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 Hearing Examiner of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on February 28, 2001. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, which was admitted into evidence. Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Agreement. At the hearing, Staff indicated that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding, and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”
