I have been tracking the saga of MN Public Utility Commission (PUC) investigation into LTD Broadband. Here’s a recap…
LTD was awarded an opportunity to apply for $311 million in federal RDOF funding. They needed the ETC designation from the MN PUC to qualify; industry folks asked the MN PUC to rethink their designation because there were concerns about LTD being able to fulfill the contract. Earlier, their application for RDOF was rejected. On April 23, they held a preconference to decide whether or not to continue to look into revoking their ETC status. IN early May, several sides of the issue chimed in with opinions.
And here’s the latest news from the PUC (as of July 5, 2023)…
On January 18, 2023, these proceedings were stayed pending a ruling by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on LTD’s appeal of the denial of its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) long-form application. 1
On March 29, 2023, Petitioners filed a Motion to Suspend ETC Designation (Motion to Suspend) and a Motion to Certify the Stay Order and the Motion to Suspend. Commerce filed a response to Petitioners’ Motion to Certify on April 12, 2023. The OAG filed a Response to the Motion to Suspend and Motion to Certify on April 12, 2023. LTD filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Certify on April 12, 2023, in addition to a letter requesting additional time to respond to the Motion to Suspend if said Motion is certified to the Commission. The Administrative Law Judge declines to act on LTD’s request as it is not ripe until the Motion to Certify is granted.
Based upon the submissions of counsel and the hearing record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.Petitioners’ Motion to Certify is GRANTED.
2. The Administrative Law Judge hereby certifies the Stay Order and the Motion to Suspend to the Commission.
3. These Contested Case proceedings are STAYED pending the Commission’s ruling on the Stay Order and the Motion to Suspend.
The document outlines the players and the issues in some detail. Here’s the conclusion…
As to the Stay Order, a review of the factors compels certification. By definition, a review of a stay order is a controlling matter of law and would materially speed up the ultimate termination of the hearing. Here, it also allows the Commission to formally consider the effects of the FCC’s denial of LTD’s long-form application on this proceeding.
When considering whether to certify a pending motion, the administrative law judge will consider the factors listed in the rule, but “especially weighty are considerations of timeliness, agency expertise, and the nature of the issue involved.”25 All those factors strongly favor certifying the Motion to Suspend. Certification would lead to a quicker resolution of the issues, the issues are of import, and they are squarely within the Commission’s expertise. For all the reasons detailed above, Petitioners’ Motion to Certify the Stay Order and Motion to Suspend is GRANTED.