Commission Agendas | previous page
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING
May 13, 1997; 2:00 P.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 412
Pierre, South Dakota
NOTE: If you wish to join this meeting by conference call, please contact the Commission at 605- 773-3201 by 5:00 p.m. on May 12, 1997.
NOTE: Notice is further given to persons with disabilities that this Commission meeting is being held in a physically accessible place. If you have special needs, please notify the Commission and we will make all necessary arrangements.
AGENDA OF THE COMMISSION MEETING
Administration
1. Approval Of The Minutes Of The Commission Meeting Held On April 15, 1997, And The Ad Hoc Commission Meetings Held On April 18, 1997, April 28, 1997, And May 2, 1997. (Staff: Shirleen Fugitt.)
Consumer Affairs1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Consumer Representative: Leni Hook.)
The Commission has received 558 consumer contacts during 1997. 145 contacts have been received since the April 15, 1997, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 113 of the contacts involved telecommunication issues. 35 billing issues were voiced; 30 unauthorized switching of long distance service incidents were reported; 13 contacts were classified as "other"; 7 contacts involved rates; 7 service contacts were made; 5 contacts involved telemarketing; 4 contacts involved disconnections; 2 Caller ID issues were raised; 2 contacts concerned deposit issues; and blocking charges, excess construction fees, psychic hotlines and Internet concerns each received one contact.
ELECTRICITY: 22 complaints involving electricity were reported. 8 contacts involved fair competition issues; 7 contacts concerned disconnections; 4 contacts concerned billing issues and 3 contacts were classified as "other."
NATURAL GAS: 10 complaints involving natural gas were reported. 8 contacts concerned disconnections and 2 contacts were classified as "other."
A total of 366 complaints have been resolved informally during 1997.
Electricity1. EL96-026 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY BLACK HILLS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY FOR TARIFF REVISIONS. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On November 1, 1996 the Commission received a sample form tariff filing by Black Hills Power and Light Company. These sample forms are normally used in connection with customers' services. BHPL is making this filing since many of the forms have seen changes from the presently approved forms.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the tariff filing of BHPL?
On March 12, 1997, the Commission received a complaint from Luane Sour (Complainant), against Northern States Power Company (Respondent). The complaint involves a possible disconnection, an alleged refusal by Respondent to remove a persons name from an account, and a refusal to provide service to the Complainant. Complainant is asking that the Commission order Respondent to provide the requested service; that Respondent not require a deposit from Complainant; and to provide any other just or proper relief as determined by the Commission. This matter was deferred by the Commission a March 24, 1997, ad hoc Commission meeting.
TODAY, does the Commission find probable cause of an unlawful or unreasonable act, rate, practice or omission to go forward with this complaint and serve it upon Respondent?
On March 17, 1997, the Commission received a complaint from Jim Schirber, Hermosa, SD (Complainant) against Montana-Dakota Utilities (Respondent) regarding transfer of electric service. The Complainant states "We wish to have our property between 20th Street and US 12 bridge and west of the railroad tracks serviced by Cam Wal. All our adjacent property is presently serviced by Cam Wal and they will provide this new service without a hook-up charge. I requested transfer of the service from MDU hey refused." The Respondent states "At this time MDU is not in the position to give up this territory to Cam Wal Electric, but still look forward to working with you in getting power and gas to this new development area. Our policies, rules, regulations and rates as a regulated utility differ then those of the REC's but are fair and uniform throughout our service area."
TODAY, does the Commission find probable cause of an unlawful or unreasonable act, rate, practice or omission to go forward with this complaint and serve it upon Respondent?
On April 8, 1997, the Commission received a filing by Northern States Power Company (NSP) for approval of its 1996 economic development annual report and its 1997 economic development budget. The report and plan are filed pursuant to the settlement for Northern States Power Company's rate case under Docket No. EL91-004. The Company filed additional data in regard to this matter on May 2, 1997.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve NSP's 1996 report and 1997 plan?
On May 3, 1997, the Commission Received a complaint filed by James and Mary Beth Moss (Complainants), Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against Northern States Power Company (Respondent) regarding payment arrangements on a past-due bill. Complainants indicate that they acknowledge the past-due amount and that they have been making payments to reduce that amount. Complainants further indicate that Respondent is dissatisfied with the payment amounts submitted by them and has issued a notice of disconnection to become effective unless Complainants pay an amount which they claim is unreasonable given their circumstances. Complainants are asking that the Commission allow them to continue making "good faith" payments on their debt.
TODAY, does the Commission find probable cause of an unlawful or unreasonable act, rate, practice or omission to go forward with this complaint and serve it upon Respondent?
Natural GasOn May 2, 1997, the Commission received a complaint filed by Adam Headrick (Complainant), Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against MidAmerican Energy Company (Respondent) regarding a bill for services which Complaint claims he did not receive. According to the complaint, Respondent is charging Complainant for natural gas services which were incurred at Complainant's previous address after he had both notified Respondent to disconnect services and moved from that address. Complainant is asking the Commission to remove his name from the account at the old address.
TODAY, does the Commission find probable cause of an unlawful or unreasonable act, rate, practice or omission to go forward with this complaint and serve it upon Respondent?
TelecommunicationsOn January 13, 1997, BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. filed for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. The applicant proposes to initially offer proprietary cards for calls made primarily by the applicant's customer base residing outside South Dakota when they travel into South Dakota for business or pleasure. In the future, the applicant plans to expand its customer base to include South Dakota residential and business customers.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant BellSouth Long Distance, Inc. a Certificate of Authority?
On February 2, 1997, Tele-Tech, Inc. filed for an amended Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange services within the state of South Dakota. "Tele-Tech, Inc. intends to offer local exchange service on a resale or facilities basis, or a combination of both. The exact manner in which Tele-Tech, Inc. will provide these services in South Dakota depends upon the result of negotiations with the incumbent local exchange carriers....Tele-Tech, Inc. will not offer any local service in areas presently served by independent rural telecommunications companies, unless designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier pursuant to the Federal Act § 214(e)(1) and 253(f), and then only upon approval by the Public Utility Commission of any required interconnection agreement as prescribed by § 252 of the Act."
TODAY, shall the Commission amend the Certificate of Authority of Tele-Tech, Inc.?
On March 12, 1997, Cypress Telecommunications Corporation filed for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. The applicant seeks authority to operate as a reseller of interexchange telecommunications services, including operator-assisted services within South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Cypress Telecommunications Corporation?
On March 19, 1997, Southland Corporation filed for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. The applicant is seeking authority "to offer discretionary, switched access prepaid calling card services. The applicant does not propose to offer alternative operator services to the transient public."
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Southland Corporation?
On April 2, 1997, GST Net, Inc. filed for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. "GST Net initially intends to provide the following intrastate services: message telecommunications service, 800 service, calling card services and prepaid calling cards."
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to GST Net, Inc.?
On April 7, 1997, Long Distance Direct Holdings, Inc. (LDDH) filed for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. "LDDH intends to subscribe to and resell all forms of telephone service including local dial tone services, Message Telephone Service, Wide Area Telephone Service, WATS-like services, Foreign Exchange Service, private lines, tie lines, access service, cellular service, local switched service and other services and facilities of communications common carriers and other entities. LDDH intends to provide service to both residential and business class customers. LDDH has already obtained permission from the Commission to provide interexchange service. LDDH's proposed tariff is attached" to the application. The intervention deadline was April 25, 1997 and on April 25, 1997, SDITC filed a petition to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant SDITC's intervention request?
On April 10, 1997, CommChoice, LLC filed for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. "CommChoice will provide telecommunications services including local exchange services, intraLATA services and interLATA services through a combination of reseller and facilities-based provisioning. The specific products and services are in part dependent upon resale agreements entered into with local exchange companies. CommChoice will enter into agreements with local exchange companies for the resale of telecommunications services. These services will be provided by the local exchange company in the same manner they have been provided in the past. Initially, telecommunications services will be offered to commercial and industrial businesses located in South Dakota cities served by U S WEST. As resale agreements with other local exchange companies are executed, CommChoice will expand its service territory to include additional cities. CommChoice requests a waiver from ARSD 20:10:24:02(8) which requires tariffs and terms and conditions of service to be filed. The cost to provide local exchange service cannot be estimated until resale interconnection agreements between the parties have been reached and contracts executed. When the specific costs and contractual arrangements are known, rates and terms and conditions will be filed with the Commission, as required by the PUC." The intervention deadline was April 25 and on April 25, SDITC filed a petition to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant SDITC's intervention request?
On April 14, 1997, LDM Systems, Inc. filed for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. "Applicant respectfully seeks to amend its Certificate of [Authority] to permit it to provide resold local exchange services in the state of South Dakota. The specific manner in which Applicant will provide local exchange service depends upon the result of negotiations with the incumbent local exchange carriers currently operating within the State. Applicant seeks authority to resell local exchange service in the existing service areas of U S WEST and any other relevant carriers. Applicant is unable to file a proposed tariff. As soon as such rates are available, and prior to the commencement of service, Applicant shall file a proposed tariff (containing its rates, terms and conditions of service) with the Commission for its review." The intervention deadline was May 2, 1997, and on April 29, 1997, SDITC filed a petition to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant SDITC's intervention request?
On April 14, 1997, MCI and AT&T filed a petition to certify all LECs as to compliance with FCC Payphone Orders. MCI and AT&T filed this petition to investigate compliance of all certificated local exchange companies (LECs) with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) orders on payphone reclassification. Specifically, MCI and AT&T request that the Commission determine and certify whether all certificated LECs have met all state-specific requirements identified in the FCC's orders. The intervention deadline was May 2, 1997. On April 30, 1997, U S WEST filed a petition for a Leave to Intervene with the Commission. On May 2, 1997, SDITC filed a petition to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the Leave to Intervene of U S WEST and the Intervention of SDITC?
On April 15, 1997 the Commission received a petition of the independent telephone companies that have purchased U S WEST exchange areas for an extension of the waiver of the switched access rules which the Commission granted as part of its final Order approving the sale of U S WEST exchanges. The Commission approved a composite switched access rate of 7 cents per minute of use. "The rate, which was stipulated to within the purchase agreements between U S WEST and [the purchasing] companies, was accepted by the Commission and approved as a reasonable interim rate in recognition of the fact that no rate could be established pursuant to the Commission's switched access rules (ARSD Chapters 20:10:27 to 20:10:29) until each of the purchasing companies had operated the transferred exchange areas for at least a one-year time period. Because [the purchasing] companies have not yet operated the acquired exchanges for one year, it is necessary to request from the Commission an extension of the waiver previously granted in the exchange sale dockets. The [purchasing] companies request an extension of the waiver until such time that cost studies based on 1997 calendar year operations can be provided." The intervention deadline was May 2, 1997. On April 30, 1997, the Commission received a petition for leave to intervene from U S WEST.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant U S WEST's petition?
11. IN THE MATTER OF THE FAILURE OF CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT AS REQUIRED BY ARSD 20:10:24:04. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck)
In accordance with the Certificate of Authority issued by this Commission when authorizing the operation of a telecommunications company within South Dakota, such authorized companies are required to comport to Administrative Rule 20:10:24:04 which requires that each company submit the following information on May 1 of each year from the preceding calendar year: (1) A report on its revenues resulting from operations in this state, a balance sheet, an income statement, and a statement of any changes relating to the financial position of the telecommunications company relating to operations of the company in South Dakota. The report shall identify the locations where any working papers supporting the report can be reviewed; (2) A report identifying the exchanges, routes, or other geographic areas of this state where it is providing or expects to provide services. The report shall include the number and type of customers being served, if the company keeps such records.
The following companies did not file a report as required by ARSD 20:10:24:04:
Local Exchange Company Providers:
Accent Communications, Inc.
Armour Ind. Tel. Co., Inc.
Bridgewater-Canistota Ind. Tel.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Fort Randall Telephone Co.
Intrastate Telephone Co., Inc.
Jefferson Tel. Co.
Kadoka Tel. Co.
Mt. Rushmore Tel. Co.
SANCOM, Inc.
Splitrock Properties, Inc.
Union Tel. Co.
Valley Cable & Satellite Comm.
Venture Communications, Inc.
Western Tel. Co.
Beresford Municipal Tel. Co.
Interstate Telecommunications
James Valley Coop. Tel. Co.
Sanborn Telecom. Coop.
Splitrock Telecom. Coop.
Sully Tel. Coop.
Red River Telecom, Inc.
USWC: Minnesota
Long Distance Providers:
Advanced Telecommunication Network, Inc.
All American Telephone, Inc.
American Business Alliance, Inc. d/b/a Commercial Phone Group
American Express Telecom, Inc.
American Telecommunications Enterprise, Inc.
Amer-I-Net Services, Corp.
AmeriVision Communications, Inc. d/b/a AmeriVision, Inc.
Atlas Communications, Ltd.
Bottom Line Telecommunications of South Dakota, Inc. (sold to BLT 2/23/96)
Business Discount Plan, Inc.
Business Options, Inc.
Caribbean Telephone and Telegraph, Inc. d/b/a The Long Distance Company
Cellular Express, Inc. (cellular roaming)
Central Payphone Services, Inc.
Cherry Communications, Inc.
Coast International, Inc.
D.D.D. Calling, Inc.
Dial & Save of South Dakota, Inc.
Econophone, Inc.
EqualNet Corporation, Inc.
Excel Telecommunications, Inc.
Fone America, Inc.
Freedom Communications Corp.
GTE Telecommunications Services, Inc.
GTN Corp. d/b/a Global Telecom Network
IDB WorldCom Services, Inc.
ITC Tele-Services, Inc. (purchased by WorldCom, Inc. d/b/a LDDS WorldCom 12/3/96)
Innovative Telecom Corporation
Intelicom International Corporation
International Discount Telecommunications, Corp (REVOKED 8/9/96)
International Telecom Ltd.
J D Services, Inc. d/b/a American Freedom Network
LCI International Telecom Corp.
LCI Telemanagement Group, Inc.
LDM Systems, Inc.
L.D. Services, Inc.
Least Cost Routing, Inc. d/b/a Long Distance Charges
Long Distance Direct Holdings, Inc.
Long Distance Wholesale Club
MFS Intelenet of South Dakota, Inc.
Matrix Telecom, Inc.
MIDCOM Communications Inc. d/b/a Infinity Communications Inc.
Midwest Fibernet, Inc.
Network Plus, Inc.
Network Services, Inc. d/b/a Long Distance Network Services, Inc.
Norlight, Inc.
North American Telephone Network, L.L.C.
OU Connections, Inc.
One To One Communications, Incorporated (REVOKED 8/9/96)
Optex, Inc.
PNG Telecommunications, Inc.
Parcel Consultants, Inc.
Pennsylvania Alternative Communications, Inc. (PACE) sold to LCI 6/96
Phoenix Network, Inc.
Polar Communications Corp.
Preferred Telecom, Inc.
Primus Telecommunications, Inc.
Qcc, Incorporated
Quest Telecommunications, Inc. dba QTI
SmarTalk TeleService, Inc.
SmarTel Communications, Inc.
TTI National, Inc.
Target Telecom, Inc.
Telecare, Inc.
Teleconnect Company
Telegroup, Inc.
Telenational Communications Limited Partnership
Tele-Trend Communications, Inc. (REVOKED 8/9/96)
Tel Serv
Telscape USA, Inc.
Teltrust Communications Services, Inc.
Total National Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Total World Telecom
TotalTel USA Communications (REVOKED 8/9/96)
Ultimate Communications Corporation (REVOKED 8/9/96)
Utility Analysts, Inc. d/b/a Basic Long Distance
U.S. Long Distance, Inc.
USTel, Inc.
USX Consultants, Inc.
Universal Network Services of South Dakota, Inc.
VarTec Telecom, Inc.
Vendormatic, Inc. d/b/a HSS Vending Distributors
WATS/800, Inc. d/b/a ITS
WATS International Corporation (REVOKED 8/9/96)
West Coast Telecommunications, Inc. (now Frontier Communications of the West, Inc.)
Western Union Communications, Inc.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation d/b/a Westinghouse Communications
WorldCom, Inc. d/b/a LDDS WorldCom
WorldCom, Inc. d/b/a WilTel Network Services
World Telecom Group, Inc.
WorldTel Services, Inc.
XLCONNECT Services, Inc.
ZENEX Long Distance, Inc.
Operator Service Providers:
Inmate Communications Corporation (INCOMM)
Intellicall Operator Services, Inc.
Reliance Telephone Systems, Inc.
Silverado Communications Corp. (REVOKED 8/9/96)
Value-Added Communications, Inc.
Cellular Providers:
Western Wireless
Radio Common Carrier Providers:
Booker Communications
Burghardt Amateur Center, Inc.
Hurley Communications
Vantek Communications
Wagner Mobile Phone
TODAY, shall the Commission issue an Order to Show Cause as to why the Commission should not revoke the Certificates of Authority of each of the aforementioned companies for failure to file reports as required by ARSD 20:10:24:04?
Announcements1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, June 3, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
William Bullard Jr.
Executive Director
May 7, 1997
