Commission Agendas | previous page
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING
July 15, 1997; 1:00 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 July 14, 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 June 24, 1997. (Staff: Shirleen Fugitt.)
Consumer Affairs1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Consumer Representative: Leni Healy.)
The Commission has received 742 consumer contacts during 1997. 72 contacts have been received since the June 24, 1997, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 59 of the contacts involved telecommunication issues. 18 contacts involved the unauthorized switching of long distance service; 6 contacts concerned sex line calls; 4 contacts dealt with billing issues; 3 contacts involved disconnections; 3 contacts involved service concerns; 3 contacts involved incorrect rates; 3 contacts involved promotions; 2 contacts involved telemarketers; 2 contacts involved psychic line charges; 2 consumers wanted service; and the remaining contacts involved advertising, call blocking, Caller ID, directory assistance, equal access, fees, land development, marketing, other, refund, repair, and a rude employee.
ELECTRICITY: 9 complaints involving electricity were reported. 4 contacts involved disconnections, the remaining contacts involved billing, unfair competition, damages, payment arrangements, and a consumer who wanted service.
NATURAL GAS: 4 complaints involving natural gas were reported. 3 disconnection issues and 1 billing contact were made.
A total of 508 complaints have been resolved informally during 1997.
Natural GasOn June 16, 1997, the Commission received a complaint from Bruce Itterman, Harrisburg, SD (Complainant) against MidAmerican Energy (Respondent) regarding a gas bill. Mr. Itterman states: "I...have a dispute over the gas bill that covers the period November 1996-January 1997. As stated in the lease, the tenant is responsible for the gas. When I received a bill at 625 W 20th I called MidAmerican to have the bill corrected, put in the tenants name. They said they would not do that. I then told them to turn off the gas. They insisted I get the tenant to call. I contacted the tenant and they said they would call. When I called again, MidAmerican said no one had called. I told them to turn the gas off. They said they would not do that. I asked to speak with a supervisor. I was connected to voice mail and left messages twice. I was never contacted. This was the DesMoines Office. In Jan, 97 I called and got the Sioux Falls office. They said any resolution would have to come from the DesMoines office. To date, I have only been sent bills and a collection letter, no other response...." Mr. Itterman feels he is not responsible for the bill pertaining to 625 W 20th covering the period of November 1996-January 1997. He also requests MidAmerican to honor legally binding contracts.
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 the Respondent?
On June 25, 1997, the Commission received a complaint from Susan Cobb, Sioux Falls, SD (Complainant) against MidAmerican Energy (Respondent) regarding disconnection. Ms. Cobb states: "When we moved my daughter went down and had the utilities put in her name because she was the only one working.... My daughter told them she was almost 18 when she had this done.... My daughter will be 18 in less than 3 weeks...." The Complainant is requesting that disconnection be stopped.
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 the Respondent?
Electricity1. EL96-008 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ARNOLD MURRAY CONSTRUCTION, SIOUX FALLS, SD, FOR A MASTER METERING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SANDLOT APARTMENTS. (Staff Analyst: Steve Wegman. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On May 23, 1996, the Commission received a request from Arnold Murray Construction for a master metering variance. The complex will be 44 units and is scheduled to be built in 1996. The company intends to have Geo-Thermal heating and cooling installed to this building.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
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 person's 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. A May 21, 1997, Commission meeting, the Commission found probable cause and issued a notice requiring an answer. On June 13, 1997, the Commission received the response from NSP indicating that a resolution has been reached.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On April 17, 1997, the Commission received a complaint from John Byre, Sioux Falls, SD, against Northern States Power Company (NSP) regarding a bill. Mr. Byre states: "I believe that I am being unfairly charged for moving a cable that was installed incorrectly by NSP. The drawing and work order are very specific about where the cable was to run. NSP claims that they can change the route because of a dirt pile. This excuse is invalid because the original contract clearly states that prior to NSP starting work, the owner must make sure the route of NSP's underground installation is accessible to NSP's equipment and all obstructions must be removed... I believe the PUC should cancel the bill that NSP has assessed me and hold NSP responsible for their own mistakes."
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 the Respondent?
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. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a May 13, 1997 Commission meeting.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
Telecommunications1. TC94-122 IN THE MATTER OF THE SALE OF CERTAIN TELEPHONE EXCHANGES BY U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. TO CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
The Circuit Court of the State of South Dakota issued its order of remand on March 6, 1997, in this matter. On April 2, 1997, in response to the Circuit Court's decision and remand order, Staff counsel filed a Motion on Remand with the Commission to consider the remand on the record and to "set a procedural schedule for the submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by the parties consistent with the Circuit Court's decision and order." A regularly scheduled meeting of April 15, 1997, the Commission heard comments on the motion and took the matter under advisement. A ad hoc meeting of May 2, 1997, the Commission voted to grant Staff counsel's Motion on Remand. The Commission issued a procedural schedule establishing June 2, 1997, as the deadline for the submission of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
TODAY, how shall the Commission rule in this matter?
On November 20, 1996, the Commission received a filing from AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. (AT&T) pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 252(b)(1) to arbitrate open issues related to its interconnection negotiations with U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST). U S WEST filed its response on December 16, 1996. On January 10, 1997, the Commission issued an Amended Procedural Schedule; Order for and Notice of Hearing. In the Amended Procedural Schedule, the Commission scheduled a prehearing conference for January 13, 1997. The prehearing conference was held as scheduled. On January 17, 1997, the Commission received a Joint Procedural Agreement submitted by U S WEST. By Order dated January 22, 1997, the Commission adopted the Joint Procedural Agreement. The hearing was held February 3, 1997, through February 7, 1997. On February 26, 1997, AT&T and U S WEST each filed a Post-Hearing Brief and a matrix of unresolved issues. On March 5, 1997, each party filed a Re al Brief and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On March 20, 1997, the Commission issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Order and Notice of Entry of Order in this matter. On April 21, 1997, U S WEST and AT&T filed separate proposed interconnection agreements and AT&T filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Modification of Order with the Commission. A ad hoc meeting of April 28, 1997, the Commission heard comments from the parties and took the matter under advisement. A ad hoc meeting of May 2, 1997, the Commission voted to allow U S WEST to respond to AT&T's motion by May 12, 1997; and to allow AT&T to file its response by May 22, 1997. A procedural schedule establishing these response dates was issued on May 12, 1997.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant AT&T's Motion for Reconsideration/Modification of Order?
On January 13, 1997, Sprint Spectrum L.P. filed for a Certificate Of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. The applicant proposes to offer basic 1+ long distance services and eventually will expand its service offerings to include calling card, prepaid calling card and toll free service products. No parties have filed to intervene in this docket.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Sprint Spectrum L.P. a Certificate Of Authority?
On April 15, 1997, the Commission received a petition for extension of waiver of switched access rules from the independent telephone companies that have purchased 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. Based on this, the [purchasing] companies request an extension of the waiver until such time that cost studies based on 1997 calendar year operations can be provided." On May 21, 1997, U S WEST was granted intervention.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On April 18, 1997, CommNet Cellular, Inc. and U S WEST Communications, Inc. submitted copies of the contract entered into between the parties for a wireless interconnection agreement. Any person wishing to comment on the parties' request for approval had until May 14, 1997 to do so. Parties to the agreement had until June 3, 1997 to file written responses to the comments. On June 26, 1997, Staff filed its analysis and recommendation.
TODAY, how shall the Commission approve the interconnection agreement?
On May 6, 1997, GLD, Group Long Distance, Inc. (GLD) filed for a Certificate Of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. "The Applicant is a switchless reseller which intends to offer 1+ direct dialing, 800 toll free, travel card, and prepaid calling card service through the resale of telephone services provided by facilities-based interexchange carriers."
TODAY, shall the Commission grant GLD a Certificate Of Authority?
On May 19, 1997, International Charity Network, Inc. filed for a Certificate Of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. "Applicant is a switchless reseller which intends to offer 1+ direct dialing, 800 toll free, and travel card (no prepaid calling cards) service through the resale of telephone services provided by facilities-based interexchange carriers."
TODAY, shall the Commission grant International Charity Network, Inc. a Certificate Of Authority?
On May 30, 1997, West River Cooperative filed cost study revenue requirements that are included in the Local Exchange Carrier Association switched access rate filing. On June 19, 1997, U S WEST Communications, Inc., filed a request to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to U S WEST? And, shall the Commission assess a filing fee?
On June 2, 1997, South Dakota Network, Inc. (SDN) filed cost study revenue requirements and tariff sheet revisions for a rate reduction in Centralized Equal Access and switched transport. South Dakota Network is requesting an effective date of July 1, 1997. On June 19, 1997, U S WEST Communications, Inc., filed a request to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to U S WEST? And, shall the Commission assess a filing fee?
On June 2, 1997, the Local Exchange Carriers Association (LECA) filed switched access tariff revisions. The purpose of these revisions is to implement the changes in rates as necessitated by member companies' revenue requirements as set forth in Commission filings. On June 19, 1997, U S WEST Communications, Inc., filed a request to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to U S WEST? And, shall the Commission assess a filing fee?
On or about June 1, 1997, Dakota Telecom, Inc., Dakota Telecommunications Systems, Inc., and Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc. (collectively Dakota) sent a bona fide request for interconnection services to Fort Randall Telephone Company. Pursuant to the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a party making a bona fide request of a rural telephone company is required to notify the appropriate state Commission. On June 19, 1997, the Commission received a request for intervention from SDITC. On July 8, 1997, the Commission received a request for Declaratory Ruling and Discovery of Fort Randall Telephone Company.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to SDITC? Also, shall the Commission approve the request for Declaratory Ruling? And, shall the Commission approve the request for Discovery?
On June 4, 1997, Valley Telecommunications Coop. Assn. filed cost study revenue requirements that are included in the Local Exchange Carrier Association switched access rate filing. On June 19, 1997, U S WEST Communications, Inc., filed a request to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to U S WEST? And, shall the Commission assess a filing fee?
On June 4, 1997, Midstate Telephone Company filed cost study revenue requirements that are included in the Local Exchange Carrier Association switched access rate filing. On June 19, 1997, U S WEST Communications, Inc., filed a request to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to U S WEST? And, shall the Commission assess a filing fee?
On June 4, 1997, McCook Cooperative Telephone Company filed cost study revenue requirements that are included in the Local Exchange Carrier Association switched access rate filing. On June 19, 1997, U S WEST Communications, Inc., filed a request to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to U S WEST? And, shall the Commission assess a filing fee?
Fort Randall Telephone Company pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 214(e) and 47 CFR 54.201 hereby seeks designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier within the local exchange areas that constitute its service area in South Dakota. Fort Randall is the facilities-based local exchange carrier presently providing local exchange telecommunications services in the following exchanges in South Dakota: Centerville (563), Hermosa (255), Lake Andes (491,487), Tabor (463), Tyndall (589), Viborg (326) and Wagner (384). Fort Randall, to its knowledge, is the only carrier meeting the eligibility requirements of 47 U.S.C. 214(e) and 47 C.F.R. 54.201 in its exchanges. On June 27, 1997, the Commission received a petition to intervene from Dakota Telecom Systems, Inc. (DTS) and Dakota Telecom, Inc. (DTI).
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to DTS and DTI?
On June 23, 1997, Kathy Rottenbucher, Newell, SD, filed a complaint with the Commission against Stateline Telecommunications, Inc. regarding an unpublished address. "I specifically requested and insisted on an unpublished address. Stateline furnished and provided U S WEST this information for [the] Northern Hills and Surrounding Areas....I want proof of written reprimands for all parties, I want proof they made changes to avoid future incidents, I want access to Board of Directors, and I want one thousand dollars for violation of trust, confidence, ... and for emotional and mental anguish and duress, and inconvenience."
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 the Respondent?
Announcements- A hearing in Docket NG97-006 is scheduled for July 14, 1997, at 11:00 a.m. at the Holiday Inn City Centre in Sioux Falls, SD.
- A hearing in Docket TC97-016 is scheduled for July 16-17, 1997, at 8:00 a.m. in Room LCR 1 of the State Capitol Building.
- July 19-23, 1997, the Commissioners will be attending the NARUC meeting in San Francisco, CA.
- A hearing in Docket TC97-006 is scheduled for July 28, 1997, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
- A hearing in Docket TC97-030 is scheduled for July 30, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
- The Consumer Symposium has been rescheduled for August 11-12, 1997.
- The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, July 29, 1997, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
_______________________________
Sue Cichos
Business Manager
July 8, 1997
PLEASE NOTE: There is an Addendum to this agenda..
