Commission Agendas | previous page
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 13, 1996; 10:00 a.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., Monday, August 12, 1996.
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 July 30, 1996; And the Ad Hoc Commission Meeting Held On August 6, 1996. (Staff: Shirleen Fugitt.)
Consumer Affairs
1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Consumer Representative: Leni Hook.)
The Commission received 788 consumer contacts during 1996. 69 contacts have been recorded since the July 30,1996, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 54 contacts concerning telecommunications issues have been received since the last meeting. 14 contacts involved the unauthorized switching of long distance services; 11 potential customers did not receive service when requested; 10 contacts involved refund of land development fees; 7 contacts were classified as "other;" 5 contacts concerned disconnections; 5 contacts involved rate disputes; and 2 contacts concerning billing errors.
ELECTRICITY: 5 complaints involving electricity were reported. 1 contact was reported for each of the following issues: indebted household rule, outage, payment plan, rates and want service.
GAS: 10 complaints involving natural gas were reported. 5 complaints concerned disconnections; and 1 contact was reported for each of the following issues: billing, high bill, cut line, deposit, and rates.
A total of 607 complaints have been resolved informally during 1996.
Electricity
1. EL96-011 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RODNEY AND KERI JOHNSON, RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST BLACK HILLS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE REGARDING AN EASEMENT. (Staff Analyst: Steve Wegman. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On June 3, 1996, the Commission received a complaint filed by Rodney and Keri Johnson (Complainants), Rapid City, South Dakota, against Black Hills Electric Cooperative (Respondent) regarding a dispute over an easement sought by Respondent from the Complainants. On June 4, 1996, Staff contacted the South Dakota Rural Electric Association (SDREA) for purposes of seeking an informal resolution to this Complaint and a meeting was scheduled. On June 13, 1996, a meeting was held between Staff, Complainants and the Respondent. The meeting resulted in all parties agreeing to seek an informal resolution to this Complaint prior to seeking Commission intervention. Staff has continued working with the parties and an informal resolution has been reached.
TODAY, shall the Commission close this docket based on the resolution reached between the parties?
2. EL96-012 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY DAN AND GLENDA ADAMS, RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST BLACK HILLS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE REGARDING AN EASEMENT. (Staff Analyst: Steve Wegman. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On June 3, 1996, the Commission received a complaint filed by Dan and Glenda Adams (Complainants), Rapid City, South Dakota, against Black Hills Electric Cooperative (Respondent) regarding a dispute over an easement sought by Respondent from the Complainants. On June 4, 1996, Staff contacted the South Dakota Rural Electric Association (SDREA) for purposes of seeking an informal resolution to this Complaint and a meeting was scheduled. On June 13, 1996, a meeting was held between Staff, Complainants and the Respondent. The meeting resulted in all parties agreeing to seek an informal resolution to this Complaint prior to seeking Commission intervention. Staff has continued working with the parties and an informal resolution has been reached.
TODAY, shall the Commission close this docket based on the resolution reached between the parties?
3. EL96-017 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY FOR TARIFF REVISIONS. (Staff Analysts: Bob Knadle and Steve Wegman. Legal Intern: Adam Reeves.)
On July 2, 1996, the Commission received a filing from Northern States Power Company (NSP) for approval of miscellaneous tariff changes associated with a credit for customers who use more than 360 times their peak kw demand during a 30-day billing cycle. The tariff change involves the addition of an Energy Use Credit Provision to the tariff sheets in Section 3, Sheet Numbers 37, 39, 40.1, 40.3, and 43.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the tariff revisions as proposed by NSP?
Natural Gas
1. NG96-016 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY PAM NATURAL GAS REGARDING MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY PGA FACTORS. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On July 11, 1996, the Commission received a complaint from PAM Natural Gas (PAM) against MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican) regarding MidAmerican's PGA factors. The complaint alleges that MidAmerican unfairly refunded a portion of its excessive over-collection of gas costs through the Purchased Gas Adjustment Clause during the month of June, 1996. In addition, PAM objects to MidAmerican's plan to refund the balance of its over-collection of gas costs during the November, 1996, to August, 1997, PGA reconciliation year. The Complaint recommends that MidAmerican issue refunds directly to the customers who overpaid for gas during the period the over-collection occurred. In conjunction with this complaint, PAM filed a request with the Commission on July 10, 1996, asking for a complete copy of MidAmerican's PGA Filing for the month of June, 1996, including all underlying workpapers.
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 MidAmerican? And, shall the Commission grant PAM's request for MidAmerican's PGA Filing for the month of June, 1996, including all underlying work papers?
2. NG96-017 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES CO., A DIVISION OF MDU RESOURCES GROUP, INC., FOR APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH DEVIATION WITH IPSWICH PUBLIC SCHOOL. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On August 2, 1996, the Commission received a filing by Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (MDU), a division of MDU Resources Group, Inc., for a Contact with Deviation. According to the filing, MDU has entered into a Letter Agreement with the Ipswich Public School for natural gas service to the school at a rate that deviates from the currently authorized Rate 66 applicable to all natural gas service provided by MDU in the East River Natural Gas System. The proposed Contract with Deviation will provide MDU with authority to execute this Letter Agreement. MDU requests Commission consideration no later than August 13, 1996, so it may effectively serve its customer. MDU further requests a waiver of the 30 days notice and to the public as required by Commission rules.
TODAY, shall the Commission establish an intervention deadline in this docket? Or, how shall the Commission proceed?
3. IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION BY COMMISSION STAFF INTO THE ARTICLE IN THE DAKOTA WINDS COLUMN OF THE SIOUX FALLS ARGUS LEADER. (Pipeline Safety Manager: Martin Bettmann.)
On July 13, 1996, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader printed a column in its Dakota Winds section of its newspaper alleging that MidAmerican Energy (MidAmerican) failed to investigate a report of a gas odor received from a Sioux Falls resident. Commission Staff conducted a preliminary investigation into this matter and submitted a report of its investigation to the Commission. The report contains a chronology of the investigation along with findings, conclusions and recommendations. Staff's report indicates that MidAmerican erred by not immediately responding to the resident's report of a gas odor. Staff recommends that the Commission open a docket and order MidAmerican to comply with the recommendations proposed in the report.
TODAY, shall the Commission open a docket in this matter?
Telecommunications
1. TC93-060 IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO EXTENDED AREA SERVICE. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
By Order issued April 28, 1996, the Commission opened an investigation into Extended Area Service (EAS). The Commission requested comments from interested parties and received 16 comments from interested companies and individuals. The latest comments received in this docket were dated July 8, 1994. At the time this docket was opened, the Commission held a calling criteria standard in which one- way requests must have an average of five calls per customer per month, and at least 50 percent of subscribers must make two or more calls per month. Two-way requests must average three calls per month for both communities. The Commission has since used this calling criteria standard as a guideline for considering EAS requests, but it has also considered factors unrelated to these guidelines, depending on the particular circumstances surrounding an EAS request. Staff continues to gather information from other states, but Staff does not believe an open docket is necessary at the present time.
TODAY, shall the Commission close this docket?
2. TC95-075 IN THE MATTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPROVED INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENT WHICH BETTER FOSTERS COMPETITION AND ENHANCED SERVICES WITHIN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY. (Staff Analyst: Greg Rislov. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
By Order issued July 28, 1995, the Commission opened a docket to solicit public comment regarding the future of the telecommunications industry in South Dakota. The Commission requested and received comments from individuals and entities from all corners of the state. The comments came from the telecommunications industry, public representatives, businesses, schools, healthcare providers, and the general public. This docket was conceived to accommodate both broad input and the processing of issues. While the comments did lead to a series of activities and educational opportunities, as filings were made before this Commission and Congress finally passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 it became apparent that issue resolution was on a path of its own; that an all-encompassing docket was unnecessary and simply did not fit with the rapidly unfolding regulatory world. The docket heightened Commission awareness and has been a means for input and education of our broad array of clientele. It set the stage for examination and workshops on what had been considered non-traditional services, ranging from wireless communication to advanced business systems and the internet. We will continue educating ourselves and the public, but we have no need of continuing this docket to do so. Staff recommends this docket be closed.
TODAY, shall the Commission close this docket?
On March 8, 1996, the Commission received an application from Primus Telecommunications, Inc. (Primus) for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. Primus proposes to provide 24-hour intrastate interexchange telecommunications services, and postpaid and prepaid debit travel card services to subscribers. No intervention requests have been filed.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Primus?
4. TC96-102 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AMERICAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENTERPRISE, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Tammi Hendrix. Legal Intern: Adam Reeves.)
On June 20, 1996, the Commission received an application from American Telecommunications Enterprise, Inc. (American) for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. American proposes to offer prepaid calling card services and residential one-plus services. No intervention requests have been filed.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to American?
On June 20, 1996, the Commission received a letter from U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) and "various documents concerning the establishment of the EdNet by the Sioux Falls School District. From the documents, it is abundantly clear that what the school district wants constitutes a telecommunications service, and that the provider must, if not already a certificated provider, submit the necessary application and documentation for a certificate as required by SDCL § 49-31-3 and commission rules. Sioux Falls Cable ... is the provider of the EdNet. To the best of U S WEST's knowledge and belief, Sioux Falls Cable has not sought the requisite commission certification. U S WEST has discussed the legal requirement with Sioux Falls Cable, but Sioux Falls Cable appears not inclined to comply with the statutory requirements. U S WEST requests that the commission, pursuant to its authority in SDCL § 49-13-5, conduct an inquiry into this matter. If the facts are as revealed in the attached documents, U S WEST would ask that the commission direct that Sioux Falls Cable comply with the requirements of SDCL § 49-31-3."
TODAY, shall the Commission open an investigation to determine if Sioux Falls Cable is subject to the certification requirements of the Commission?
6. TC96-112 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF COMMONWEALTH LONG DISTANCE COMPANY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Legal Intern: Adam Reeves.)
On June 27, 1996, Commonwealth Long Distance Company (CLD) filed an application for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within South Dakota. The specific services to be offered by CLD include switched outbound and inbound services for residential customers; switched and dedicated outbound and inbound services for commercial customers; calling cards; and directory assistance services for presubscribed commercial and residential customers.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to CLD?
7. TC96-120 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF EASTON TELECOM SERVICES, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Tammi Hendrix. Legal Intern: Adam Reeves.)
On July 2, 1996, the Commission received an application from Easton Telecom Services, Inc. (Easton) for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. Easton proposes to offer a full range of "1+" interexchange telecommunications services on a resale basis. Specifically, Easton proposes to provide MTS, out-WATS, in-WATS and Calling Card services. No intervention requests have been filed.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Easton?
8. TC96-122 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF LONG DISTANCE DIRECT HOLDINGS, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Legal Intern: Adam Reeves.)
On July 5, 1996, the Commission received an application from Long Distance Direct Holding, Inc. (LDDH) 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 services. No intervention requests have been filed.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to LDDH?
On July 10, 1996, Beresford Municipal Telephone Company filed cost study revenue requirements that are included in the LECA switched access rate filing (TC96-092). The deadline for intervention was July 26, 1996. No parties have timely filed a request for intervention.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant any interventions that may be filed? And, shall the Commission assess a filing fee of up to $100,000? And, how shall the Commission proceed in this docket?
Announcements
1. The Commission will conduct a Show Cause Hearing for Caribbean Telephone and Telegraph which has failed to submit an annual report at 10:00 a.m. on August 14 in the Commission office.
2. Legal Intern Adam Reeves will be returning to the University of South Dakota School of Law to complete his final year of study. Adam's last day with the Commission will be August 15.
3. The Commission is sponsoring a satellite down-link in Pierre to view the August 16 video conference entitled "The Telecommunications Act of 1996: Implications for State Commissioners." This conference will be presented by the Center for Public Utilities, New Mexico State University.
4. Vice-Chairman Jim Burg will attend a Gas Research Institute meeting from August 18-20, in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
5. Commissioner Laska Schoenfelder will attend the Aspen Institute Conference on Telecommunications Policy from August 18-21, in Aspen, Colorado.
6. The Commission will have a booth at the South Dakota State Fair from August 27-September 1, in Huron, South Dakota.
The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 4, 1996.
7. The Commission will conduct public hearings at 7:00 p.m. in Winner on September 4 and in Viborg on September 5 to hear testimony in Docket No. TC96-125 (sale of eight U S WEST exchanges).
William Bullard, Jr.
Executive Director
Wednesday, August 7, 1996
