Commission Agendas | previous page
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING
September 9, 1997; 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. on September 8, 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 August 18, 1997. (Staff: Shirleen Fugitt.)
Consumer Affairs
1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Consumer Representative: Leni Healy.)
The Commission has received 950 consumer contacts during 1997. 63 contacts were received since the August 18, 1997, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 47 contacts involved telecommunication issues. 11 involved slamming; 8 concerned wrong rates; 6 billing issues were handled; 5 contacts did not receive service when promised; 5 involved sex line calls; the remaining contacts involved repair, telemarketers, land development fees, PIC change charges, disconnection, nuisance calls, poor service, inside wiring, directory listing, and unburied cable.
ELECTRICITY: 8 contacts involving electricity were reported. 4 contacts involved disconnections, 2 were classified as "other," 1 involved billing, and 1 concerned a payment plan.
NATURAL GAS: 8 contacts involving natural gas were reported. 3 concerned disconnections, and the remaining contacts concerned meter placement, service charges, deposits, other, and unfair competition.
A total of 641 complaints have been resolved informally during 1997.
Natural Gas
On September 2, 1997, Northwestern Public Service filed an application to approve advertising to be placed on residential natural gas customer bills which recommends an early furnace inspection for efficiency and safety purposes and recommends that customers call either their local contractor of Northwestern to have the service performed.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the application?
Telecommunications
1. TC96-055 IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST BY AT&T OF THE MIDWEST, INC. TO REQUIRE THE FILINGS OF INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS. (Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
TC96-064 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION REGARDING U S WEST INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS. (Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer)
On March 18, 1996, the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) received a filing from AT&T of the Midwest, Inc. (AT&T) asking the Commission to require the filing, within one week, of all existing interconnection agreements between local exchange carriers, such as U S WEST, and other carriers including traditional local exchange carriers and alternate local exchange or exchange access providers. Petitions to intervene were received from South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition (SDITC); Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint); and U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST).
On April 15, 1996, the Commission received a filing from MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) which stated, "On March 26, 1996, Michael Beach, vice president - local markets, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, sent [a] letter to Sol Trujillo, president and CEO, U S WEST Communications, Inc., requesting copies of existing agreements with all other local exchange carriers -- including agreements with incumbent LECs (such as EAS agreements) as well as with new entrants -- plus agreements entered into before February 8, 1996, consistent with Section 252(a)(1) of the Federal Telecommunications Act. That subsection and Section 252(e)(1) require that all such agreements, including any interconnection agreement negotiated before the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, must be submitted to your state commission for approval. To date, MCI has not received copies of these agreements from U S WEST. To the best of our knowledge, these documents have not been submitted to other new entrants who have requested them or to your commission. Therefore, we ask that within 10 days of receipt of this letter the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission enforce the legal requirement under the Act and order U S WEST to file all such agreements with you and submit these agreements to all those, including MCI, who have requested negotiations under Section 252(a)(1). We also request that your commission direct U S WEST to submit these agreements to you and the parties within an additional 10 days." No parties or entities filed to intervene.
On June 6, 1996, the Commission ordered that dockets TC96-055 and TC96-054 be consolidated and issued a procedural schedule. All briefs were due by July 16, 1996. The Commission deferred action until the Eighth Circuit issued its ruling on the FCC's rule concerning this issue. That decision was issued July 18, 1997. A regularly scheduled meeting of July 29, 1997, the Commission heard arguments from the parties and took this matter under advisement.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant AT&T's and MCI's petitions?
2. TC96-105 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CERTIFICATION. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
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." A regularly scheduled meeting of August 13, 1996, the Commission voted to investigate this matter to determine if Sioux Falls Cable is subject to the certification requirements of the Commission. A regularly scheduled meeting of December 9, 1996, the Commission considered this matter and directed the Executive Director to set a procedural schedule. On December 17, 1996, Baltic Telecom Cooperative, Inc. (Baltic) filed a petition to intervene. On April 22, 1997, the Commission issued an order establishing a hearing date of May 8, 1997.
TODAY, what is the Commission's decision?
3. TC96-126 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CFW COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On June 3, 1996, CFW Communications Services, Inc. filed for a certificate of authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. CFW proposes to offer prepaid calling cards which will be resold by South Dakota Independent Telephone Companies. Independent NECA Services will act as an intermediary, performing an intercompany billing and collection function between CFW and the Independent Telephone Companies. On August 28, 1997, CFW notified the Commission that it was withdrawing its application.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant CFW's withdrawal?
4. TC96-193 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF VENDORMATIC, INC. D/B/A HSS VENDING DISTRIBUTORS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Tammi Stangohr. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On December 5, 1996, HSS Vending Distributors (Applicant) filed for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. The Applicant seeks to operate as a switch-based reseller of intraLATA and interLATA telecommunications services and to provide operator-assisted service. On June 10, 1997, the Commission issued an order denying the Certificate of Authority. On July 14, 1997, the Commission received an application for rehearing of Vendormatic, Inc.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant HSS Vending a rehearing? And, how shall the Commission proceed?
On March 25, 1997, Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc., Dakota Telecom, Inc. and Dakota Telecommunications Systems, Inc. (collectively, Dakota) filed a petition with the Commission "requesting that the Commission take the steps necessary to implement the Regulations relating to the Universal Service Fund which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must have ready by May 8, 1997. Specifically, Dakota is requesting that it be designated as an Eligible Telecommunications Company, as that term is used in 47 USC 214 (e) (1), for the following exchanges: Alsen (253), Beresford Rural (957), Chancellor (647), Davis (238), Flyger (327), Gayville (267), Hurley (238), Irene (263), Lennox (647), Monroe (297), Parker (297), Volin (267), Wakonda (267) and Worthing (372). Dakota offers services throughout these territories and will, once final rules are adopted by the FCC, continue to offer services that are supported by Federal universal service support mechanisms and as supplemented by State regulations under section 254 (f) of the Telecommunications Act, as amended. To provide these services in these exchanges, Dakota will use its own facilities. Dakota has previously, and will continue to advertise the availability of its services in media of general distribution. Prior to this filing, Dakota has not advertised its prices as part of its marketing, but makes those rates known upon inquiry. Dakota further requests that the Commission establish a "service area" as that term is defined in 47 USC 214 (e) (5) for Dakota. Due to the compact and contiguous nature of Dakota's traditional service area, Dakota requests that the Commission designate Dakota's present study area as its service area." On May 12, 1997, AT&T was granted intervention.
A regularly scheduled meeting of June 3, 1997, the Commission directed that this matter go to hearing. A procedural schedule was issued and a hearing was subsequently held in Pierre on July 30, 1997.
TODAY, shall the Commission designate Dakota (now Dakota Telecom Group, Inc. as an eligible Telecommunications Company?
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."
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the application of LDM?
On June 3, 1997, Dakota Telecom, Inc., Dakota Telecommunications Systems, Inc., and Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc. (collectively Dakota) filed a Notice of Request for Interconnection with Fort Randall Telephone Company (Fort Randall) with the Commission. A July 15, 1997, regularly scheduled meeting, the Commission granted intervention to SDITC. At a July 18, 1997, ad hoc meeting, the Commission found Dakota's request was not a bona fide request as required by 47 U.S.C. Section 251(f)(1). The Commission further found that it would hold a hearing on whether Dakota shall be required to meet Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) requirements before being allowed to provide service in exchanges owned by Fort Randall. On July 31, 1997, the Commission issued an Order For and Notice of Hearing and Procedural Schedule setting deadlines for submission of prefiled testimony and further setting a hearing on this matter for August 26, 1997.
On August 4, 1997, Dakota filed an appeal of this matter to the Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit and sought a stay in these proceedings. On August 8, 1997, Fort Randall and intervenor SDITC filed for removal of the appeal to United States District Court, District of South Dakota. Dakota has requested that the Commission suspend these proceedings in light of these appeals. By order dated August 14, 1997, the Commission suspended the procedural schedule in this matter.
On August 15, 1997, Dakota (now Dakota Telecom, Inc.) filed an application with the Commission requesting interconnection, services and network elements from Fort Randall and requesting that the Commission determine whether the exemption from the obligation of negotiating interconnection with Dakota by Fort Randall should be terminated.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On June 16, 1997, U S WEST Communications, Inc. filed for approval by the Commission the Type 1 Paging Agreement between KJAM Mobile Paging and U S WEST. "This Agreement was reached through voluntary negotiations without resort to mediation or arbitration and is submitted for approval pursuant to Section 252(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996....KJAM Mobile Paging and U S WEST further request that the Commission approve this Agreement without a hearing and without allowing the intervention of other parties. Because this Agreement was reached through voluntary negotiations, it does not raise issues requiring a hearing and does not concern other parties not a part of the negotiations. Expeditious approval would further the public interest."
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the agreement between U S WEST and KJAM?
On July 10, 1997, the Commission received an application from Clarity Telecom LD Network Services, Inc. (Clarity) for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. Clarity intends to offer switched inbound and outbound services to employees of Clarity and switched and dedicated inbound and outbound 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 Clarity?
On July 17, 1997, The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority filed a request for clarification regarding the designation as an eligible telecommunications Carrier. "The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority moves that the Commission clarify whether local exchange carriers must request that the Commission designate them as eligible telecommunications carriers so that the local exchange carriers may receive federal universal service support under 47 U.S.C. § 214(e). "[U]nder § 214(e)(2), the Commission may determine whether common carriers meet the requirements of § 214(e)(1) in order to designate them as ETCs, or it may consider a request that the Commission designate a common carrier as an ETC, based upon the common carrier's own assertions. In any event, unless a local exchange carrier receives a designation by the state as an ETC, the local exchange carrier may not receive federal universal service support...In other words, Congress has placed the burden upon the Commission to designate which local exchange carriers are ETCs and thereby eligible for federal universal service support....In light of the two options in the Telecommunications Act -- the Commission's designation of ETCs on its own motion, or requests by individual local exchange carriers for such designation -- and in light of the requirement that local exchange carriers obtain designation as ETCs in order to receive federal universal support, the Telephone Authority respectfully requests that the Commission issue an order clarifying the procedures local exchange carriers in South Dakota should follow in order to obtain ETC designation." Interested parties had until July 25, 1997, to file comments with the Commission and the Telephone Authority.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On August 1, 1997, ComTel Computer Corp. filed for a Certificate of Authority with the Commission. "ComTel proposes to offer long distance voice telecommunications services ... such as 1+ direct dial calling, switched in-bound toll free service, travel card, debit card services and directory assistance."
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to ComTel?
On August 1, 1997, the Commission received an application by Micro-Comm, Inc. for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. Micro-Comm proposes to offer "telecommunications services to subscribers for direct voice and data communications..." Micro-Comm will offer 1+, WATS, calling card, and debit card services.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Micro-Comm, Inc.?
On July 28, 1997, Gemini Companies, Inc. filed a complaint against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding the cost of basic public access lines. Gemini purchases Basic Public Access Lines from U S WEST and eight other local exchange companies in South Dakota. "U S WEST requires the use of metered, or message-based rate in areas where their equipment allows them to measure service. The effect of this requirement is that our average monthly U S WEST phone bills in South Dakota are $10 to $14 higher than our U S WEST monthly phone bills in the other states and $22 per month higher than our monthly average of phone bills from the eight other South Dakota companies. In each case the service received is identical: basic dial tone with certain screening and blocking features. [Gemini] asks that the Commission mandate the use of the flat rate and eliminate the measured-service required rate."
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 August 8, 1997, Raymond & Genene Sand d/b/a Sand Construction filed a complaint against U S WEST Communications regarding a telephone line location. "Our complaint is in reference to telephone line location and moving line for Project AIP 3-46-0048-21 Rapid City Regional Airport County Road Relocation, County Road C232, and Construct Runway 14 Safety Area, Pennington County. Bid date for this project was May 9, 1997. At that time or before, the affected utilities were aware that utility relocation would be necessary. A pre-construction meeting was held on May 30, 1997. U S WEST representative Dennis Serfling was present. Raymond Sand stated that he would like to begin the project as soon as possible--at least by June 9th. Dennis Serfling said U S WEST was waiting for cable to arrive for the fiber optic line move and that expected arrival was June 3, 1997, after which they would proceed to install it. Sand Construction notified One Call Notification shortly after the meeting as a precautionary measure. We were issued ticket #23361. The project owners' project paperwork was not competed as rapidly as expected; therefore, Sand Construction didn't begin work until June 16, 1997. The telephone line relocation work in the county road work area was not completed, we had no choice o try to work around it....We submit that Sand Construction has suffered losses due to the delay in utility relocation by U S WEST. We request recovery of these losses from U S WEST."
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 August 15, 1997, U S WEST Communications, Inc. filed an application for approval to offer a promotion to its toll customers. U S WEST Communications is planning to offer a promotion to toll customers beginning September 4, 1997. The promotion will be targeted to residential customers currently using direct dialing and business customers using direct dialing or Optional Calling Plans. Customers subscribing to this Plan will be charged a monthly rate for which they receive unlimited toll usage on their intrastate intraLATA station-to-station calls....Customers must enroll in the promotion within 60 days of the effective tariff date and will be offered this rate up to December 31, 1998. U S WEST reserves the right to discontinue the promotion prior to that date. Qualifying customers will be called via a telemarketing firm or through direct mail notification. AT&T and Dakota Telecommunications Group, Inc. filed interventions prior to the August 29, 1997, deadline.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant interventions to AT&T and DTG?
On August 15, 1997, Terry Nagel filed a complaint with the Commission against U S WEST Communications regarding telephone service. "On the morning of June 10, 1997, I called U S WEST to begin telephone service. At that time, they said a connector would be sent in 2 days to service us. No one arrived. When we called back, they said a new line would have to be run. (Our residence had a previous phone number, but it had been disconnected.) They estimated a target date of June 30. Another call, after that date stated July 30 work was back logged. Another call on August 1st now pushed a connect date to September 12, because they did not have cable on hand. This is over 3 months from the date of first contact. They did offer us a credit or a cellular phone. But because of the location of our house between two mountains, that type of phone is inoperable....[I ask the Commission to] fine U S WEST per day of no service and to get us a financial settlement for our inconvenience. We are only here until August 12, 1997, we will be returning to our other home..."
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?
17. IN THE MATTER OF EXCESSIVE CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AGAINST TELEC, INC. FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED SWITCHING OF LONG DISTANCE SERVICE. (Consumer Representative: Leni Healy.)
Telec, Inc. received a Certificate of Authority as a telecommunications provider in South Dakota on January 3, 1997. Since that time, thirty-six consumers have registered complaints indicating that Telec, Inc. has switched long distance service without the consumers' knowledge or consent.
TODAY, Staff has an update and how shall the Commission proceed in this matter?
Announcements
1. A hearing in Docket TC96-107 is scheduled for September 10-12, 1997, in Room LCR-1 of the State Capitol in Pierre, South Dakota.
2. September 13-16, 1997, Bill Bullard will be attending the Executive Director's Conference in Oklahoma City.
3. September 20-24, 1997, Commissioners Pam Nelson and Jim Burg will be attending a Natural Gas Conference in Palm Springs.
4. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Thursday, September 25, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
____________________
William Bullard Jr.
Executive Director
September 3, 1997
