Commission Agendas | previous page
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 8, 1996; 10:00 a.m.
State Capitol Building, Room LCR-1
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, October 7, 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 Ad Hoc Commission Meeting of September 11, 1996; The Commission Meeting Of September 17, 1996; And the Ad Hoc Meeting of September 19, 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 has addressed 1004 consumer contacts during 1996. 90 contacts have been recorded since the September 17,1996, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 72 contacts concerning telecommunications issues have been received since the last meeting. 24 instances of unauthorized switching of service were reported; 14 billing problems were handled; 8 contacts were classified as other; 5 contacts involved inappropriate rates; 4 consumers complained of delayed repair of service; 4 contacts involved not receiving service when promised; 3 contacts involved land development issues; 2 contacts concerned disconnections; 2 telemarketing complaints were made; and annoyance calls, won't disconnect, deposit, pay phone contract, sex line calls, and service transfer issues each reported one contact.
ELECTRICITY: 9 complaints involving electricity were reported. 3 disconnection issues were addressed as well as 2 contacts concerning billing and 4 contacts were classified as other.
GAS: 9 complaints involving natural gas were reported. 3 complaints concerned disconnections; 2 contacts wanted service; 1 contact each was reported for deposit, territory issues, budget plan, and other.
A total of 814 complaints have been resolved informally during 1996.
Electricity
1. EL96-021 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RAYMOND AND BEVERLY NORDSTROM, SPEARFISH, SD, AGAINST E ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AND BLACK HILLS POWER AND LIGHT REGARDING ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO CERTAIN LOTS IN MOUNTAIN SHADOWS MOBILE HOME PARK, SPEARFISH, SD. (Staff Engineer: Martin Bettmann. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On August 30, 1996, the Commission received a complaint from Raymond and Beverly Nordstrom (Complainants), Spearfish, SD, against e Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Black Hills Power and Light (Respondents). The issue in the complaint is which Respondent should provide electrical service to certain lots located in Mountain Shadows Mobile Home Park in Spearfish, SD. The Complainant requests that the entire park be served by only one of the providers.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
2. EL96-023 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF BLACK HILLS CORPORATION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF STOCK OPTIONS UNDER BLACK HILLS CORPORATION'S 1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On September 27, 1996, the Commission received a filing from Black Hills Corporation for approval of a stock option issuance under Black Hills Corporation's 1996 stock option plan. The plan was approved at the Black Hills Corporation's shareholder meeting of May 21, 1996.
TODAY, shall the Commission authorize the proposed issuance of stock options?
2. EL96-024 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF A RATE REDUCTION/FREEZE AND ADOPTION OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING FOR POST-RETIREMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS. (Staff Analyst: Greg Rislov. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On September 30, 1996, the Commission received a filing from Northern States Power Company (NSP) for approval of an overall rate reduction / freeze and adoption of accrual accounting for post-retirement benefits other than pensions. NSP is expecting savings resulting from its merger with Wisconsin Energy Corporation (WEC) to form Primergy, a new utility holding company. The proposed rate reduction of 1.5 % is based on the expected savings. NSP is proposing to freeze its decreased rates through the year 2000, subject to extraordinary events.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee of up to $125,000?
Natural Gas
1. NG96-019 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY KALLY SOUTHARD, SIOUX FALLS, SD, AGAINST MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY REGARDING PAYMENT OF BILL. (Consumer Representative: Leni Hook. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On September 26, 1996, the Commission received a complaint from Kally Southard (Complainant), Sioux Falls, SD, against MidAmerican Energy (Respondent). At issue in this complaint is whether Complainant is responsible for charges incurred at her previous residence during the period after she had vacated that residence and moved into a new residence. Complainant is requesting that the Commission find that she is not responsible for charges incurred at her previous residence after January 30, 1993; that a reasonable repayment plan be accepted by Respondent; and that she not be required to pay an unreasonable deposit.
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?
2. NG96-020 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF TARIFF REVISION. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On September 30, 1996, the Commission received a filing from MidAmerican Energy of its gas reconciliation for the gas period from September 1995 through August, 1996. Accompanying this filing is a corrected tariff to replace Original Issue Sheet No. 5 with the First Revised Sheet No. 5. MidAmerican is requesting that the Commission approve its corrected tariff.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff corrections?
Rule Making
1. RM95-001 IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TO PROVIDE INTRALATA EQUAL ACCESS 1+/0+ PRESUBSCRIPTION TO INTRALATA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. (General Counsel: Rolayne Wiest.)
On July 20, 1995, AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. (AT&T) filed with the Commission a Petition to Adopt Administrative Rules. According to its petition, AT&T requested that the Commission, pursuant to SDCL ยง 1-26-13, consider and adopt rules for the purpose of providing intraLATA equal access 1+/0+ presubscription to intraLATA telecommunications services. Four parties filed petitions to intervene on or before the intervention deadline of July 30, 1995. Those parties are MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI); South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition (SDITC); U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST); and Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc. (DCT), filing on July 28. A ad hoc meeting of August 14, 1995, the Commission unanimously voted to grant intervention and grant the Petition on this matter. Commission Staff submitted its proposed rules to the Commission on November 2, 1995. A duly noticed hearing was held on this matter on December 6, 1995. A regularly scheduled meeting of January 4, 1996, the Commission approved in part and denied in part the proposed rules. The Commission is now considering that portion of the rules previously denied.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
Telecommunications
1. TC95-112 IN THE MATTER OF ULTIMATE COMMUNICATIONS CORP.'S FAILURE TO SUBMIT A REPORT AND PAY THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX. (Business Manager: Sue Cichos. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On November 13, 1995, the Commission granted a continuance of the Show Cause Order dated October 17, 1995, to Ultimate Communication's Corp. (Ultimate). Commission Staff requested the continuance based on their knowledge that Ultimate had filed for bankruptcy. On August 6, 1996, the Commission conducted a hearing in Docket No. TC96-145 to give Ultimate an opportunity to show cause why the Commission should not revoke its certificate of authority for failure to file an annual report as required by ARSD 20:10:24:04. Ultimate did not represen elf at the hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to revoke Ultimate's certificate of authority.
TODAY, shall the Commission close this docket based on its ruling in TC96-145 to revoke Ultimate's Certificate of Authority?
2. TC96-104 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SWITCHED ACCESS RATES FOR DAKOTA COOPERATIVE TELECOM, INC. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On June 21, 1996, Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc. (DCT) filed its Intrastate Access Rate cost study. The Commission granted intervention to U S WEST Communications, Inc. on August 6, 1996. On September 9, 1996, DCT filed with the Commission its new Intrastate Access Tariff, replacing DCT's current access tariff. DCT has established an effective date of October 10, 1996, for its new tariff.
TODAY, how shall the Commission treat this Access Tariff pending its determination of the LECA rate filings?
3. TC96-128 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY BASEC.NET- SODAK.NET AGAINST SANBORN TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INC. REGARDING LOCAL DIAL-UP ACCESS. (Staff Analyst: Steve Wegman. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On July 17, 1996, the Commission received a complaint from Basec.Net-Sodak.Net (Complainant) against Sanborn Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Respondent). According to the complaint: "In 1995, Sodak.Net began providing local dial up access to many of the rural telephone
company customers through an agreement with SDN. The rural telephone company would charge their customers $5 access fee to have a local number to Sodak.Net, or any of the ISP's [Internet Service Provider's] that have entered into an agreement with SDN. We have numerous customers who have been established with Sodak.Net on the Sanborn Exchange. As of July, late June, Sanborn Telephone Cooperative began its own ISP and will no longer allow local access for its customers to other ISP's, even for the nominal fee. We have talked with Dick Johnston who informed us they would not provide local access to any other ISP. We have some individuals who are very upset because they can not utilize our services any longer, without long distance fees." I ask that the Commission grant the following relief: "Sanborn Telephone Cooperative should continue to offer Internet access for a nominal fee to the ISP of choice." A regularly scheduled meeting of September 17, 1996, the Commission found probable cause and served the complaint upon Respondent. On September 24, 1996, Respondent filed a motion to reconsider. A meeting has been scheduled between Staff and the parties on October 7, 1996.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the motion for reconsideration?
4. TC96-150 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AGAINST DCT AND DTS FOR UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN THE CENTERVILLE AND VERMILLION EXCHANGES. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On July 29, 1996, the Commission received a complaint filed by U S WEST Communications, Inc. (Complainant) concerning the unauthorized construction of telecommunications facilities by Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications and Dakota Telecommunications Systems, Inc. (collectively referred to as Respondents) in the Centerville and Vermillion exchanges operated and owned by Complainant. According to complainant: "To the best of USWC's information and belief, Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications (DCT) and/or Dakota Telecommunications Systems, Inc. (DTS) have begun to connect telecommunications services in USWC's Centerville and Vermillion exchanges. The Affidavit of Larry D. Miller, USWC's Manager, Local Network Operations, Yankton, South Dakota, describes the installation of three telephone service facilities to customers located in USWC's Centerville and Vermillion exchanges. SDCL 49-31-21 requires that before a telecommunications company commences construction of a telecommunications facility outside its lawful local exchange territory, it must apply for authority to do so. Neither DCT nor DTS have made the necessary applications consistent with this statutory section for the Centerville and Vermillion exchanges....ARSD chapter 20:10:25 is intended to implement the statutory requirements of SDCL 49-31-21. Neither DCT nor DTS have complied with the notice requirements of ARSD 20:10:25:02 or the additional requirements in ARSD 20:10:25:04 regarding the construction of facilities in either the Centerville or Vermillion exchanges. Both the applicable statute and implementing rules contemplate Commission action approving the construction of the telecommunications facility before construction is initiated. Construction of the telecommunications facility in the Centerville and Vermillion exchanges began without Commission approval of the construction. The on-site visit to the Vermillion exchange location...revealed that USWC telecommunications facilities had been disconnected and removed from the building....It is noted that since SDCL 49-32-2 provides that it is a Class 2 misdemeanor to maliciously disconnect telecommunications facilities which are legally erected, it appears that as to [the Vermillion] location...the statute may have been violated. WHEREFORE, USWC requests that the Commission order DCT and [DTS] to cease construction of the telecommunications facilities until such time as the Commission approves the construction after hearing and application of the appropriate legal standards to the construction of facilities." At the request of the parties, Staff has held this complaint in abeyance. However, Staff believes the Commission's recent Declaratory Ruling in Docket TC96-127 extinguishes the basis for this complaint. A regularly scheduled meeting of September 17, 1996, the Commission dismissed that portion of the complaint affected by federal preemption and directed Staff to investigate the alleged tampering of the interface boxes at the site. Staff has completed its investigation regarding the alleged tampering.
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?
5. TC96-151 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF NYNEX LONG DISTANCE COMPANY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Tammi Hendrix. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On July 31, 1996, the Commission received an application from NYNEX Long Distance Company (NYNEX) for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. The applicant proposes to operate as a switchless reseller to provide long distance telecommunications services to South Dakota consumers, using the facilities and services of Sprint Communications Co., L.P. and perhaps other carriers. No interventions were filed.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant NYNEX a Certificate of Authority?
6. TC96-154 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL TELCOM LTD. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On August 12, 1996, the Commission received an application from International Telcom Ltd. for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. The applicant 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. No interventions were filed.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant International Telcom LTD. a Certificate of Authority?
7. TC96-155 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY MR. AND MRS. ROBERT BUSH, RAPID CITY, SD, AGAINST U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. REGARDING HOOK-UP FEES. (Staff Analyst: Greg Rislov. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On August 19, 1996, the Commission received a complaint from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Bush (Complainants) against U S WEST Communications, Inc. (Respondent). Complainants and three neighbors live in a development known as Alpine Acres and were required by Respondent to pay $470.00 prior to receiving telephone service. According to Complainants, "In the past few months two residents have had a phone hooked up by USWC....[for] $35.00 each....[A]ll of us feel that we have been discriminated against by USWC and that some type of adjustment should be made to us. We feel that customers on this phone cable should be charged the same hookup fee especially since we all live within 300 yards or less from each other. We can understand why an initial construction fee was charged but now since more customers are hooking up a readjustment should be made. It would seem to us that a fair adjustment refund of $435.00 is due each party and any hookup in the future would be billed a fee of $35.00." A regularly scheduled meeting of September 17, 1996, the Commission voted to dismiss the Complaint and close the docket in the cases of the Bushes, Vaviches and Wessels. As to the Complaint of Joyce (Miller) Glatt, the Commission voted to defer this matter pending further information from the parties as to the details of when the 1994 service was provided to the Complainant. Staff has obtained additional information concerning when the 1994 service was provided.
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 September 6, 1996, the Commission received a Petition from Western Wireless Corporation d/b/a Cellular One requesting the Commission, pursuant to 47 USC 252(b)(1), to arbitrate open issues related to its on-going interconnection negotiations with U S WEST. Petitioner also states that the Petition is filed on behalf of Western Wireless's operating subsidiaries, including GCC License Corporation. On September 20, 1996, the South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition, Inc. (SDITC) filed a timely motion to intervene. A prehearing conference has been scheduled for October 7, 1996.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to SDITC?
9. TC96-162 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF TELSCAPE USA, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On September 11, 1996, the Commission received an application from Telscape USA, Inc. (Telscape) for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. Telscape 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. No interventions have been filed.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Telscape a Certificate of Authority?
10. TC96-163 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF MIDCO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR AN AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICE IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On September 16, 1996, the Commission received an application by Midco Communications, Inc. (Midco) to amend its Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange services in the state of South Dakota. Midco proposes to provide local exchange service on a resale or facilities basis, or a combination of both. The manner in which Midco will provide local service in South Dakota depends on the results of negotiations with incumbent local exchange carriers. Midco intends to provide local exchange services throughout the state.The intervention deadline is October 4, 1996. Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc. (DCT) and U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) have filed to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to DCT, U S WEST, or any other party who may file timely petitions to intervene?
12. TC96-164 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF INTERMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On September 18, 1996, the Commission received an application by Intermedia Communications Inc. (Intermedia) for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. Intermedia intends to provide resold long distance service, including direct dial 800, switched and dedicated telecommunications services to business and residential customers. An intervention deadline of October 4, 1996, was established.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to any party that may file a timely petition? Or, shall the Commission grant Intermedia a Certificate of Authority?
Announcements
1. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, October 24, 1996, in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building, Pierre, SD.
William Bullard, Jr.
Executive Director
Wednesday, October 2, 1996
