Commission Agendas | previous page
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 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., October 31, 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 October 3, 1996; And The Commission Meeting Of October 8, 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 received 1128 consumer contacts during 1996. 124 contacts have been recorded since the October 3,1996, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 98 contacts concerning telecommunications issues have been received since the last meeting. 33 instances of unauthorized switching of service were reported; 18 billing problems were handled; 15 contacts were classified as other; 8 consumers did not receive service when promised; 5 contacts had difficulties with 800-900# charges; 4 contacts concerned telemarketers; 4 consumers had difficulty getting repairs; 3 contacts involved disconnections; 3 contacts involved deposits; 3 consumers had difficulty with Caller ID issues; and 2 consumers were disputing excess construction charges.
ELECTRICITY: 16 complaints involving electricity were reported. 12 disconnection issues were addressed as well as 2 contacts concerning billing; 1 consumer wanted service; and 1 was classified as other.
GAS: 10 complaints involving natural gas were reported. 3 complaints concerned disconnections; 3 consumers had billing issues; 2 contacts wanted service; and 1 contact each was reported for service repair and other.
A total of 908 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. A regularly scheduled meeting of October 8, 1996, the Commission deferred action in this matter.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
2. EL96-022 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RILEY COMPANY, INC., IRENE, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST TURNER-HUTCHINSON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE REGARDING DEMAND RATES. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On September 24, 1996, the Commission received a complaint from Riley Elevator Co., Inc. (Complainant) against Turner Hutchinson Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Respondent) regarding demand rates. Respondent sent Complainant an explanatory letter on September 27, 1996, describing its demand rate charges. The parties then held a meeting on October 8, 1996, during which a resolution was reached. On October 14, 1996, Complainant sent the Commission a letter explaining that it was presently satisfied with the resolution.
TODAY, shall the Commission dismiss this complaint based on the resolution reached by the parties?
Natural Gas
1. NG96-016 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY PAM NATURAL GAS AGAINST MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY REGARDING PGA FACTORS. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On July 8, 1996, PAM Natural Gas (PNG) filed a complaint regarding PGA factors against MidAmerican Energy (MidAmerican). The complaint states: "PNG believes MidAmerican has unfairly refunded a portion of its excessive overcollection of gas costs through the PGA Clause during the month of June, 1996. In addition, PNG opposes MidAmerican's plan to refund the balance of its overcollection of gas costs during the November, 1996, to August, 1997, PGA reconciliation year. PNG believes MidAmerican should be required to modify its calculation of the PGA to ensure it tracks more closely with the price of natural gas in the marketplace, to eliminate the high degree of volatility in its rates and to ensure large over and/or under collections do not occur. PNG also believes that MidAmerican should be required to issue refunds directly to the customers who overpaid for gas during the period the overcollection occurred." Also on July 8, 1996, PNG filed a request with the Commission to receive all underlying work-papers of MidAmerican's June PGA filing which were submitted as confidential. A regularly scheduled meeting of July 30, 1996, the Commission deferred action on this matter at the request of the parties. On October 25, 1996, PNG notified the Commission tha complaint was not amicably resolved between the parties and requested the matter go before the Commission.
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 establish a procedural schedule to consider PNG's request to receive confidential information?
2. NG96-021 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RICK AND JENNIFER GIEDD, MECKLING, SD, AGAINST PEOPLES NATURAL GAS FOR CHARGES RESULTING FROM A GAS LEAK. (Consumer Representative: Leni Hook. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On October 7, 1996, the Commission received a complaint from Rick and Jennifer Giedd, Meckling, SD, (Complainants) against Peoples Natural Gas Company, a Division of UtiliCorp United Inc. (Respondent) for charges resulting from a gas leak. Complainants state in their complaint that on May 15, 1996, Respondent notified them that their gas line was leaking. Complainants discovered that the line was broken on their side of the meter, but in their neighbors field. Respondent billed Complainants for gas which allegedly escaped from the break in the approximate amount of $4,000.00. Complainants do not believe they are responsible for the escaped gas as the break was not on their property and the pipe-line was not buried at an adequate depth. Complainants are asking to be released from liability for the escaped gas and they do not believe they should be charged for the repair of the broken line. On October 18, 1996, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint with the Commission.
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?
Telecommunications
1. TC96-129 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. D/B/A/ PROCOM FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Tammi Hendrix. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On July 18, 1996, the Commission received an application by Professional Communications Management Services, Inc. d/b/a PROCOM for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. PROCOM proposes to provide, on a 24-hour basis, a variety of telecommunications services on both a direct dialed and operator assisted basis. Operator services will be provided to presubscribed end-users as well as to privately owned pay phones and other traffic aggregators. No parties filed for intervention prior to the deadline of August 2, 1996.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant PROCOM a Certificate of Authority?
2. 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. A regularly scheduled meeting of October 8, 1996, the Commission deferred action on this matter.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant NYNEX a Certificate of Authority?
3. TC96-156 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. FOR AN AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE LOCAL EXCHANGE ACCESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On August 23, 1996, the Commission received an application by Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) to amend its Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange and exchange access services in South Dakota. According to its application, "Sprint will initially provide service by reselling the services of the incumbent local exchange companies and will deploy its own facilities as economic factors, including customer demand, dictate and allow...Sprint, when it becomes facilities-based, will also offer switched and special access services to interexchange carriers to permit them to originate and terminate interstate calls to customers on Sprint's network, and special access services to connect interexchange carriers to their customers or to each other." An intervention deadline of September 13, 1996, was established. A regularly scheduled meeting of September 17, 1996, the Commission granted intervention to the South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition (SDITC), Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc. (DCT), and U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST). On October 4, 1996, U S WEST filed its Motion for Permission to Serve U S WEST Communications, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests on Sprint Communications Company L.P. and to Expedite Discovery and Notice of Appearance.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant U S WEST's motion?
4. TC96-166 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY CAMPUS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, DEERFIELD BEACH, FL, AGAINST U S
WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. REGARDING BILLING. (Consumer Representative: Leni Hook. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On September 24, 1996, the Commission received a complaint from Campus Management Corp. (Complainant) against U S WEST Communications, Inc. (Respondent) regarding a billing disagreement. Staff's initial investigation into this matter revealed that Respondent was not the primary party involved in the disagreement. Instead it appears the complaint centers on long distance charges incurred through MCI Communications. Respondent has agreed to forego any action pending the Commission's determination of this matter.
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 30, 1996, the Commission received a complaint from Cathy Feickert, Aberdeen, SD, (Complainant) against U S WEST Communications, Inc. (Respondent). According to the complaint, Complainant contacted Respondent for telephone service the first part of December 1995, and was told there would be no problem getting service and no additional charge for installation. In January 1996, Respondent told Complainant to call back closer to the move-in date. Complainant made arrangements for dual service in February for activation on February 23. On February 26 Complainant called Respondent and was informed that there were no available lines and that there would be an excess construction fee of $1,100 before service would be installed. The excess construction fee was reduced to $570.84. Complainant moved into the new house on April 6, 1996. "Not once did U S WEST personnel suggest giving me a cellular phone to use until we had full service. They were rude and not very helpful during this situation. In fact, one time I was told that I should expect this because I have moved to the country. Excuse me, but 1 1/2 miles from a convention center does not mean country to me. Plus, I called them in November of 1995 and told them we would be moving in approximately the first of April 1996. They had 6 months to do all the paperwork and order the supplies....We were without telephone service for 81 DAYS! From April 6 - June 25, 1996....I am requesting that U S WEST compensate us [in the amount of] $1,551.71. There is no excuse for the way in which U S WEST handle[d] our situation."
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 October 9, 1996, the Commission received an application by PAM Oil, Inc. d/b/a PAM Communications for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. PAM proposes to offer "local exchange services, intraLATA services, and as applicable, interLATA services....PAM is entering into an Agreement for Resale Services with U S WEST Communications and other local exchange carriers...The specific products and services are dependent upon resale agreements entered into with local exchange companies....Initially, telecommunication 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, PAM will expand its service territory to include additional cities....Financial statements for the fiscal year July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996, have been filed confidentially pursuant to ARSD 20:10:01:41." An intervention deadline of October 26, 1996, has been established. On October 17, 1996, Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc. (DCT) filed for intervention. On October 22, 1996, the South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition, Inc. (SDITC) also filed for intervention.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant interventions to DCT, SDITC and any other party who may timely file?
Announcements
1. The time, date and location of the next Commission meeting will be announced at a later date.
____________________________
William Bullard, Jr.
Executive Director
Friday, October 25, 1996
