Commission Agendas | previous page
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION MEETING
December 9, 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 9:00 a.m., Monday, December 9, 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.
Administration
1. Approval Of The Minutes Of The Commission Meeting of November 25, 1996; And The Ad Hoc Commission Meeting Of November 27, 1996. (Staff: Shirleen Fugitt.)
Consumer Affairs1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Consumer Representative: Leni Hook.)
The Commission has received 1261 consumer contacts during 1996. 37 contacts have been recorded since the November 25,1996, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 31 contacts concerning telecommunications issues have been received since the last meeting. 12 contacts dealt with the unauthorized switching of long distance service; 6 contacts involved billing concerns; 3 contacts involved telemarketing practices; 3 contacts involved requests for service which were not installed when promised; 2 contacts involved disconnections; 2 contacts involved 900# charges; 2 contacts were classified as "other;" and 1 contact involved an excess construction issue.
ELECTRICITY: 3 complaints involving electricity were reported. 2 disconnection issues were addressed as well as 1 contact involving a billing issue.
GAS: 3 complaints involving natural gas were reported. 3 complaints concerned billing issues; and 2 consumer contacts involved disconnections.
A total of 1004 complaints have been resolved informally during 1996.
Electricity1. EL94-008 IN THE MATTER OF NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH DEVIATIONS WITH JOHN MORRELL & COMPANY. (Staff Analysts: Bob Knadle and Steve Wegman. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
In its Amended Order Approving Contract With Deviations issued on April 10, 1995, the Commission Ordered that all of the energy efficiency equipment envisioned within the docket be installed on or before June 16, 1996. On August 28, 1996, Northern States Power Company (NSP) filed with the Commission its final report on John Morrell's installation of energy efficient equipment. A ad hoc meeting of September 11, 1996, the Commission voted to continue monitoring John Morrell's progress in meeting its estimated demand savings for 90 days at which time the Commission was to receive an updated report. On November 8, 1996, NSP submitted its updated report which indicates that John Morrell has exceeded the original goal established in this docket.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve NSP's final report filed on August 28, 1996, together with its updated report filed on November 8, 1996, and close this docket?
2. EL96-025 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF ITS NEW ELECTRIC RATE BOOK. (Staff Analyst: Bob Knadle. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On October 15, 1996, the Commission received a filing by Northern States Power Company (NSP) for approval of a new South Dakota Electric Rate Book incorporating miscellaneous tariff changes associated with the implementation of NSP's new Customer Service System for customer billing. The requested miscellaneous tariff changes occur in the Company's General Rules and Regulations and involve the deletion of a monthly billing exception and the addition of a new customer option called Preferred Due Date. The Company's application also requests a deviation from South Dakota PUC Administrative Rules Sections 20:10:13:12 and
20:10:13:13 to allow certain modifications and improvements to its filed electric rate tariffs.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve NSP's new South Dakota Rate Book?
Telecommunications1. TC96-088 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF DIAL & SAVE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, INC. D/B/A DIAL & SAVE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On June 4, 1996, the Commission received an application from Dial & Save of South Dakota, Inc. d/b/a Dial & Save to amend its Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange service. According to its application: "Dial & Save proposes to provide resold local exchange service to subscribers from all points within the State of South Dakota and, therefore, seeks statewide authorization. Specifically, Dial & Save seeks authority to resell local exchange service in the existing service areas of U S WEST....The specific manner in which Dial & Save will provide local exchange service depends upon the result of negotiations with the incumbent local exchange carriers currently operating within the State." The Commission has granted intervention to the South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition, Inc. (SDITC), U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) and Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc. (DCT). On August 22, 1996, the Commission received a petition from U S WEST seeking Commission permission to serve Dial & Save with its first set of interrogatories and document requests and to expedite discovery. A ad hoc meeting of August 28, 1996, the Commission granted U S WEST's motion for discovery. A hearing was held in this matter on September 24, 1996. All parties filed their post hearing briefs on or before November 5, 1996.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Dial & Save a Certificate of Authority to provide local telecommunications services in South Dakota?
2. TC96-099 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF EXCEL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE LOCAL EXCHANGE RESALE SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On June 19, 1996, the Commission received an application from Excel Telecommunications, Inc. (Excel) to amend its Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange service. According to its application: "Excel intends to provide local exchange service on a resale basis. The specific manner in which Excel will provide local exchange service depends upon the result of negotiations with the incumbent local exchange carriers currently operating within the State....Specifically, Excel seeks authority to resell local exchange service in the existing service areas of U S WEST and any other relevant carriers....In light of Excel's extensive experience in providing telecommunications services in the State and its intent to provide nonfacilities-based services only, Applicant requests that a certificate be granted without hearing or any other formal proceeding that would delay its expansion into the local resale market." Interventions have been granted to the South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition, Inc. (SDITC), Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc. (DCT), and U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST). On August 22, 1996, the Commission received a motion from U S WEST seeking Commission permission to serve Excel with its first set of interrogatories and document requests and to expedite discovery. A ad hoc meeting of August 28, 1996, the Commission granted U S WEST's motion for discovery. A hearing was held in this matter on September 24, 1996. All parties filed their post hearing briefs on or before November 18, 1996.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Excel a Certificate of Authority to provide local telecommunications services in South Dakota?
3. 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.
TODAY, Staff has an update and how shall the Commission proceed?
4. 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 July 15, 1996, the Commission received an application from CFW Communications Services Inc. (CFW) for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. According to its application, 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. No interventions have been filed. A regularly scheduled meeting of November 25, 1996, the Commission deferred action in this matter.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant CFW a Certificate of Authority?
5. 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 was held between Staff and the parties on October 7, 1996. Following this meeting, Staff has received information suggesting the matter has been resolved.
TODAY, Staff has an update and shall the Commission dismiss this complaint?
6. TC96-157 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF TRANSCOMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Tammi Hendrix. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On August 26, 1996, the Commission received an application by Transcommunications, Inc. (Transcom) for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. The application indicates Transom is a non-facilities-based interexchange telecommunications resale provider proposing to offer discretionary, switched access prepaid and postpaid calling card services. No parties have filed to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Transom a Certificate of Authority?
7. 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 from Midco Communications, Inc. (Midco) for an amended Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange service within the state of South Dakota. Midco intends to provide local exchange service on a resale or facilities basis, or a combination of both. Midco currently has a Certificate of Authority to provide resold intrastate long distance service. Intervention in this docket was granted to U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST), the South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition, Inc. (SDITC), and Dakota Cooperative Telecommunications, Inc. (DCT). On October 29, 1996, the Commission scheduled a hearing in this matter to be held on December 5, 1996. Subsequent to the scheduling of the hearing, the intervening parties withdrew their interventions. Staff, having received all information necessary to provide a recommendation to the Commission, notified the parties that a hearing was unnecessary and the matter could properly be heard at a Commission meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Midco a Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange services within the state of South Dakota?
8. TC96-165 IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 271 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 REGARDING BELL OPERATING COMPANY ENTRY INTO INTERLATA SERVICES. (Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
Section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prescribes the conditions which Bell Operating Companies such as U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) must meet in order to enter the interLATA telecommunications market. Pursuant to Section 271(d)(2)(B), the FCC must consult with the Commission to verify compliance by U S West with the requirements of Section 271(c). On September 19, 1996, at an ad hoc meeting, the Commission decided to open this Docket to allow any interested party to comment on what procedures should be used by the Commission to comply with its duties under Section 271(d)(2)(B). The deadline for comments was October 25, 1996.
TODAY, Staff has an update and how shall the Commission proceed?
9. TC96-180 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF DELTACOM, INC. D/B/A DELTACOM LONG DISTANCE SERVICES FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Tammi Hendrix. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On November 4, 1996, the Commission received an application by DeltaCom, Inc. d/b/a DeltaCom Long Distance Services (DeltaCom) for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a telecommunications company within the state of South Dakota. DeltaCom's services will include message toll, 800 service, travel services, and prepaid calling services. No parties have filed to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant DeltaCom a Certificate of Authority?
10. TC96-181 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR REVISIONS TO ITS EXCHANGE AND NETWORK SERVICES TARIFF. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On November 15, 1996, the Commission received a filing by U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) to introduce Full Toll Denial. According to the filing: "Under Full Toll Denial, when a customer fails to pay outstanding charges billed by the Company for Message Telecommunications Services calls, including MTS provided by the Company and interexchange carriers, but excluding 900-type services, all MTS service may be denied. Full Toll Denial includes the denial of third number billed, collect and calling card calls. Today, if a customer is disconnected for non-payment with a carrier, they simply switch to a different carrier. Therefore, they end up owing large amounts of toll dollars to the Company but are not inclined to pay them because they have access to other carriers. A very small percentage of customers will be affected by this change. However, they are usually very heavy toll users. If a customer has a valid dispute with a carrier, Full Toll Denial will not be implemented. U S WEST would ask to implement this service on December 15, 1996." An intervention deadline of December 6, 1996, was established. On November 26, 1996, MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) filed to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to MCI and any other party that may timely file?
Announcements1. The next Commission meeting is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Friday, January 3, 1996, in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building in Pierre, SD.
______________________________
William Bullard, Jr.
Executive Director
Wednesday, December 4, 1996
