Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, August 17, 1999; 10:00 A.M., 10:30 A.M., 11:30 A.M. and 1:00 P.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 413
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 August 16, 1999. Please keep in mind that a limited number of telephone lines are available. Every effort should be made for parties in the same city to be on the same line when calling in.
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
THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA WILL BEGIN AT 10:00 A.M.
Administration
1. Approval Of The Minutes Of The Commission Meeting Held On July 29, 1999. (Staff: Shirleen Fugitt.)
Consumer Issues
1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Consumer Representative: Leni Healy.)
The Commission has received 1759 consumer contacts during 1999. 252 contacts have been received since the July 29, 1999, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 234 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 84 of the contacts involved dialing parity; 31 of the contacts concerned the unauthorized switching of telecommunication services; 22 of the contacts involved the unauthorized billing for services; 15 of the contacts concerned increased rates without notice; 14 contacts involved billing issues; 11 of the contacts concerned fees; 11 of the contacts wanted service; 9 contacts concerned service outages; 5 contacts involved delayed access to carriers; 4 contacts involved delayed release; 4 contacts involved poor service; 3 contacts involved 800/900 calls; 3 contacts concerned deposits; 3 contacts involved delayed repairs; 3 contacts involved telemarketers; 2 contacts concerned pay phone issues; and the remaining issues were unburied cable, cable cut, Caller ID, carrier change, cell phones, directory, disconnection, payment plan, rude employee, and toll blocking.
ELECTRICITY: 16 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 4 of the contacts reported poor service; 3 of the contacts wanted service; 2 involved disconnections; and the remaining issues were taxes, trespassing, indecent exposure, demand power, and rate increase.
NATURAL GAS: 2 contacts involving natural gas were reported. The issues were billing and repairs.
A total of 1205 complaints have been resolved informally during 1999.
Dockets
On August 27, 1998, the Commission received a complaint by Lown House Restaurant against AT&T regarding consumer service issues. Complainant raises a variety of issues regarding service from AT&T. The complainant requests the following relief: "Reimburse the Lown House Restaurant and B&B for realistic business losses in the $8,000 to $9,000 range for which I am requesting payment from AT&T and FIRSTEL Communications." The Commission found probable cause to go forward with this complaint a October 15, 1998 meeting.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, If the matter is resolved shall the Commission close the docket?
On October 8, 1998, the Commission received a complaint by Sheryl L. Klein against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding poor service. The Complainant outlines a series of service outages, repair difficulties, outdated service and staffing issues. The Complainant seeks the following relief: "We want the line fixed completely and permanently, so it functions at a 100% reliable level. We want this done now, before another winter sets in. We have been told several possible problems by U S West repairmen including aging lines and old systems. We do not know what the solution is, but want it found and implemented now. We ask that U S West be required to make whatever investment is necessary to fully remedy the problem. We also want to be reimbursed for a reasonable amount for the loss of phone service and the associated stress and hassles. We request $500.00." A hearing in this matter was held on February 3, 1999, in Mission, South Dakota.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, how shall the Commission proceed?
On October 8, 1998, the Commission received a complaint by JoAnn C. Klein against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding poor service The Complainant outlines a series of service outages, repair difficulties, outdated service, phantom calls, and staffing issues. The Complainant seeks the following relief: "contact U S West and insist that our long continuation of poor service and outages be corrected. Also reimbursement or credit for days when phone lines have been out." Mrs. Klein also requests that her billing for 24 directory assistance calls and long distance calls which were not made by the Kleins be credited from their billing. A hearing in this matter was held on February 3, 1999, in Mission, South Dakota.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, how shall the Commission proceed?
On November 6, 1998, the Commission received a complaint by Lawrence Klein against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding poor service and a request to have lines updated. The complainant explains a history of poor and unreliable telephone service. The complainant outlines the necessity of the telephone and seeks reliable telephone service. A hearing in this matter was held on February 3, 1999, in Mission, South Dakota.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, how shall the Commission proceed?
On December 11, 1998, the Commission received a complaint from Margaret Figert, Mission, South Dakota, against USWC regarding poor service and request to have lines updated. The complaint notes a history of poor, interrupted, and sporadic service, and an inability to transmit data and use the internet. The complainant is requesting USWC to upgrade their lines throughout southern Todd County, South Dakota, or sell out to Golden West, Wall, South Dakota who has fiber optic cable. A hearing in this matter was held on February 3, 1999, in Mission, South Dakota.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, how shall the Commission proceed?
On July 28, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Ross R. Milliken, Belle Fourche, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding poor service. The Complainant reports poor service and multiple outages on the business line for the Funeral Home of the Northern Hills. As a result of poor service he has had to hire personnel to answer the business line from his home. The Complainant is seeking compensation in the amount of $98 to
reimburse additional employee expenses the funeral home has incurred due to lack of adequate telephone service.
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 July 29, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Fred Holpp, Rapid City, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding failure to provide service. The Complainant claims that U S WEST promised service on service dates beginning with April 30, 1999. They still do not have service. The Complainant seeks the following relief: "service."
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 5, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Jeanne Green, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding excessive repair charges. The Complainant was charged $80 for trouble isolation and believes this charge to be excessive. The Complainant seeks the following relief: "Please do not approve such high rates for services most Americans can't afford."
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?
THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA WILL BEGIN AT 10:30 A.M.
On July 19, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Lynnette Braun, Rapid City, South Dakota, against National Billing Exchange Special Services regarding unauthorized switching of services. Subscriber alleges that in January 1999, National Billing Exchange billed
her $39.95 for unauthorized services. Subscriber is requesting that National Billing Exchange be held responsible for its actions.
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 July 19, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Darwin Wolf, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against Matrix Telecom, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. In July 1998, subscriber noticed that Matrix, his prior provider, was billing him for 800# charges that were not his. On October 28, 1998, Matrix determined that they had erroneously billed the subscriber $764.72. To date the subscriber has not received any credit from Matrix. Subscriber is requesting damages.
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 July 20, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Ardell Nelson, Milbank/State Auto Insurance, Milbank, South Dakota, against U S Republic Communications regarding unauthorized switching of services. Subscriber states that late last winter U S Republic began charging him for services that had not been authorized. US Republic has sent him 2 checks but still owes him $54.98. He is requesting that U S Republic immediately stop billing him and reimburse him for the balance due.
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 5, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Lou Schuelke on behalf of Lazy S Campground, Hill City, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding poor service and request to have lines updated. The Complainant alleges poor service resulting in outages of several days. The Complainant seeks the following relief: "I feel the Public Utilities needs to investigate U S WEST and put on some pressure so they either upgrade or do something to improve our service."
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 5, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Judy Raker, Rapid City, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding delayed service. The Complainant requested service to their new home and trucking business in a new development in May, 1999. They were promised service on July 14, 1999. The Complainant did not receive service on that date and was not notified by U S WEST until she contacted the company. Several commitments for service have been missed. As a result the Complainant rented office space in Rapid City to run the trucking business. Complete phone service to the office space in Rapid City has also been delayed. The Complainant is seeking damages to compensate for the rented office space in Rapid City, installation costs for the line to the Rapid City office, and related expenses for delay and "total lack of concern for a small South Dakota business."
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 6, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Edward Peltz, Hill City, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding poor service and request to have lines updated. The Complainant submitted a petition, signed by neighbors in his area, claiming poor service. The Complainant seeks the following relief: "U S West (should) be forced to put some good equipment in."
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 October 26, 1998, Staff of the Commission petitioned the Commission to issue an Order requiring U S WEST Communications, Inc. to file updates to its Exchange and Network Services Catalog, Access Service Catalog, Advanced Communications Services Catalog and Private Line Transport Services Catalog. Based on a letter received from U S WEST on February 25, 1999, the Commission issued an amended Hearing Notice which clarified the matters to be heard at the hearing. Then on March 8, 1999, U S WEST sent another letter to the Commission. The letter indicates tha "affidavit no longer reflects the position of U S WEST." The letter goes on to raise the question of now expanding the issues before the Commission. Also in U S WEST's letter it states "...an expanded hearing will necessitate some discovery and more extensive preparation." A hearing in this matter was held on April 27, 1999.
TODAY, what is the Commission's decision?
On November 19, 1998, the Commission received an interconnection agreement between U S WEST Communications, Inc. and Advanced Communications Group, Inc. Any person wishing to comment on the parties' request for approval had until December 14, 1998 to do so.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed interconnection agreement?
On January 6, 1999, the Commission received a filing by U S WEST Communications, Inc. for approval of resale agreement between U S WEST Communications, Inc. and Tel West Communications, L.L.C.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
On March 22, 1999, the Commission received an application from CCCSD, Inc. d/b/a Connect! for a Certificate of Authority to Provide Local Exchange Service in South Dakota. Connect! is a reseller which intends to offer local exchange services to South Dakota business customers. Connect! plans to interconnect with U S West initially and anticipates interconnecting with GTE and other major CLEC's as needed to provide services within South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Connect!
On January 21, 1999, the Commission received a filing by U S WEST Communications, Inc. for approval of negotiated/arbitrated terms of agreement for interconnection, resale, and unbundled elements between CCCSD, Inc. dba Connect! and U S WEST Communications, Inc.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
On March 29, 1999, Concert Communications Sales LLC (CCS) filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a reseller of intraLATA and interLATA interexchange telecommunications services throughout South Dakota. CCS intends to provide a full range of 1+ interexchange services and data transmission services, including, MTS, private line, WATS, post-paid calling card, prepaid calling card, toll free, ISDN and frame relay service products.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to CCS?
On April 19, 1999, Dickey Rural Telephone Cooperative and Dickey Rural Communications, Inc. filed for approval of petition for suspension and modification of dialing parity. Dickey Rural Telephone Cooperative and Dickey Rural Communications, Inc. each have fewer than 2% of the Nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 251(f)(2), Dickey Rural Telephone Cooperative and Dickey Rural Communications, Inc. petitions the Commission for a suspension and modification of the requirement for implementation of intraLATA dialing parity in its service areas until June 30, 2000. The grounds for the petition are that suspension and modification are: a) necessary to avoid imposing requirements that are unduly economically burdensome and infeasible, and b) consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. The compressed schedule mandated by CC Docket No. 96-98, Order adopted March 19 and released March 23, 1999, FCC 99-54 is burdensome and infeasible for small LECs to develop and administer plans for timely notification of their subscribers and interexchange carriers regarding subscribers' selection of intraLATA toll providers, and for small LECs to develop fully compensatory local exchange access rates to replace the current arrangement. By order dated June 22, 1999, the Commission granted a suspension and modification to dialing parity until September 15, 1999. On August 4, 1999, the Commission received a letter from Dickey Rural Telephone requesting the Commission to consider mirroring the North Dakota Public Service Commission case number PU-405-99-204 issued July 16, 1999 extending, until January 1, 2000, the suspension and modification of the requirements of dialing parity.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On April 20, 1999, Consolidated Telephone Cooperative and its Wholly Owned Subsidiary, Consolidated Telcom, Inc. formerly known as CTC Communications, Inc. filed for approval of petition for suspension and modification of dialing parity. Consolidated Telephone Cooperative and Consolidated Telcom, Inc. formerly known as CTC Communications, Inc. each have fewer than 2% of the Nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 251(f)(2), Consolidated Telephone Cooperative and Consolidated Telcom, Inc. formerly known as CTC Communications, Inc. petitions the Commission for a suspension and modification of the requirement for implementation of intraLATA dialing parity in its service areas until June 30, 2000. The grounds for the petition are that suspension and modification are: a) necessary to avoid imposing requirements that are unduly economically burdensome and infeasible, and b) consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. The compressed schedule mandated by CC Docket No. 96-98, Order adopted March 19 and released March 23, 1999, FCC 99-54 is burdensome and infeasible for small LECs to develop and administer plans for timely notification of their subscribers and interexchange carriers regarding subscribers' selection of intraLATA toll providers, and for small LECs to develop fully compensatory local exchange access rates to replace the current arrangement. By order dated June 22, 1999, the Commission granted a suspension and modification to dialing parity until September 15, 1999. On August 9, 1999, the Commission received a letter from Consolidated Rural Telephone requesting the Commission to consider mirroring the North Dakota Public Service Commission case numbers PU-419-99-207 and PU-2013-99-208 issued July 16, 1999 extending, until January 1, 2000, the suspension and modification of the requirements of dialing parity.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On June 11, 1999, U S WEST Communications, Inc. and Computer Business Sciences, Inc. (CBS) filed a negotiated Local Interconnection Agreement on June 11, 1999. "The Agreement is a negotiated agreement setting forth the terms, conditions and prices under which U S WEST agrees to provide (a) services for resale, (b) certain unbundled network elements, ancillary functions and additional features to CBS (collectively referred to as "Network Elements") for CBS's offering and provisioning of telecommunications services. The Agreement also sets forth the terms, conditions and prices under which the parties agree to interconnect and pay reciprocal compensation for the exchange of local traffic."
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
On July 6, 1999, the Commission received an application by Avera Communication, L.L.C. for a certificate of authority to provide local exchange services in South Dakota. Avera Communication, L.L.C. intends to provide facilities-based and resale of competitive local exchange services. Avera Communication, L.L.C. requests authority to provide services throughout U S West territories.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Avera Communication, L.L.C.?
On July 27, 1999, the Commission received an Application for a Certificate of Authority from TransNet Connect, Inc. to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. TransNet Connect, Inc is a reseller who intends to offer 1+ and 101XXXX direct outbound dialing, toll free inbound dialing and travel card intrastate interexchange services on a statewide basis.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to TransNet Connect, Inc.?
THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA WILL BEGIN AT 11:30 A.M.
On July 20, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Steve and Judy Haberling, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against WorldCom Network Services, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. Subscriber states that in April 1999 his long distance carrier was switched without his authorization to WorldCom Network Services, Inc. In May he was still getting charged by WorldCom for unauthorized services. He is requesting a re-rating of his long distance bill.
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 July 22, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from John and Roberta Lovald, Pierre, South Dakota, against Excel Telecommunications, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainants allege that they were billed by Excel Telecommunications for services which they did not authorize. The Complainants are requesting that the Public Utilities Commission take appropriate action because: " I am tired of having to bulldog our phone bills."
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 July 22, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by John and Roberta Lovald, Pierre, South Dakota, against Sprint Communications Company L.P. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainants allege that they were billed by Sprint for services which they did not authorize. A credit has been issued for the charges. The Complainants are requesting that the Public Utilities Commission take appropriate action because: " I am tired of having to bulldog our phone bills."
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 July 19, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Dale C. Carstens, Brandon, South Dakota, against Sprint Communications Company L.P. regarding unauthorized switching of services. On June 29, 1999, Splitrock Telecom Cooperative informed subscriber that all the long distance on his office phone had been switched to SPRINT. Subscriber had not authorized the change and contacted the telephone companies informing them of this. Subscriber has not been billed for any
services. Subscriber is requesting that the PUC take steps to prevent unauthorized switching of phone carriers, to use all rules and legislation in its power to "teach these crooks a lesson."
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 July 26, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Gary and Michele Hanson, Burke, South Dakota, against Qwest Communications, Inc. regarding unauthorized billing for services. The Complainants allege that they were contacted by a Qwest representative to switch long distance service. The local telephone company informed the Complainants that such service was not available to them. The Complainants contacted Qwest to stop the order for service. The Complainants have received billings for the unauthorized services.
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 July 26, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by John and Shirley Hatch, Pierre, South Dakota, against Qwest Communications, Inc. regarding unauthorized billing for services. The Complainants allege that they were billed by Qwest for services they did not authorize. The Complainants are requesting $1000 in damages and complete forgiveness of the charges.
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 July 29, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Bryan and Natalie Parks, Rapid City, South Dakota, against Western Telecom regarding unauthorized billing for services. Natalie Parks claims that they received a telemarketing call from Western Telecom offering service. Ms. Parks states that they refused the offer. The Parks received a billing.
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 4, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Harry Harvison, Platte, South Dakota, against MCI WorldCom regarding unauthorized billing for services. The Complainant claims that MCI, through OAN, sent a billing for services which were not authorized. The Complainant is requesting to: "get rid of OAN" and determine who is responsible.
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 5, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Evelyn Weaver, Pierre, South Dakota, against Western Telecom regarding unauthorized billing for services. The Complainant was billed for unauthorized service. The Complainant seeks the following relief: "They should be banned from operation."
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?
THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA WILL BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M.
On July 12, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Rosalie Bury, Huron, South Dakota, against Northwestern Public Service. The Complainant alleges that personal credit information was disclosed to a third party and that reasonable payment arrangements were not considered. The Complainant seeks the following relief: "I believe I deserve a settlement in this case." The Complainant further seeks disciplinary action against the employee disclosing personal information.
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 July 26, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Thomas Thompson, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against Northern States Power Company regarding poor service. When a utility line was severed during construction, the Complainant called Northern States Power Company at 6:19 PM to report the outage and was told that repair crews were on the way to fix the problem. Based on that information, the Complainant retained his staff at Cherry Creek Grill. After multiple calls to the repair center, the Complainant closed the business at 11:30 PM. Utility repair crews had not arrived. The Complainant is requesting more accurate information concerning repairs from the utility company.
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 July 2, 1999, the Commission received a filing by Lincoln-Union Electric Company for approval of exception to service on assigned areas consent and agreement between Lincoln-Union Electric Company and Northern States Power Company. Lincoln-Union Electric Company of Alcester, SD and Northern States Power Company, out of the Sioux Falls office have been discussing service boundaries to a new development area south of Sioux Falls. They have come to an agreement for the development area called Auburn Hills, City of Sioux Falls, in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 16 in Township 100W, Range 50W. They are requesting some minor variations to the existing territorial agreement as approved by the Public Utilities Commission on January 28, 1976. No companies filed to intervene prior to the July 23, 1999, deadline.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
On July 28, 1999, the Commission received a filing by MidAmerican Energy Company to revise the South Dakota Electric Tariff No. 1 to add an energy and maintenance price code for a 400-watt High Pressure Sodium outdoor light.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff?
On June 18, 1998, MidAmerican Energy Company filed for approval of waiver of refund plan relating to Kansas ad valorem tax refunds received from Northern Natural Gas Company. To date MidAmerican has received $4,450,770.55 in total Kansas ad valorem tax refunds from Northern Natural Gas. These refunds are being made pursuant to the FERC's Order in Docket Nos. RP97-369- 000, et al. MidAmerican respectfully requests the Commission to permit retention of the refund amount received from Northern Natural Gas Company until such time as MidAmerican determines that the amount received constitutes a final refund. At such time, MidAmerican will file a refund plan and calculate accrued interest on the refund amounts at the rate of 9.429%. On June 30, 1998, the Commission considered this application and directed MidAmerican to file a specific refund plan. On July 23, 1998, the Commission voted to allow the refund be retained by MidAmerican until MidAmerican determines the refund final or alternatively for one year at which time they will update the plan. In accordance with the Commission order, MidAmerican filed its final refund plan which has not changed from 1998.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On October 30, 1998, MidAmerican Energy filed with the Commission an application for approval to continue its Incentive Gas Supply Procurement Program (IGSPP). The Commission approved a three-year IGSPP beginning on November 1, 1995, on an experimental basis. MidAmerican requests that the Commission "continue the program for an additional three-year period, or until such time as its purchased gas adjustment may be eliminated, whichever comes first."
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
Miscellaneous
Commission staff was asked to investigate the status of the regulated utilities in South Dakota and report on the utilities' efforts towards mitigating the potential problems posed by the Y2K computer problem.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, how shall the Commission proceed?
Transportation/Warehouse
The Commission has been appointed a Receiver by the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court to take possession of grain dealer bond proceeds of Britton Durum Corporation, Britton, South Dakota. The bond company is St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company. A hearing in this matter was held on February 18, 1999, in Aberdeen, South Dakota. On March 16, 1999, staff filed a Motion for Second Hearing Before Receiver with the Commission. A second hearing was held on May 4, 1999. A May 12, 1999, the Commission made its recommended decision.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, if all matters are resolved, shall the Commission close the docket?
Announcements
1. The Commission's outreach booth will be at the Sioux Empire Fair on August 10-15, 1999 in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
2. Commissioner Burg will be attending a GRI meeting on August 10-12, 1999.
3. A hearing in docket CT99-005 is scheduled for August 26, 1999 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
4. The Commission's outreach booth will be at the State Fair in Huron on August 31-September 6, 1999.
5. Commissioners and staff will be attending the ROC meeting in Denver on September 26-28, 1999.
6. A hearing in docket TC99-053 is scheduled for September 30-October 1, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
7. A hearing in docket NG99-002 is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on October 20-21, 1999, in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
8. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Wednesday, September 8, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos, Deputy Executive Director
suec@puc.state.sd.us
August 10, 1999
