Commission Agendas | previous page
Please also see Addendum to this Agenda
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Monday, November 15, 1999; 1:30 P.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. on Friday, November 12, 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
Administration
1. Approval Of The Minutes Of The Commission Meeting Held On November 1, 1999. (Staff: Shirleen Fugitt.)
Consumer Issues
1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Leni Healy.)
The Commission has received 2372 consumer contacts during 1999. 101 contacts have been received since the November 1, 1999, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 84 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 24 of the contacts involved the unauthorized switching of services; 10 billing issues were reported, 10 contacts concerned the unauthorized billing for services; 10 contacts did not receive service when promised; 6 contacts were charged higher rates than promised; 3 contacts concerned the inability to switch service; and the remaining issues concerned automatic payments, 900#s, calling cards, cellular service, collect calls, credit, disconnection, fees, Lifeline, poor service, repair and other.
ELECTRICITY: 11 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 4 of the contacts concerned payment plans; 3 of the contacts involved disconnection, and the remaining issues were automatic payments, billing, cross wiring and other.
NATURAL GAS: 6 contacts involving natural gas were reported. 2 contacts concerned billing; 2 contacts concerned disconnections and the remaining issues were fuel assistance and poor service.
1672 complaints have been resolved informally during 1999.
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. Subscriber is requesting damages. The Commission found probable cause in this matter on August 17, 1999. A hearing was scheduled for December 1, 1999. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On July 20, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Steve and Judy Haberling against WorldCom Network Services. The complainants state that in April 1999 their long distance carrier was switched without authorization to WorldCom Network Services, Inc. In May they were still getting charged by WorldCom for unauthorized services. They are requesting a re-rating of the long distance bill.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On August 11, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Susan Trudel, Webster, against MCI WorldCom. The Complainant claims she declined the long distance services offered by a telemarketer. Her services were switched without authorization. After contact with MCI WorldCom, the Complainant's account was credited, but billing continued. The Complainant wants measures taken to insure that service is not changed without authorization.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
The Complainants claim that their long distance service was switched without authorization. The Complainants are requesting unspecified damages and credit of the charges. This complaint was filed with the Commission on August 18, 1999. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a August 25, 1999, meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On July 8, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Lyle Tunheim, Andover, South Dakota, against MCI WorldCom regarding increase in rates without notice. The Complainant indicates that he was contacted by a telemarketer representing MCI offering a rate of 10 cents per minute for long distance calling. The Complainant then received a billing in which he was charged up to $3.04 per minute. The Complainant wishes the billing to be rerated to 10 cents per minute. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a September 8, 1999, meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On October 25, 1999, the Commission received a formal complaint from David and Lisa Neuharth of Fort Pierre, South Dakota, against Excel Telecommunications for unauthorized billing for services. Complainants indicate that the telephone located in their ranch bunkhouse was put "on vacation" by Golden West at the complainants' request. That phone remains on vacation. The Complainants allege that they received a welcome letter from Excel Telecommunications addressed to Ranch Tenant on October 19, 1999. The Complainants contend that they did not authorize those 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 October 25, 1999, the Commission received a formal complaint from Lynne and Rod Flint, Doland, South Dakota, against MCI WorldCom for unauthorized switching of services. Complainants allege their long distance provider was switched without their authorization. Complainants request that the $1000 fine be awarded to them, all charges to their account be removed, and that the Commission impose a fine.
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, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Lynda Sederstrom of Madison, South Dakota, against Sprint regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainant alleges that her instate long distance provider was switched without her authorization. The complainant is requesting a credit to her phone bill for any Sprint charges. On November 8, 1999, Complainant alleged unauthorized changes were made by U S WEST and that certain charges made by US WEST were at inappropriate rates. The complainant is also seeking any damages allowed under South Dakota laws, rules or policies for unauthorized switching of 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 November 1, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Patrick L. Corbin, Rapid City, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding delayed installation of telephone service. Mr. Corbin states that on September 8, 1999, he requested service installation for their new address. U S WEST promised an installation date of September 10, 1999. They still do not have service. The Complainant requests that U S WEST should establish one person to be responsible for an account, compensate the Complainants for their time and inconvenience, and make U S WEST aware that "they are dealing with human beings who have feelings and needs."
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 November 2, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Scott and Tami Jung alleging that their long distance service was switched without authorization. The Complainants request compensation deemed to be fair and legal.
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 November 5, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Storbeck Trucking, Inc. against Sprint Communications regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainant is asking to have it corrected and for any other amounts 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?
Natural Gas
On June 1, 1999, the Commission received an application from NorthWestern Public Service, a division of Northwestern Corporation, for an increase in rates for natural gas service in South Dakota. The Company has requested that the proposed increase of $2,108,112 or approximately 6.3% become effective July 1, 1999. The Commission suspended the imposition of the tariff through December 1. On October 19, 1999 staff submitted a settlement agreement between NWPS and Commission Staff. A hearing in this matter was held October 20, 1999. On November 1, 1999, the Commission approved the settlement agreement. The settlement requires that new tariffs be filed with the Commission.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed rate case tariff revisions?
On October 8, 1999, the Commission received a filing by NorthWestern Public Service Company for approval of a refund plan relating to rate case refunds received from Northern Natural Gas Company. NorthWestern Public Service (NorthWestern) received rate case refunds in the amount of $507,041 from Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) in September, 1999. Per the currently effective NorthWestern tariff, any refunds in excess of $500,000 require the company to file a refund plan before the Commission and the Commission shall determine the method of refund.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed refund plan?
Telecommunications
On November 2, 1998, the Commission received a complaint by Don Jiracek against McLeod USA. The Complainant claims that a delay of installation of telephone service caused loss of income. The Complainant is seeking $33,000 in damages for lost business. On December 7, 1998, the Commission ordered a finding of probable cause to go forward with this complaint. The Commission approved the amendments to the complaint on December 14, 1998. A hearing in this matter was held on April 15, 1999. The Commission issued its decision order on August 18, 1999. GSA filed a petition for rehearing on September 13, 1999. On September 24, 1999, the Commission received a Petition for Rehearing Regarding Damages from staff. The parties have asked to argue the Petition at this meeting.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
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. On September 29, 1999, Dickey Rural Telephone Cooperative and Dickey Rural Communications, Inc., filed their dialing parity plans as ordered by the Commission. On October 19, 1999 the Commission requested changes to the customer notification letter.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the dialing parity plan?
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.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On June 17, 1999, the Commission received an application by DIECA Communications, Inc. d/b/a Covad Communications Company for a certificate of authority to provide telecommunications services, including local exchange services, in South Dakota. DIECA intends to provide both facilities-based and resold interexchange and local exchange services. DIECA requests authority to provide services throughout U S West and any other incumbent local exchange carrier territories not qualifying as small or rural local exchange carriers.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to DIECA Communications, Inc.?
On February 22, 1999, U S WEST Communications, Inc. filed for approval of an interconnection agreement between U S WEST Communications, Inc. and DIECA Communications, Inc. d/b/a Covad Communications Company. Any party wishing to comment on the agreement had until March 17, 1999, to do so.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the interconnection agreement?
On May 28, 1999, AT&T filed its Access Services and Interconnection Services Tariff with the Commission. This tariff contains regulations, rates and charges applicable to the provisions of 1) intrastate Access Services provided to customers by AT&T, and 2) certain Network Interconnections Services provided to carriers within the State of South Dakota. AT&T is assuming that Commission approval is not needed because this is a business service only and AT&T serves less than 50,000 local exchange subscribers. No parties filed to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission approved AT&T's proposed access services and interconnection services tariff?
On September 10, 1999, TON Services Inc. filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to offer resold interexchange services, specifically prepaid card service, to residential and business customers in South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to TON Services, Inc.?
On August 27, 1999, @link Networks, Inc. filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to offer resold local exchange and interexchange services to residential and business customers in South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to @link Network, Inc.?
On September 15, 1999, P.D.S., Inc. d/b/a Phone Debit Systems, Inc. filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to offer resold interexchange services to residential and business customers in South Dakota. Phone Debit Systems also intends to offer debit card services.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to P.D.S., Inc.?
10. TC99-097 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING FOR APPROVAL OF AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN FORT RANDALL TELEPHONE COMPANY AND DAKOTA TELECOM, INC. AND DAKOTA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. (Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On September 21, 1999, Fort Randall Telephone Company, Dakota Telecom, Inc. and Dakota Telecommunications Systems, Inc. filed a negotiated Interconnection Agreement which purports to resolve all issues between the parties for reciprocal traffic exchange, interconnection, resale of local services, selection of local carriers, access to telephone numbers, dialing parity, directory and customer listing issues, referral announcement and call forwarding, repair services and the audit process. Comments were due October 15, 1999.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the interconnection agreement?
On October 8, 1999, U S WEST Communications pursuant to SDCL 49-31-3.2 and ARSD 20:10:24:11 filed to reclassify directory assistance and related services from noncompetitive to fully competitive. U S WEST Communications requests confidential treatment of 1998 South Dakota Results Noncompetitive Services - Directory Assistance Services and of Proprietary U S WEST Call Volumes, "Share". A hearing in this matter is scheduled for November 23, 1999. On November 4, 1999, U S WEST and Commission Staff filed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with the Commission. There were no intervenors in this matter.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the Stipulation and settlement Agreement entered into between U S WEST and Staff?
12. TC99-099 IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY TO RECLASSIFY U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.'S INTRALATA TOLL AND WIDE-AREA TELEPHONE SERVICES. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
Upon its own motion and pursuant to its August 26, 1999, order, the Commission opened this docket to determine whether to reclassify intraLATA toll and wide-area telephone services from "emerging competitive" to "fully competitive" as permitted by SDCL 49-31-3.2. The intervention deadline was October 8, 1999. On November 1, 1999, the Commission granted intervention to Sprint and Telecommunications Resellers Association. A hearing in this matter is scheduled for November 22, 1999. On November 4, 1999, U S WEST and Commission Staff filed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with the Commission. On November 8, 1999, Sprint notified the Commission it is satisfied with the result of the agreement.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the Stipulation and settlement Agreement entered into between U S WEST and Staff?
13. IN THE MATTER OF ESTABLISHING DIFFERENT RATES FOR INTERCONNECTION AND UNES IN AT LEAST THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS PURSUANT TO SECTION 51.507(F) OF THE FCC'S RULES. (General Counsel: Rolayne Wiest.)
In August of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued its Local Competition Order implementing section 251 of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 51.507(f) required each state commission to establish different rates for interconnection and unbundled network elements (UNEs) in at least three geographic areas within the state to reflect geographic cost differences. The Eighth Circuit subsequently stayed and then vacated the deaveraging rule. Based on those decisions, the Commission did not establish different rates for different geographic areas. However, in January of 1999, the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit's decision. On May 7, 1999, the FCC stayed the effectiveness of the rule in order to allow states additional time to comply with the rule. By order released November 2, 1999, the FCC ruled that the stay will be lifted on May 1, 2000. In the Matter of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Ninth Report and Order and Eighteenth Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket 96-45, FCC 99-306, paragraph 120 (released Nov. 2, 1999). The order provides that by May 1, 2000, "states are required to establish different rates for interconnection and UNEs in at least three geographic areas pursuant to section 51.507(f) of the Commission's rules." Id.
TODAY, shall the Commission open a docket to establish different rates for interconnection and UNEs in at least three geographic areas pursuant to section 51.507(f) of the FCC's rules?
14. IN THE MATTER OF ISSUING ORDERS AGAINST WESTERN TELECOM AND TOUCHTONE COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE UNAUTHORIZED BILLING OF PRODUCTS OR SERVICES. (General Counsel: Rolayne Wiest.)
The Commissioners request to issue Orders to Show Cause against Western Telecom and Touchtone Communications as to why the companies should not be assessed civil fines or other penalties pursuant to SDCL 49-31-38 through 49-31-38.3 or assessed civil fines of not more than $20,000 for each alleged violation of SDCL 49-31-89 to 49-31-97, inclusive and ARSD Chapter 20:10:34 pursuant to SDCL 49-31-94. The Commissioners also request that the Commission order Western Telecom and Touchtone Communications to provide the Commission with a complete list of its current subscribers, including the subscribers' billing addresses pursuant to 49-31-95. Touchtone Communications and Western Telecom appear to be affiliated companies. Since January 1, 1999, the Commission has received 30 formal and informal complaints against Touchtone Communications and 10 formal and informal complaints against Western Telecom alleging unauthorized billing of services or products.
TODAY, shall the Commission issue Orders to Show Cause against Western Telecom and Touchtone Communications as to why the companies should not be assessed civil fines or other penalties pursuant to SDCL 49-31-38 through 49-31-38.3 or assessed a civil fine of not more than $20,000 for each alleged violation of SDCL 49-31-89 to 49-31-97, inclusive, and ARSD Chapter 20:10:34? In addition, shall the Commission order Western Telecom and Touchtone Communications to provide the Commission with a complete list of its current subscribers, including the subscribers' billing addresses pursuant to SDCL 49-31-95?
Administration
1. IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES WITH MICHAEL J. MYERS. (Executive Director: Bill Bullard.)
A June 24, 1999, meeting the Commission approved a contract for Legal Services with Michael J. Myers, Centerville, South Dakota. The contract commenced on June 27, 1999 and concluded no later than September 17, 1999, in an amount not to exceed $18,000.00. Since the contract has expired, staff has asked to enter into a new contract for services, in an amount not to exceed $200.00 with the same scope as the original contract.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the contract?
Announcements
1. Commissioners and staff will be attending the NARUC meeting on November 7-11, 1999, in San Antonio, Texas.
2. The Commission offices will be closed on November 11, 1999, in observance of Veterans Day.
3. A hearing in docket CT99-026 (Raker v USWC) will be held on November 17, 1999, at 1:00pm MST in Rapid City.
4. A hearing in docket CT99-023 (Schuelke v USWC) will be held on November 18, 1999, at 9:00am MST in Rapid City.
5. A hearing in docket TC99-099 (USWC reclassification) will be held on November 22, 1999, at 9:00am in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
6. A hearing in docket TC99-098 (USWC reclassify directory assistance) will be held on November 23, 1999, at 9:00am in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
7. A hearing in docket CT99-043 (Suing v AT&T) will be held on November 30, 1999, at 1:30pm, at the Oaks Hotel and Convention Center in Sioux Falls.
8. A hearing in docket CT99-028 (Hamption Inn v USWC) will be held on December 1, 1999, at 9am, at the Oaks Hotel and Convention Center in Sioux Falls.
9. A hearing in docket CT99-029 (Baus v Excel) will be held on December 2, 1999, at 9am, at the Oaks Hotel and Convention Center in Sioux Falls.
10. A hearing in docket CT99-032 (Reidy v Sprint) will be held on December 2, 1999, at 1pm, at the Oaks Hotel and Convention Center in Sioux Falls.
11. A hearing in docket CT99-042 (Muchow v Creative Opportunities) will be held on December 6, 1999, at 1:30pm CST, in Room 464 of the State Capitol in Pierre.
12. A hearing in docket CT99-040 (Ham v Qwest Communications) will be held on December 7, 1999, at 1:30pm CST, in Room 464 of the State Capitol in Pierre.
13. A hearing in docket CT99-045 (GSA v Qwest Communications) will be held on December 8, 1999, at 1:30pm CST, in Room 464 of the State Capitol in Pierre.
14. A hearing in docket CT99-041 (Cook v Budget Call) will be held on December 9, 1999, at 10am, at the Spink County Courthouse in Redfield, South Dakota.
15. A hearing in docket CT99-004 (Frankenstein v USWC) will be held on December 9, 1999, at 12:30pm, at the Spink County Courthouse in Redfield, South Dakota.
16. A hearing in docket CT99-018 (Hatch v Qwest Communications, WCS Telecom and Western Communications, Inc.) is scheduled for 1:30pm on December 15, 1999, in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
17. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Monday, November 29, 1999, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
Sue.Cichos@state.sd.us
November 8, 1999
