Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, December 28, 1999; 1:30 P.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 412
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 December 27, 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 December 14, 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 3,120 consumer contacts during 1999. 123 contacts have been received since the December 14, 1999, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 115 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 72 of the contacts involved the unauthorized switching of service; 12 contacts concerned higher rates than promised; 7 contacts involved poor service; 4 billing errors were reported; 4 contacts concerned the inability to disconnect service; 4 contacts concerned the unauthorized billing for services; and the remaining issues included delayed installation, deposits, disconnection, fees, repair, telemarketing and toll blocking.
ELECTRICITY: 5 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 2 of the contacts involved disconnection; and the remaining issues were billing, surcharges and taped calls.
NATURAL GAS: 3 contacts involving natural gas were reported. All of the contacts involved billing issues.
2,112 complaints have been resolved informally during 1999.
On December 8, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Mrs. Robert Binfet, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant claims that she received a call from a telemarketer representing her local phone company. As a result of this call, the Complainant's long distance service was switched. The Complainant is seeking to have the charges removed and a fine assessed.
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 December 8, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Sandy Curran, Sisseton, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant indicates that as a result of a sales call, she switched her long distance service. The rates and fees which appeared on her billing were not the rates and fees promised.
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 December 9, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Christa Hansen, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant noticed that her billing was twice as high as it was normally. After reviewing her billing, she determined that her service was switched to OLS. The Complainant recalls a telemarketing firm representing themselves as U S WEST calling her to discuss billing changes. The Complainant believes her long distance service was switched through this deception. The Complainant requests that the "PUC should go after this company and make them pay. They should not allow them to do business in any state."
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 December 7, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Donald D. Wynia, Tyndall, South Dakota, against Opex Communications, also doing business as Cognigen regarding faulty billing practices. The Complainant requested a toll free number which restricted access to neighboring states. The billings included a majority of calls for Texas agencies, specifically the Texas Unemployment Office. The Complainant tried multiple times to resolve the issue without success. The Complainant is requesting removal of errant charges and implementation of restricted blocks as promised.
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 December 7, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Sun Gold Trophies, Mitchell, South Dakota, against Midco Communications, Inc. d/b/a Midcontinent Communications, Inc. and MCI WorldCom regarding poor service. Sun Gold Trophies is seeking compensation in regards to the loss of their 1-800 number. The number was assigned to another business without their knowledge. The Complainant is asking that the "number be put in limo for 6 months" and is also asking for 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 December 7, 1999, the Commission received a Complaint filed by Harlan L. Hammer, Sisseton, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant received a telemarketing call from a representative of OLS indicating he could get 7 cents per minute with no minimum fee. When the Complainant received his billing, he did not receive the promised rates, terms or conditions. The Complainant is seeking penalties on behalf of all people who were switched to OLS.
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 December 10, 1999, the Commission received a Complaint filed by Darrell Finwall, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant received a call in October from someone claiming to be U S WEST to discuss billing arrangements. As a result of that call the Complainant's long distance service was switched to OLS.
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 December 13, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Jeanette Hansen, Yankton, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant was contacted by someone identifying themselves as an employee of U S WEST. As a result of this conversation, her service was switched to OLS. She is seeking justice and protection.
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 December 13, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Richard L. Dixon, DeSmet, South Dakota, against Telephone Billing Services and RTR Consultants regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainant claims that there were charges for calls on his telephone bill that were not made by him. The Complainant would like the charges removed from his phone 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 December 14, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Hazel Matteson, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant indicated that she was contacted by a telemarketer claiming to represent her local telephone company to discuss billing changes. As a result her service was switched to OLS. She requests that all the charges and change fees be credited to the account.
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 December 14, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Ruth Wilcox, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant claims that she was contacted in October to switch her service. The Complainant claims she declined the service but her service was switched anyway. She is requesting that all charges be removed from her 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 December 14, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Mary E. Bowen, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant received a call from someone representing themselves as an AT&T employee to discuss billing changes. As a result, her service was switched to OLS. She wants her service restored to AT&T and charges removed.
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 December 15, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Keith Enstad, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant indicates that his long distance service was switched to OLS without authorization. As a result of the switch, the Complainant incurred charges and fees which were higher than expected. The Complainant requests restoration of service, compensation for higher fees and charges, and compensation for his time straightening out the problem.
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 December 14, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Myron Mork, Pierpont, SD, against One Star Long Distance, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainant claims being switched to One Star Long Distance, Inc. without authorization. The Complainant thinks signatures should be required for changes.
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 December 17, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Glenn and Delores Beutow, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainants received a call resulting in a long distance carrier switch. They would like to see the responsible people pay all the costs for reconnecting to AT&T.
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 December 17, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Rodney Mick on behalf of Farmers Union Coop Elevator, Kennebec, South Dakota, against U S Republic Communications, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainant indicates that an unauthorized switch was made from AT&T to U.S. Republic Communications. The complainant is requesting reimbursement for wrongfully billed charges, to be switched back to AT&T and to impose any fees or fines to keep U S Republic from doing this again.
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 December 17, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Rodney Mick on behalf of Farmers Union Coop Elevator, Kennebec, South Dakota, against Preferred Billing regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complaint indicates that U.S. Billing has been charging for services even though AT&T is the carrier. The complainant is requesting reimbursement from U.S. Billing, to be switched back to AT&T and to impose any fees or fines to keep Preferred Billing from doing this again.
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?
Electric
Sioux Falls ordinances require Northern States Power Company (NSP) to relocate overhead facilities in the downtown Sioux Falls area to underground whenever the adjacent streets are resurfaced. Certain streets in downtown Sioux Falls were resurfaced in 1999. The NSP Tariff provides that NSP will comply with lawful orders of a municipality and that NSP will charge the cost of the project to the benefitted customers. South Dakota Electric Rate Book, Section No. 6, Original Sheet No. 29, Section 5.5 (effective 12-16-96). NSP determined that the benefitted customers in this matter were NSP's Sioux Falls customers. NSP determined that the breakdown of the cost of this project to the individual customers will be approximately $2.00/household and will be placed on the November 1999 bills.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
Telecommunications
On April 28, 1999, East Plains Telecom, Inc. filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On April 29, 1999, Vivian Telephone Company filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On May 3, 1999, U S WEST Communications filed for Commission approval Access Service Tariff pages implementing U S WEST's IntraLATA Toll Dialing Parity Plan. U S WEST has filed an Equal Access and Network Reconfiguration Recovery Charge and rates, terms and conditions for presubscription. SDITC and AT&T have filed to intervene in this matter. Deadline for intervention was May 21, 1999. Intervention was granted to SDITC and AT&T. A hearing in this matter was scheduled for September 30-October 1, 1999. On September 3, 1999, the Commission received a late filed Petition to Intervene from Sprint Corporation. A regularly scheduled meeting of September 8, 1999, the Commission denied Sprint's intervention request. On September 13, 1999, U S WEST filed a motion for a 30-day continuance. Staff and intervenor testimony was due September 17, 1999. On September 17, 1999, AT&T filed a motion for Extension of Time to File Testimony and requested that the Commission allow AT&T through September 23, 1999, to file its testimony. A Stipulation and Settlement Agreement was filed with the Commission on November 1, 1999. A settlement meeting was held on November 2, 1999. The amended Stipulation and Settlement Agreement was received on November 30, 1999. The Commission approved the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement at the December 14, 1999, regular meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the revised tariff pages?
On May 3, 1999, Mt. Rushmore Telephone Company and Fort Randall Telephone Company filed a combined switched access cost study similar to an interstate filing with a combined study area. The switched access rates will be used by both companies. Mt. Rushmore was granted a waiver from filing switched access cost studies in TC93-034.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On June 7, 1999, Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association. It should be noted that the revenue requirement reflects the former Intrastate Telephone Company, Inc. and Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. as one entity. Intrastate Telephone Company, Inc. was rolled into Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc., therefore, the revenue requirement was developed on that consolidated basis.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed revenue requirement?
On June 23, 1999, Splitrock Telecom Cooperative, Inc. filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On June 23, 1999, Midstate Telephone Company and Heartland Communications, Inc. filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On June 23, 1999, Valley Telecommunications Cooperative Association and Valley Cable & Satellite Communications filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On June 23, 1999, Sully Buttes Telephone Cooperative, Inc. and Venture Communications, Inc. filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On June 28, 1999, the Local Exchange Carrier Association filed tariff sheets implementing the switched access rates necessitated by revisions to its member companies' revenue requirements and switched access minutes of use. There is also one textual correction included in this filing. LECA submitted revised tariff sheets on December 16, 1999, to reflect the revenue requirement determined by staff.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On June 28, 1999, Stateline Telecommunications, Inc. filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On June 28, 1999, Brookings City Municipal Telephone Department filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On June 28, 1999, McCook Cooperative Telephone Company filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On June 28, 1999, Sanborn Telephone Cooperative filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On June 28, 1999, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On June 29, 1999, U S WEST Communications filed a switched access cost study "specifically in compliance with ARSD 20:10:27:07....U S WEST Communications is not asking for the Commission to change the switched access rate schedules at this time."
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On June 29, 1999, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
18. TC99-075 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SWITCHED ACCESS REVENUE REQUIREMENT FOR MOBRIDGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY. (Staff Analysts: Harlan Best/Keith Senger. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On June 29, 1999, Mobridge Telecommunications Company filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association. Mobridge Telecommunications Company requests that the Commission allow the use of GVNW's cost study model as opposed to the Commission model for determining Mobridge Telecommunications Company's revenue requirement.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On July 1, 1999, Tri-County Telcom, Inc. filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On July 1, 1999, Tri-County Telcom, Inc. filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On July 1, 1999, Sioux Valley Telephone Company filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On July 1, 1999, DTG Community Telephone filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve staff's recommended revenue requirement?
On July 9, 1999, Ozark Telecom, Inc. filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a reseller of interexchange telecommunications services throughout South Dakota. Ozark Telecom intends to offer 1+ and 101XXXX direct outbound dialing, Toll-Free inbound dialing, travel card and prepaid calling card service.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Ozark Telecom, Inc.?
On November 23, 1999, NetLojix Telecom, Inc. filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a reseller of intrastate interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. NetLojix Telecom intends to offer direct dialed 1+ service, inbound/outbound message telecommunications service, switched and dedicated services, toll free service and post-paid calling service to and from all points within the State of South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to NetLojix, Inc.?
On November 23, 1999, the Commission received an interconnection agreement between New Edge Network, Inc. d/b/a New Edge Networks and U S WEST Communications, Inc. The agreement governs services for resale and certain unbundled network elements, ancillary functions and additional features (collectively referred to as "Network Elements") for New Edge Networks' offering and provisioning of telecommunications services. The agreement addresses interconnection and reciprocal compensation for the exchange of local traffic. Comments were due by December 17, 1999.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the interconnection agreement?
On December 2, 1999, the Commission received a Petition from McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. for a Declaratory Ruling on whether the discontinuance of the retail sale of voice messaging service by U S WEST Communications, Inc. to McLeodUSA violates SDCL 49-31-11. The petition by McLeodUSA as summarized states: U S WEST Communications (U S WEST) offers Voice Messaging Service (VMS) pursuant to its South Dakota Exchange and Network Services Catalog. There is nothing in the catalog that restricts the selling of VMS to residential or business customers either to individual customers, in bulk or in large numbers, or for any customer to then resell to others. McLeodUSA, as a service to its customers, buys VMS from U S WEST under the terms and conditions of U S WEST's catalog and at the retail prices published by U S WEST in the catalog. McLeodUSA then resells the VMS to its customers at the same rate, and under the same terms and conditions, as in the catalog. The purchase and resale of VMS is not done pursuant to a resale agreement or pursuant to any wholesale discount required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. On September 22, 1999, McLeodUSA became aware for the first time that the sale of VMS by U S WEST in South Dakota to McLeodUSA would be discontinued. The only reason stated for this action by U S WEST is that it is not required to sell VMS for resale by companies. Despite attempts to have the decision concerning the retail provisioning of VMS to McLeodUSA changed, U S WEST is now prepared to disconnect over 400 VMS customers in South Dakota because they are also customers of a competitor, McLeodUSA. McLeodUSA may be successful in keeping these customers on a VMS platform provided by McLeodUSA or another vendor, but at a cost for local transport, much of which is controlled by and must be purchased from U S WEST. There is no good or justifiable business reason to single out the purchase at retail of VMS by a competitor, who then resells the service, as a target for making the service not available as described in the catalog. This is just another attempt by U S WEST to inhibit competition in its South Dakota local exchange market in violation of explicit state law prohibiting such discriminatory conduct. The discontinuance of the retail sale of VMS by U S WEST to McLeodUSA for purposes of resale is an unjust and unreasonably discriminatory action by U S WEST in violation of SDCL 49-31-11.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
Announcements
1. The Commission offices will be closed on December 24, 1999, in observance of Christmas and on December 31, 1999 in observance of New Year's.
2. A rules hearing is scheduled for January 10, 2000, at 9am CST, in room 468 of the State Capitol.
3. Commissioners and staff will be attending a MARC conference on January 20-22, 2000.
4. A hearing in docket CT99-046 (Noble v Preferred Billing) will be held on January 26, 2000, at 1:30pm CST, in Room 468 of the State Capitol in Pierre.
5. A hearing in docket CT99-048 (Neuharth v Excel) will be held on January 27, 2000, at 1:30pm CST, in Room 468 of the State Capitol in Pierre.
6. A hearing in docket TC99-107 (Show Cause of Western Telecom/Touchtone) will be held at 9am CST, on February 1, 2000, at the Chamber of Commerce Meeting Room in Pierre, South Dakota.
7. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Thursday, January 6, 2000, at 1:30pm CST in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
Sue.Cichos@state.sd.us
December 21, 1999
