Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Thursday, January 6, 2000; 10:30 A.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 January 5, 2000. 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 28, 1999. (Staff: Shirleen Fugitt.)
Complaint Dockets
Steve Willis, on behalf of 72 Thomas, LLC, filed a formal complaint with the Commission on December 15, 1999. The Complainant alleges that Northern States Power Company transferred outstanding balances of previous tenants to the limited liability company without approval. The Complainant requests a detailed listing of account transfers, a credit for inappropriate transfers, and a review of Northern States Power Company's transfer policy.
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. A regularly scheduled meeting of August 17, 1999, the Commission found probable cause in this matter and ordered Respondent to provide a written answer to the complaint. A hearing was scheduled for September 23, 1999. On September 15, 1999, Complainant's attorney filed a motion for a continuance of the hearing. A continuance was granted at the September 21, 1999, Commission meeting. A hearing was rescheduled for October 27, 1999. On October 15, 1999, the Commission received a Motion To Dismiss from Qwest Corporation. On October 22, 1999, the Commission received a request to amend the Complaint filed by John and Shirley Hatch to add WCS Telecom and WCS Telecom's customer, Western Communications, Inc. The October 27 hearing was cancelled. A November 1, 1999, the Commission denied Qwest's motion to dismiss and granted a request to amend the complaint. A hearing was scheduled for December 15. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On November 8, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Tom and Corliss Vergeldt, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against MCI. The Complainants allege that a telemarketer promised they would get a rate of 5 cents per minute, any time of the day or night. The Complainants claim they questioned the telemarketer twice to confirm the rate. When they received the material sent by MCI, the Complainants discovered that their rates were not as described by the telemarketer. The Complainants called the numbers provided several times to get the service canceled. A representative of MCI indicated that they were not customers of MCI. They received a billing with high rates from MCI. The Complainants are seeking to have the charges dismissed, a $1000 damage award and a $20,000 fine levied.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On November 23, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Frank and Dorothy Vavra, Gregory, South Dakota, against Qwest Communications, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainants allege that their long distance service was switched to Qwest without authorization. The Complainants are requesting that all charges and the $5 switching fee be removed, that Qwest pay all associated fees for pursuing the complaint and that the Commission impose appropriate fines and penalties.
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 20, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Lela O. Wiese, Madison, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant indicates that as a result of deceptive telemarketing, her long distance service was switched.
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 20, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Carol Bullene, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant says that she was contacted by an individual claiming to represent U S WEST who assured her that no changes would be made. Her service was switched as a result of that call. The Complainant wants all charges refunded and OLS's service restricted.
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 20, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Jerry Ogan on behalf of Ogan Construction, Blunt, South Dakota, against Sprint Communications Company L.P. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainant indicates that his long distance service was switched without his authorization. For relief, the Complainant requests that the Commission apply all appropriate rules and laws.
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 22, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Tim Sachtjen, Pierre, South Dakota, against Qwest Communications, Inc. regarding billing issues. The Complainant claims he was offered 5 cents per minute for interstate long distance. Later he was told it would be 9 cents per minute decreasing to 5 cents per minute depending on the length of the call. He was also charged for calls which were not answered. The Complainant requests that the company be investigated.
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 23, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Kenneth Erickson, Watertown, South Dakota, against WilTel, Inc. and OLS, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainant alleges that OLS took his long distance service without authorization. The Complainant is asking that South Dakota laws and rules be applied to these issues.
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 23, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by James Melgaard, Pierre, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. and Sprint Communications Company L.P. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainant states that an unauthorized switch was made from AT&T to Sprint. He has only used the VarTec dial around for interstate long distance calls. The complainant wants the calls to be rerated to $0.10 per minute plus tax and a credit for all overcharges billed by Sprint and U S West. The complainant also requests a letter from U S WEST stating there will be no further billings by U S WEST or Sprint for interstate calls.
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
1. EL99-012 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY OTTER TAIL POWER COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF ELECTRIC SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THE SUPPLY OF BULK INTERRUPTIBLE POWER BETWEEN OTTER TAIL POWER COMPANY AND VALLEY QUEEN CHEESE FACTORY, INC. (Staff Analyst: Michele Farris. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On June 25, 1999, the Commission received a filing from Otter Tail Power Company in accordance with SDCL 49-34A and the Commission's previous Order Approving Agreement dated October 23, 1989, Docket F-3837 for an Electric Service Agreement for the Supply of Bulk Interruptible Power between Otter Tail Power Company and Valley Queen Cheese Factory, Inc. The matter was deferred at the December 14, 1999, meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the filing by Otter Tail Power Company?
On December 17, 1999, the Commission received a filing by MidAmerican Energy Company for approval of Tariff Revisions. MidAmerican Energy Company is filing to revise the South Dakota Electric Tariff No. 1 to add energy and maintenance price codes for the 70-watt, 100-watt and 1000-watt high pressure sodium outdoor lights.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
Telecommunications
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. A hearing for this matter was scheduled for March 16, 1999 in Pierre. 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 indicated that "affidavit no longer reflects the position of U S WEST." The letter went on to raise the question of now expanding the issues before the Commission. Also in U S WEST's letter it stated "...an expanded hearing will necessitate some discovery and more extensive preparation." A hearing in this matter was held on April 27, 1999. The Commission deferred action on this docket indefinitely a August 17, 1999, meeting. On September 17, 1999, staff filed a petition for reconsideration as to the issue posed to the Commission in staff's original filing. On October 6, 1999, USWC filed its answer to staff's petition for reconsideration. Staff has requested that this matter be heard at today's meeting.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
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. The matter was heard and deferred at the December 28, 1999, meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the revised 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. The matter was heard and deferred at the December 28, 1999, meeting.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
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. The matter was heard and deferred at the December 28, 1999, meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the revised 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. The matter was heard and deferred at the December 28, 1999, meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the revised 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. The matter was heard and deferred at the December 28, 1999, meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the revised revenue requirement?
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. The matter was heard and deferred at the December 28, 1999, meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the revised revenue requirement?
On August 25, 1999, AS Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a ALLSTAR Telecom filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to offer resold intrastate interexchange services, including, but not limited to, 1+ telecommunications service, and toll free, private line, and travel card services.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to AS Telecommunications, Inc.?
On November 4, 1999, Connect!LD, Inc. (Connect!) filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to offer presubscribed "1+" and toll free inbound services throughout South Dakota. Connect! intends to offer its services to business and residential customers.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Connect!LD, Inc.?
On December 6, 1999, Dakota Telecom, Inc. filed to Amend its Certificate of Authority to allow Dakota Telecom, Inc. to provide service to the Jefferson, South Dakota Exchange. On October 22, 1996, Dakota Telecom, Inc. (DTI) was granted a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services, including local exchange services, throughout the State of South Dakota. This grant was subject to the Commission's restriction with respect to rural telephone companies. DTI is requesting that the Commission amend its previous Order granting DTI its certificate and grant DTI the authority to provide service to the entire exchange of Jefferson, South Dakota, an exchange currently served by Long Lines, Inc. d/b/a Jefferson Telephone company, a rural telephone company as that term is defined in federal and state law. On December 23, 1999, Jefferson Telephone Company filed a Petition to Intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to Jefferson Telephone Company? AND, how shall the Commission proceed?
Announcements
1. The Commission offices will be closed 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. Camron Hoseck will be attending FERC training on January 11-14, 2000.
4. Commissioners and staff will be attending a MARC conference on January 20-22, 2000.
5. A hearing in docket CT99-041 (Cook v Budget Call Long Distance) will be held on January 18, 2000, at 1:30pm CST, in Room 468 of the State Capitol in Pierre.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, January 18, 2000, at 1:30pm CST in Room 468 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
Sue.Cichos@state.sd.us
December 30, 1999
