Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, January 18, 2000; 1:30 P.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 468
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 14, 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 January 6, 2000. (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 77 consumer contacts during 2000.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 65 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 37 of the contacts involved the unauthorized switching of telecommunications services; 5 contacts concerned increase in rates without notice; 4 contacts concerned the unauthorized billing for products or services; 3 contacts involved disconnections; 3 contacts involved assessment of fees without notice; and the remaining issues were billing, won't cancel, won't install, discrimination, double billing, held order, rates, loss of 800 numbers, poor quality, and telemarketing.
ELECTRICITY: 7 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 3 of the contacts involved disconnections, and the remaining issues were budget plans, billing, faulty meter, and right of way.
NATURAL GAS: 5 contacts involving natural gas were reported. Those issues were billing, budget plan, gas leak, past due billing, and reduced rates.
A total of 17 complaints have been resolved informally during 2000.
On September 3, 1998, the Commission received a complaint by Loretta Spear against U S WEST Communications regarding updating lines. Complainant raises service issues including static on their lines, service disruptions, delayed repairs, and inability to receive Caller ID subscription. The Complainant requests the following relief: "Insure that credit is given for Caller ID and 3 weeks without telephone service. Also resolution to updating telephone service in the area." A hearing in this matter was held on December 15, 1998. Staff requested deferral of this matter at the June 8, 1999, Commission meeting. The Commission made its decision at the July 27, 1999, regular meeting. On September 17, 1999, U S WEST filed a Petition for Reconsideration with the Commission.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the request for reconsideration? AND, how shall the Commission proceed?
On March 19, 1999, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) received a complaint filed by Randy Kieffer, Sturgis, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. Complainant alleged that his service continues to be deficient, that he suffered several outages during the month of March, and that his phone service is not dependable for emergencies and family purposes. A hearing was held in this matter on June 2, 1999, in Sturgis, SD. The matter was deferred at the September 21, 1999, regular meeting.
TODAY, the Commission requests an update from the parties concerning the complainant's current service.
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. The Commission found probable cause against Sprint a January 6, 2000, regular meeting. On January 5, 2000, the Commission received an amendment to the complaint requesting to include Crusade Communications as a Respondent.
TODAY, shall the Commission amend the complaint to include Crusade Communications? AND, 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 Crusade Communications?
On December 28, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Dan Grider of Baltic, South Dakota, against Qwest regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainant alleges that his long distance provider was switched to Qwest without his authorization.
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 30, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Robert Fogg, Jr. of Martin, South Dakota, against AT&T regarding deceptive business practices and advertising. The complainant alleges that he was offered 7 cents per minute for all long distance interstate calls during the hours of
7 AM to 7 PM Monday through Friday, and 5 cents per minute for the balance of the week. In addition, he was offered 120 free minutes each month for the next six months. The complainant further alleges that once AT&T became aware that he lives in South Dakota, the offer was withdrawn. Mr. Fogg is
requesting a full refund of all charges in excess of the 7 cents per minute, the rates that he was offered, 120 free minutes of interstate long distance for 6 months, and a fine imposed against AT&T in the amount of $10,000/day.
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 30, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Banner Associates, Inc., Brookings, South Dakota, against NOS Communications, Inc. regarding billing issues. The Complainant alleges that a salesperson offered a rate of 7.9 cents per minute for interstate calls and 14.9 cents per minute for intrastate calls. When questioned the salesperson verified the rate and stated there would be no other charges. The first two months the rates were honored, he subsequent months were billed at a higher rate. The complainant was told they were being billed those rates per call unit and a call unit was not equivalent to a minute. Complainant entered an agreement contingent on a per minute rate and not a call unit rate. The Complainant is requesting restitution for the amount they were billed over and above the agreed upon rate of 7.9 cents per minute and 14.9 cents per minute for interstate and intrastate calls respectively. They are also requesting that NOS Communications be required to inform their prospective customers verbally and in writing of their billing method so as not to mislead future customers.
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 January 7, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by William G. Kissel, against Qwest Communications, Inc. The complaint indicates Mr. Kissel was switched to Qwest without authorization. The complainant requests the following relief: "The removal of any and all charges from Qwest from my phone bills, and any charges made to switch me from AT&T to Qwest and from Qwest back to AT&T. I find this sort of business practice (slamming) despicable and wan topped by any means available to the State of South Dakota. If there are fines and penalties that can be levied against Qwest, then I ask you to pursue any such actions on my behalf. I understand that penalties/fines of $1000 for the victim (me) and a $20,000 fine to the State are possible. Please go after Qwest and charge them those penalties and fines."
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?
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. The matter was heard and taken under advisement at the January 6, 2000, meeting.
TODAY, what is the Commission's decision?
On October 25, 1999, NEXTLINK Long Distance Services, Inc. (NEXTLINK) filed for a Certificate of Authority to offer interexchange telecommunication services in South Dakota. NEXTLINK intends to provide its services to small and medium-sized businesses.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to NEXTLINK?
On November 12, 1999, PromiseVision Technology, Inc. filed for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. PromiseVision Technology, Inc. intends to provide resold outbound presubscribed services and calling card services to both residential and business customers.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to PromiseVision Technology, Inc.?
On July 23, 1999, U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) and Venture Communications, Inc. (VCI) a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sully Buttes Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (SBTC) entered into an Agreement for the sale and purchase of the Sisseton Exchange. On December 2, 1999, the Commission received a joint application from U S West and VCI/SBTC for approval of the sale. Intervention deadline was set for December 23, 1999. No petitions to intervene were received.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On December 22, 1999, Arrival Communications, Inc. filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a provider of resold and facilities-based local exchange and interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. Arrival Communications will focus on the provision of digital subscriber line and other advanced services to residential and business customers. Arrival may also provide local dial tone, switched access, and interexchange services. Deadline for intervention was January 7, 2000. On January 6, 2000, SDITC filed a Petition to Intervene in this matter.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to SDITC?
Electric
On December 23, 1999, Northern States Power Company filed a petition seeking approval of the inclusion of the expenses of financial instruments and linked transactions as related to the purchase of energy to be recovered within the fuel adjustment clause.
TODAY, the Commission requests that NSP be available to answer questions regarding the application.
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?
Announcements
1. Camron Hoseck will be attending FERC training on January 11-14, 2000.
2. Commissioners and staff will be attending a MARC conference on January 20-22, 2000.
3. A hearing in docket CT99-041 (Cook v Budget Call Long Distance) will be held on January 19, 2000, at 1:30pm CST, in Room 468 of the State Capitol in Pierre.
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 9:00am CST, on February 1, 2000, at the Chamber of Commerce Meeting Room in Pierre, South Dakota.
7. On February 3, 2000, at 1:30pm CST, in the Cactus Conference Room, the Commission will hold the hearings for failure to file and pay the Gross Receipts Tax.
8. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Wednesday, February 2, 2000, at 1:30pm CST in Room 468 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
Sue.Cichos@state.sd.us
January 11, 2000
