Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Wednesday, February 2, 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 February 1, 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 18, 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 200 consumer contacts during 2000. 123 contacts have been received since the January 18,2000, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 110 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 46 of the contacts concerning the unauthorized switching of long distance service; 18 contacts involved higher rates than promised, 10 contacts concerned the unauthorized billing for services; 10 contacts concerned other billing issues; 7 contacts involved delayed installation; 6 contact involved disconnection; and the remaining issues were 800/900 numbers, fees, lost service, pay phones, poor service, won't disconnect and wrong carrier.
ELECTRICITY: 10 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 4 contacts involved disconnections, 4 contacts concerned high rates, and 1 contact involved a refund.
NATURAL GAS: 3 contacts involving natural gas were reported. 2 contacts involved disconnections and one contact involved a high bill.
42 complaints have been resolved informally during 2000.
On April 22, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by James Frankenstein, Redfield, South Dakota, against U S WEST regarding poor service and request to have lines updated. The complainant indicates that over the past two or three years there have been problems with intermittent loud static, disconnections, no service, and random ringing. U S WEST has been contacted by the Complainant; "They come out but never solve the problem." The Complainant requests to have the service fixed. Also, he asks to be able to connect to the internet, use caller ID and other services like everyone else. The Commission found probable cause in this matter on May 12, 1999. A hearing was scheduled for December 9, 1999. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On September 28, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Donald Cook, Huron, South Dakota (Complainant), against Budget Call Long Distance, Inc. (Budget), regarding alleged unauthorized charges on his long distance bill. Complainant requested that the unauthorized charges be removed from his bill and that he be awarded $1000 as provided by law. On October 7, 1999, the Commission voted unanimously to find probable cause. A regularly scheduled December 14, 1999, meeting the Commission voted to grant the Complainant's request to amend the complaint and add NOR Communications as a respondent. On January 10, 2000, the Commission received a Motion by Budget Call Long Distance, Inc, for Amendment of Caption of Proceeding. The Caption was amended at the January 18, 2000 meeting. A hearing in this matter was scheduled for January 19, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On October 19, 1999, the Commission received a formal complaint from Shirley Noble, Rapid City, South Dakota, against Preferred Billing regarding unauthorized billing for services. Complainant alleges her long distance provider was switched without her authorization. Complainant requests that the $1000 fine be awarded to her and that the state law be enforced. Probable cause was found in this matter at the November 1, 1999, regular meeting. A hearing was schedule for January 26, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On October 25, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by David and Lisa Neuharth, Fort Pierre, South Dakota (Complainants), against Excel Telecommunications, Inc. (Excel), regarding alleged unauthorized switching of services. Complainants allege that a ranch bunkhouse phone on "vacation" status with the local carrier was, without their authorization, switched to Excel. A November 15, 1999, regular meeting, the Commission found probable cause in this matter and subsequently scheduled a hearing to be held on January 27, 2000. On January 13, 2000, the Commission received a motion from Excel Telecommunications, Inc. asking to bring Golden West Telephone Company into this matter as a Third Party Defendant. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Excel's Motion to bring in Golden West Telephone Company as a third party defendant? AND IF SO, 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 Golden West?
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. No probable cause has been found.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On December 14, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Myrna Mork, Pierpont, South Dakota, 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. Probable cause was found in this matter on December 28, 1999.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On December 27, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Jeanette Moes, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant indicates that through a telephone call a man lead her to believe he was with U S WEST offering 10 cents per minute long distance rates, 100 free minutes of long distance, and no monthly fees. The Complainant is requesting that the state laws on slamming be enforced, that she be compensated for her inconvenience, and all assessed fees be 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 28, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Elaine M. Ingalls, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant claims she received a telephone call from U S WEST indicating a change in her billing. As a result, her long distance service was switched from AT&T to OLS. She is requesting that all OLS 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 30, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Jeanne Stich, McCook Lake, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding promised rates which were not assessed. The Complainant alleges that OLS promised a rate of 10 cents per minute for all long distance calls, 100 free minutes of service, and no switching fees. When the Complainant received her billing, she was not assessed the promised rates or terms. The Complainant is requesting that all charges by this company be 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 30, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by William L. Frost, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant indicates that his long distance service was switched through deceptive tactics. The Complainant requests that the Commission revoke the company's license, assess fines, award compensation, and remove all charges assessed by this 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 January 3, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Earl and Pauline DeHoogh, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainants indicate that through a deceptive telephone call, their long distance was switched to OLS. They are requesting that the Commission assess a large 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 January 3, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Elizabeth A. Ewald, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching of services through deceptive practices. The Complainant alleges that a representative claiming to be from U S WEST contacted her concerning recent legislation which would require changes on her billing. As a result of this conversation her telecommunications service was switched to OLS. The Complainant asks that the Commission assess fines and penalties against OLS for this action.
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 3, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Edward C. Fritz, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant alleges that through a deceptive telemarketing call, his long distance service was switched. The Complainant seeks revocation of OLS's license to do business in South Dakota, assessment of fines, and credit of all 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 January 5, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Herman H. Schamber, Yankton, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainant alleges that his long distance service was switched without 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 10, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Mary Ann Becker, Madison, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. After a deceptive telephone call, the Complainant's long distance service was switched. The Complainant wants all 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 January 10, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Julie Roesler on behalf of Sleep Inn, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against Sprint Communications Company L.P. regarding unauthorized disconnection and unauthorized switching of services. The complainant alleges that from September 20 through October 8, 1999, all the phones lines, including the fax line, at the Sleep Inn Hotel were inoperable. When trying to make a call, a recording was heard that stated, "You are not a Sprint customer; to become a customer please call this number to enroll." The complainant also alleges they were switched from AT&T to Sprint without authorization. The complainant is requesting that the $10.26 in Sprint charges be removed from their bill. In addition they are requesting that the Commission impose a fine of $1,000.00 per phone line in accordance with the slamming law. The complainant alleges that future revenue from irate guests was lost, as well as opportunities to bid on hotel rates for future events held in Sioux Falls. "Unfortunately, I can not place an honest or accurate value on lost business. But some compensation would be nice, as I consider this business interruption."
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 11, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Edward and Marvel Hinkelman, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. A telemarketer promised the Complainants a rate of seven cents per minute with no service charges. Based on these rates, the Complainants agreed to switch their service. The Complainants request that OLS stop misrepresentation and remove all 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 January 11, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Angela L. Berget, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainant alleges that she received a telemarketing call in which she instructed the caller to leave her service as it was. As a result of this call, the Complainant's long distance service was switched. The Complainant requests that OLS be stopped, that her charges be reimbursed and fines 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 January 14, 2000, the Commission received a complaint from Juel D. Fee, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against Preferred Billing regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainant alleges that his long distance provider was switched to Preferred Billing without his authorization. The complainant is requesting the $1,000 fine be applied. "This practice amounts to stealing!! Especially in light of the cost/minute."
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 14, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Margaret E. Howell, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. Margaret Howell, submitted a formal complaint alleging that OLS switched Ms. Howell's service without authorization. She wishes to have all charges associated with OLS's switching of service credited and monetary compensation for time and inconvenience.
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 14, 2000, the Commission received a complaint from Gary M. Johnson, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against Sprint regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainant alleges that his long distance provider was switched to Sprint without his authorization. The complainant asks to be switched back and for applicable legal recourse.
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 18, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Patricia Landstrom on behalf of Potter Shoe Co., Huron, South Dakota, against U S Republic Communications, Inc., Accutel Communications, Inc., Zero Plus Dialing and American Telecom Network Communications regarding unauthorized switching of services and billing issues. Complainant was solicited by U S Republic Communications and agreed to their service. March 1999 the complainant did not have long distance service and was unable to reach customer service regarding the problem. At that time complainant switched service to AT&T. Complainant has continued to be billed from U S Republic Communications, USBI, Zero Plus Dialing, and Accutel. Complainant is requesting a refund of $59.01 plus $200.00 for lost income because of time spent waiting for "the next available customer service person," and for trying to straighten out this nightmare. The complainant requests that the commission "Please tell all of them that we do not want them to call here again." No probable cause has been found.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On January 18, 2000, the Commission received a complaint from Shannon and Shelly Naser, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against Sprint and Crusade Communications regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainants allege that their long distance provider was switched without their authorization. The complainants are requesting that the Commission "implement all penalties allowed by law against the respondents".
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 19, 2000, the Commission received a complaint from Gary and Cosette Mau, Milbank, South Dakota, against Qwest regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainants allege that their long distance provider was switched to Qwest without their authorization. The complainants are asking that appropriate fines and penalties be imposed.
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 19, 2000, the Commission received a complaint from Hai Nguyen, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against Qwest regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainant alleges that their long distance provider was switched without authorization. The complainant is requesting that the respondent "should receive a fine as the law states".
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 19, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Charles Gustafson, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against Preferred Billing regarding unauthorized switching of services. Complainant alleges that three business lines and one personal line were switched from AT&T to Preferred Billing without permission. Complainant is requesting that the Commission revoke Preferred Billing's certificate of authority and impose a fine of $1,000.00 per line that was switched without
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?
Natural Gas
On December 29, 1999, the Commission received a filing from MidAmerican Energy Company of: (1) a report of its 1999 economic development activity as required by SD Public Utilities Commission Docket NG98-011; and (2) setting forth its 2000 economic development plan in accordance with the same docket. No parties filed to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve MidAmerican's 1999 Economic Development Report and the 2000 Economic Development Budget?
Telecommunications
On May 10, 1999, the Commission received a petition for Extended Area Service between the Humboldt-Montrose Exchange of Sioux Valley Telephone Company and the Sioux Falls Exchange of U S WEST Communications from subscribers in the Humboldt-Montrose Exchange. Intervention was granted to U S WEST at the June 8, 1999, meeting.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, how shall the Commission proceed?
On September 7, 1999, the Commission received an application from Trans National Communications International, Inc. for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. Trans National Communications International is proposing to offer 1+ and 101XXX direct outbound dialing, 800/888 Toll-Free inbound dialing, and travel card service.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Trans National Communications International, Inc.?
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, CC Docket 96-45, Ninth Report and Order and Eighteenth Order on Reconsideration, FCC 99-306, paragraph 120 (rel. 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. A November 15, 1999, meeting, the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) considered how to proceed in this matter. After listening to comments from interested persons, the Commission decided to request written comments on how to proceed from interested persons or entities. Those interested had until December 17, 1999, to file written comments on how the Commission should establish different rates for interconnection and UNEs in at least three geographic areas within the state to reflect geographic cost differences. The Commission asked for comments on whether the Commission may comply with the FCC's order to establish different rates for interconnection and UNEs in at least three geographic areas through a rulemaking or whether different rates must be established for specific companies in contested case dockets. Interested persons or entities could submit proposed rules along with their comments.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
4. TC99-119 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF W2COM INTERNATIONAL, LLC FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Heather Forney. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On December 22, 1999, the Commission received the Application of W2COM International, LLC for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. W2COM International, LLC (W2COM) seeks a Certificate of Authority to provide resold intrastate long distance telecommunication services. W2COM intends to offer Message Toll Service, Incoming 800/888, and Travel Card services throughout South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to W2COM?
On December 23, 1999, the Commission received an interconnection agreement between TW Wireless, L.L.C. and U S WEST Communications, Inc. for approval by the Commission. The agreement governs services for resale, certain unbundled network elements, ancillary functions and additional features to TW Wireless for TW Wireless' 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. Parties had until January 13, 2000, to file written comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed interconnection agreement?
Rule Making
1. RM99-002 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REVISED RULES. (Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On November 1, 1999, the Commission voted to open a rulemaking docket for purposes of amending certain rules regarding telecommunications, electricity and natural gas. Proposed changes to telecommunications rules, for example, include amending the Commission's probable cause determination procedures, certificate of authority territory designations, advertising included with gas and electric bills, and modification of the scope and application of general telecommunications company rules. A hearing was held on January 10, 2000.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
Announcements
1. An Ad Hoc Commission Meeting has been set for 11:00am on January 27, 2000, in the Commission's Cactus Conference Room.
2. A hearing in docket EL99-019 (NSP assessment) will be held on January 27, 2000, at 7:00pm CST, at the Minnehaha County Administration Building in Sioux Falls, SD.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Hearings for dockets CT99-082 (Beutow/OLS), CT99-067 (Ries/OLS), CT99-070 (Hansen/OLS), and CT99-080 (Enstad/OLS) will be held on February 16, 2000, at 12:30pm CST, in Room 468 of the State Capitol.
6. The Commission will hold a hearing in docket CT99-068 (Binfet/OLS) on February 17, 2000, at 10:00am CST, in the Commission's Cactus Conference Room.
7. On February 17, 2000 a hearing in docket CT99-052 (Jung/Qwest) will be held at 1:30pm CST, in Room 468 of the State Capitol.
8. The Commission offices will be closed on February 21, 2000, in observance of President's Day.
9. A hearing in docket CT99-055 (L&M Land/Accutel) will be held on February 24, 2000, at 1:30pm CST, in Room 468 of the State Capitol.
10. On February 25, 2000 a hearing in docket CT99-053 (Storbeck/Sprint) will be held at 1:30pm CST, in Room 468 of the State Capitol.
11. Commissioners and Staff will be attending a NARUC Conference March 5-9, 2000.
12. A hearing in docket CT99-050 (Sederstrom/USWC/Sprint) will be held on March 20, 2000, at 12:30pm CST, in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
13. On April 10, 2000, the Commission will hold a hearing in Sisseton for docket TC99-112 (Sale of Sisseton exchange) beginning at 1:30pm CST, at the Roberts County Courthouse.
14. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, February 15, 2000, at 1:30pm CST in Room 468 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
Sue.Cichos@state.sd.us
January 26, 2000
