Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, February 29, 2000; 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 February 28, 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 February 15, 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 356 consumer contacts during 2000. 66 contacts have been received since the February 15, 2000, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 59 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 18 of the contacts involved the unauthorized switching of telecommunication services; 10 contacts involved billing disputes; 9 contacts involved the unauthorized billing for products or services; 9 contacts concerned higher rates than promised; 3 contacts concerned disconnections, 3 contacts concerned high rates; and the remaining issues were busy signals, collect calls, held orders, nuisance calls, toll blocks, and won't release.
ELECTRICITY: 6 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 2 contacts involved disconnections, 2 contacts concerned payment plans; and the remaining issues were billing and easement problems.
NATURAL GAS: 1 contact involving natural gas was reported. The issue was disconnection.
135 complaints have been resolved informally during 2000.
On May 27, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Nancy Manning and Elizabeth Frederick, Rapid City, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. and McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. regarding the inability to provide service. The complainants are asking for immediate phone service, reimbursement for expenses, reimbursement for loss of business, an independent contractor allowed to enter USWC, and an explanation. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a June 1, 1999, regular meeting. A hearing was held on August 26, 1999.
TODAY, what is the Commission's decision?
On August 5, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Judy Raker, Rapid City, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding delayed service. The Complainant requested service to their new home and trucking business in a new development in May, 1999. They were promised service on July 14, 1999. The Complainant did not receive service on that date and was not notified by U S WEST until she contacted the company. Several commitments for service have been missed. As a result the Complainant rented office space in Rapid City to run the trucking business. Complete phone service to the office space in Rapid City has also been delayed. The Complainant is seeking damages to compensate for the rented office space in Rapid City, installation costs for the line to the Rapid City office, and related expenses for delay and "total lack of concern for a small South Dakota business." The Commission found probable cause in this matter a August 17, 1999, regular meeting. A hearing was held on November 17, 1999.
TODAY, what is the Commission's decision?
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. The matter was deferred at the February 2, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
5. CT99-050 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY LYNDA SEDERSTROM, MADISON, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., AND U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., REGARDING UNAUTHORIZED SWITCHING OF SERVICES. (Staff Analyst: Keith Senger. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
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. Probable cause was found in this matter on November 15, 1999. A hearing was scheduled for March 20, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
6. CT99-052 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY SCOTT AND TAMI JUNG, ABERDEEN, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST QWEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. REGARDING UNAUTHORIZED SWITCHING OF SERVICES. (Staff Analyst: Leni Healy. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
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. Probable cause was found in this matter on November 15, 1999. A hearing was scheduled for February 17, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
7. CT99-058 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY EDITH JOHNSON, BRYANT, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST MCI WORLDCOM FOR UNAUTHORIZED SWITCHING OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. (Staff Analyst: Leni Healy. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On November 17, 1999, the Commission received a formal complaint from Edith Johnson indicating that her service was switched from AT&T to MCI without her permission. The Complainant is seeking to have the charges removed. The matter was deferred at the November 29, 1999, regular meeting.
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. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a January 6, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On December 1, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Frank E. Daly, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant claims that he was contacted by OLS to maintain one billing for telecommunication services. The Complainant further claims that the OLS representative was questioned if the process would change his current long distance service. The Complainant claims the OLS representative promised that his service would not change. The Complainant's service was switched to OLS. The Complainant requests that South Dakota Law be implemented and that OLS should be banned from operating in this state. Probable cause was found in this matter on December 14, 1999.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On December 2, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Robert J. Ries and Treva Jean M. Ries, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The complaint indicates that their long distance carrier was changed from AT&T to OLS after a confusing/deceptive phone call. The Complainant seeks relief from the Commission and thinks all changes should be made in writing. Probable cause was found in this matter on December 14, 1999. A hearing was scheduled for February 16, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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. Probable cause was found in this matter on December 28, 1999. A hearing was scheduled for February 17, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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." Probable cause was found on December 28, 1999. A hearing was scheduled for February 16, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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. Probable cause was found on December 28, 1999.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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. Probable cause was found on December 28, 1999. A hearing was scheduled for February 16, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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. Probable cause was found on January 18, 2000.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
16. CT00-020 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY ROLLIE JENSEN, SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST MCLEODUSA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. REGARDING DELAYED INSTALLATION. (Staff Analyst: Michele Farris. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On January 18, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Rollie Jensen, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. regarding delayed installation. Complainant alleges they requested McLeodUSA to transfer their phone service to their new office on August 27th, 1999. They were never informed that the phone service start date was September 2, 1999. They moved their office on August 27th. Phone service, computer usage or faxing capabilities were not available until 5:00 p.m. on September 2, 1999. The complainant is seeking restitution for lost income, wage losses, extra rent, and cellular phone charges. The Complainant also hopes "US West and McLeodUSA stop their in-house fighting and go back to giving the customer service that we all pay
dearly for." The complainant has asked to amend his complaint to include U S WEST as a respondent. The Commission found probable cause against McLeodUSA a February 15, 2000, meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission amend the complaint? 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 U S WEST?
On January 27, 2000, the Commission received a complaint from Randy Daughenbaugh, Rapid City, South Dakota, against U S WEST regarding delayed installation. The complainant alleges that he has been trying for seven months to get service provided to his new residence and that U S WEST has missed several promised installation dates. The complainant is asking for a temporary line to be installed. The matter was deferred at the February 15, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On February 4, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Margie Gertsen, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant indicates that a telemarketer identified himself as a representative of her long distance company wanting to combine her billing. As a result of that call her service was switched. The Complainant requests that something be done so this does not continue to happen.
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 February 4, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Dale Hilgemann, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive practices. The Complainant indicates that his long distance service was switched without authorization. The Complainant requests that all charges be removed, and there be an imposition of 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 February 2, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Kathleen C. Glynn, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant claims she was contacted by a telemarketer to switch her long distance service. The Complainant indicates that she requested information in writing and did not agree to switch service. For a resolution, the Complainant requests that her account be closed, all charges be removed and there be an imposition of appropriate 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 February 8, 2000, the Commission received a complaint regarding a billing dispute against FirsTel Business Systems. The Sioux Falls Livestock Market received a letter from FirsTel informing it that, based on a recent audit, it had not been charged a monthly dial tone charge for three lines at the business. FirsTel billed the complainant for the three lines retroactively for the past six months. The complainant alleges it was quoted a price from FirsTel when its business was solicited and it has paid that amount. The complainant is requesting that FirsTel cancel its bill for past services in the amount of $1,133.76 and to cooperate with U S WEST to have their service transferred back to U S WEST.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On February 10, 2000, the Commission received a complaint regarding unauthorized switching of service against Inacom Corp. and U S WEST. Windows, Inc. discovered that their phone service had been switched from 6 phone lines with hunting capabilities to the U S WEST Centrex 21 system on December 2, 1999. The complainant alleges Inacom obtained their signature to "verify that US West was the phone carrier for Windows, Inc." not to authorize a change in their telephone service. The complainant is requesting "to see this practice ended by taking away the licenses of the companies misrepresenting themselves in this manner and to prosecute persons representing these companies."
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 February 11, 2000, the Commission received a complaint from Cheryl Plucker, Chancellor, South Dakota, against MCI WorldCom regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainant alleges that her long distance provider was switched to MCI WorldCom without her authorization. The complainant would like the charges dropped and the switching fee refunded. Also, all legal actions should be taken "so they can't do this to someone else."
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?
Gas/Electric
On February 10, 2000, the Commission received an application by NorthWestern Public Service to revise its customer bill text and associated sample form tariffs. The application also adds notice on bills of the change and requests a waiver of the 30 day notice of change to the public.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the revised bill format?
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 benefited customers. South Dakota Electric Rate Book, Section No. 6, Original Sheet No. 29, Section 5.5 (effective 12-16-96). NSP determined that the benefited 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 was approximately $2.00/household and was placed on the November 1999 bills. A hearing was held on January 27, 2000.
TODAY, what is the Commission's decision?
2. EL00-004 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY FOR CONFIRMATION OF ANGUS C. ANSON COMBUSTION TURBINE FACILITY. (Staff Analyst: Michele Farris. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On February 15, 2000, the Commission received a filing from Northern States Power Company seeking an amendment to the order granting the permit in Docket EL91-001 to provide for the implementation of an improvement to the Angus C. Anson combustion turbines facility. NSP certifies that the Angus C. Anson combustion turbine facility will continue to meet the conditions upon which the permit was issued. NSP seeks confirmation that this improvement does continue to meet the conditions upon which the permit was issued.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
Telecommunications
1. TC99-048 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESOURCES, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Michele Farris. Staff Attorney: Camron Hoseck.)
On April 26, 1999, Telecommunications Resources, Inc. filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a reseller of telecommunications services throughout South Dakota. Telecommunications Resources, Inc. intends to offer travel card services to business and residential customers, as well as prepaid calling card services. On October 7, 1999, the Commission granted a Certificate of Authority to Telecommunications Resources, Inc. subject to the company furnishing the Commission with a $25,000 surety bond. On February 8, 2000, the Commission received a request from Telecommunications Resources, Inc. to reduce the amount of the bond to $10,000.
TODAY, shall the Commission amend the order granting a Certificate of Authority to Telecommunications Resources, Inc.?
On August 30, 1999, Network Communications International Corp. has filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to offer resold intrastate telecommunications service, including a prepaid Debit Card Service.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Network Communications International Corp.?
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. The Commission received petitions to intervene from McLeodUSA, U S WEST, Sprint, and AT&T on or before the February 9, 2000, deadline.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to McLeodUSA, U S WEST, Sprint, and AT&T?
On December 8, 1999, One Tel Inc. filed for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. One Tel Inc. seeks a Certificate of Authority to provide resold interexchange dial around telecommunication services. One Tel intends to provide services through South Dakota to business and residential end-users.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to One Tel Inc?
On December 16, 1999, U S WEST Communications, Inc. filed an application for approval of revisions to its exchange and network services tariff. The purpose of the filing is to introduce a consistent method for applying charges when a customer cancels or defers service.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
On January 25, 2000, ACN Communication Services, Inc. filed for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. ACN Communication Services, Inc. is seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide resold interexchange telecommunication services in South Dakota. ACN plans to provide direct dial, toll free and calling card services with access to directory assistance to residential and business customers.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to ACN Communication Services, Inc.?
On February 1, 2000, the Commission received a filing of the Kadoka Telephone Company Access Tariff rates to be effective March 1, 2000. In accordance with ARSD 20:10:27:12, the rates are the average of all cost companies in South Dakota, excluding U S WEST.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff filing?
On February 8, 2000, U S WEST Communications, Inc. filed with the Commission its Notice of Intent to File Section 271 Application and Motion for Alternative Procedure to Manage the Section 271 Process. U S WEST is asking the Commission to (1) allow it to file the ROC Master Test Plan with the Commission for its consideration and adoption in early second quarter 2000 and (2) to create a procedure that will allow the parties to consider all aspects of Section 27 in a timely manner.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On February 10, 2000, U S WEST Communications, Inc. filed an application for approval of revisions to its exchange and network services tariff. The purpose of the filing is to clarify the meaning of a fully assisted operator call and a partially assisted operator call. Rates will not be increased by this filing.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff change?
Announcements
1. A hearing in docket CT99-055 (L&M Land/Accutel) will be held on February 24, 2000, at 1:30pm, in Room 468 of the State Capitol.
2. Commissioners and Staff will be attending a NARUC Conference March 5-9, 2000.
3. A hearing in docket TC99-106 (Geographic Deaveraging) will be held on March 15, 2000, at 8:30am, in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
4. A Commission Meeting is scheduled for March 28, 2000, at 9:30am in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
5. On March 29, 2000, at 12:30 MST, a hearing will be held in docket TC98-155 (Spears/USWC), in Rapid City, SD, at the School Administration Building.
6. Commissioners and Staff will be attending a ROC meeting April 2-4, 2000.
7. On April 10, 2000, the Commission will hold a hearing in Sisseton for docket TC99-112 (Sale of Sisseton exchange) beginning at 1:30pm, at the Roberts County Courthouse.
8. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, March 14, 2000, at
10:00am, in Room 468 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
Sue.Cichos@state.sd.us
February 22, 2000
