Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, March 28, 2000; 9:30 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 March 27, 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 March 14, 2000. (Staff: Shirleen Fugitt.)
Consumer Issues
1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Staff Analyst: Leni Healy.)
The Commission has received 574 consumer contacts during 2000. 124 contacts have been received since the March 14, 2000, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 119 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 40 of the contacts involved the unauthorized switching of service; 14 contacts concerning raising rates without notice; 14 contacts involved billing issues; 12 contacts involved billing for unauthorized services; 10 contacts reported poor service; 8 contacts could not get service when requested; 6 contacts were unsuccessful in attempting to disconnect service; 5 contacts involved high rates; 3 contacts involved repairs; 3 contacts involved fees; and the remaining contacts involved 900 #s, collect calls, and nuisance calls.
ELECTRICITY: 4 of the contacts involved electricity issues. Disconnection was the only issue.
NATURAL GAS: 1 contact involving natural gas was reported. The issue involved a company which wouldn't disconnect.
280 complaints have been resolved informally during 2000.
On November 5, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Storbeck Trucking, Inc. against Sprint Communications regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainant is asking to have it corrected and for any other amounts due. The Commission found probable cause against Sprint on November 15, 1999. A hearing in this matter was scheduled for February 25, 2000. The hearing was cancelled. On March 6, 2000, the Commission received a request for the addition of Accutel as a party to the complaint.
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 Accutel?
On November 22, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Marilyn Crompton, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainant indicates that a telemarketer representing U S WEST called her concerning her billing. As a result of this conversation, her service was switched to OLS, Inc. The Complainant requests that a large fine should be assessed to OLS for this activity. The matter was deferred at the December 14, 1999, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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. Probable cause was found in this matter at the December 28, 1999, regular meeting.
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 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. Probable cause was found in this matter at the December 28, 1999, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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. Probable cause was found in this matter at the January 6, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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. On January 18, 2000, probable cause was found against Crusade Communications.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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." Probable cause was found in this matter at the January 18, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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." Probable cause was found against Sprint at the February 2, 2000, regular meeting. On March 6, 2000, the Commission received a request to add McLeodUSA and U S WEST Communications.
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 McLeod and U S WEST?
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. Probable cause was found in this matter at the February 2, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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." Probable cause was found in this matter on February 2, 2000.
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 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". Probable cause was found in this matter on February 2, 2000.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On January 25, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Rhonda Bendel, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainant claims that she was billed by a company which she did not authorize. The complainant requests fines to be imposed and reimbursement of charges. Probable cause was found in this matter at the February 15, 2000, regular meeting. A hearing was scheduled for May 4, 2000. The hearing is cancelled.
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 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. Probable cause was found at the February 29, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On February 22, 2000, a formal complaint was received from Ralph C. Campbell indicating that he received a deceptive telemarketing call. As a result of this call, the Complainant's telecommunications service was switched to OLS. As a resolution the Complainant is seeking $1000 on behalf of all parties who were slammed.
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 March 2, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Doris B. Olson, Vermillion, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant indicates that as a result of a deceptive telemarketing call, her long distance was switched to OLS. She is seeking $1000 as relief.
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 March 1, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Rolla and Betty Stoltenburg, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainants claim that on October 28, 1999, a telemarketer representing himself as an employee of U S WEST called to inform them of changes to their telephone bill. As a result of that call, the Complainants' 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 March 6, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Bobbie Burnham, Sioux Falls, SD, against McLeodUSA, Telecommunications Services, Inc. regarding a delay in installation of services. The complainant alleges that her phone service was ordered on 1/4/00 and not connected after two months due to delays caused by home address errors, U. S. West switch upgrades and phone box repairs inside and outside of the house. She feels that two months is unacceptable and that McLeodUSA's failure to follow through with scheduled dates of installation has caused emotional distress and she is requesting to be credited and awarded for inconvenience and stress.
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 June 1, 1999, the Commission received an application from NorthWestern Public Service, a division of Northwestern Corporation, for an increase in rates for natural gas service in South Dakota. The Company requested that the proposed increase of $2,108,112 or approximately 6.3% become effective July 1, 1999. On June 22 the Commission suspended the imposition of the tariff for 90 days to October 1. By Order dated September 14, 1999, the Commission further extended the suspension through December 1, 1999. A hearing in this matter was scheduled for October 20-21, 1999. On October 18, 1999, Staff notified the Commission that NWPS and Staff had reached a settlement agreement and requested the Commission to consider it on October 20, 1999. An issue related to the PGA was separated from the rate case issues and a hearing on the PGA issue was held October 20, 1999. On November 1, 1999, the Commission approved the settlement agreement on rate case issues which increased rates by $1,279,025 with an effective date of December 1, 1999.
TODAY, what is the Commission's decision with regard to the PGA issue?
Telecommunications
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 granted intervention to McLeodUSA, U S WEST, Sprint, and AT&T at the February 29, 2000, regular meeting. A hearing was held on March 15, 2000.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
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. The matter was deferred at the February 29, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
On December 21, 1999, the Commission received an application from Qwest Communications Corporation for a Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange services in South Dakota. Qwest Communications Corporation (Qwest) intends to provide facilities-based and resold competitive local exchange services. Qwest requests authority to provide services throughout U S West territories. On March 14, 2000, the Commission received a letter requesting withdrawal of the application.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the withdrawal and close the docket?
On December 27, 1999, BCGI Communications Corp. filed for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. BCGI Communications Corp. plans to provide resold intrastate interexchange telecommunications services. BCGI proposes initially to provide prepaid calling card services only.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to BCGI Communications Corp.?
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 271 in a timely manner. The Commission received requests for intervention from Telecommunications Resellers Association, McLeodUSA, AT&T, and Midcontinent Communications on or before the March 17, 2000, deadline.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to Telecommunications Resellers Association, McLeodUSA, AT&T, and Midcontinent Communications?
On February 14, 2000, Qwest Communications Corporation, LCI International Telecom Corp., Phoenix Network, Inc. and TeleDistance, Inc., all wholly-owned, indirect subsidiaries of Qwest Communications International Inc. (the "Parties"), filed a request for a Certificate of Authority for TeleDistance, Inc. to provide resold and facilities-based interexchange telecommunications services throughout South Dakota. TeleDistance, Inc. intends to offer retail and wholesale switched interLATA (and in certain instances intraLATA) long distance services (including direct dialed 1+ service and toll free service), retail and wholesale private line services, frame relay/ATM/IP transmission services, prepaid calling card services and operator services. The Parties also request that the Commission grant a waiver of Administrative Rules of South Dakota Chapter 20:10:34:02.01, governing unauthorized changes in carriers. On March 3, 2000, AT&T filed a petition to intervene in this docket.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to AT&T?
Announcements
1. A hearing in docket CT99-041 (Cook) will be held on March 22, 2000, at 1:30pm, in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
2. A hearing is scheduled for March 28, 2000, at 1:30 in the CCR meeting room of the State Capitol in docket TC99-127 (AccuTel Show Cause).
3. On March 29, 2000, at 12:30 MST, a hearing will be held in docket TC98-155 (Spear/USWC), in Rapid City, SD, at the School Administration Building.
4. Commissioner Burg will be attending an RTO meeting in Kansas City on March 30, 2000.
5. Commissioners and Staff will be attending the ROC meeting April 2-4, 2000, in Omaha, NE.
6. On April 10, 2000, the Commission will hold a hearing in Sisseton for docket TC99-112 (Sale of Sisseton exchange) beginning at 12:30pm, at the Roberts County Courthouse.
7. Commissioners and staff will be attending a telecommunications conference scheduled for April 12, 2000, at USD in Vermillion, South Dakota.
8. An Ad Hoc meeting is scheduled for 1:30pm on April 13, 2000, in Room 412 of the State Capitol for oral arguments in docket EL99-021 (NSP Fuel Clause).
9. Hearings are being scheduled during the week of May 1-5, 2000 in Pierre, for the OLS complaint dockets.
10. A hearing in docket CT99-072 (Sun Gold Trophies) will be held on May 10, 2000, at 9:00am in Room 412, of the State Capitol.
11. Commissioners Burg and Nelson will be attending a NARUC meeting in Montreal, Canada during May 21-24, 2000.
12. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, April 11, 2000, at 10:00am, in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
_________________________
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
Sue.Cichos@state.sd.us
March 21, 2000
