Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Thursday, April 27, 2000; 2:00 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 April 26, 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 Two Commission Meetings Held On April 13, 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 777 consumer contacts during 2000. 114 contacts have been received since the March 13, 2000, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 95 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 27 of the contacts involved the unauthorized switching of telecommunication services; 23 concerned raising rates without notice; 11 contacts concerned billing issues; 7 contacts concerned disconnections; 7 contacts concerned fees; 5 contacts involved unauthorized billing for services; and the remaining issues were unburied cable, unreceived credit, directory, double billing, poor service, and won't disconnect.
ELECTRICITY: 12 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 7 contacts involved disconnections and the remaining issues concerned deposits, easement, rates, meter, and billing.
NATURAL GAS: 7 contacts involving natural gas were reported. 3 contacts involved disconnections, 2 contacts concerned billing and the remaining issues were a slow meter and poor service.
490 complaints have been resolved informally during 2000.
On November 8, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Tom and Corliss Vergeldt, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against MCI. The Complainants allege that a telemarketer promised they would get a rate of 5 cents per minute, any time of the day or night. The Complainants claim they questioned the telemarketer twice to confirm the rate. When they received the material sent by MCI, the Complainants discovered that their rates were not as described by the telemarketer. The Complainants called the numbers provided several times to get the service canceled. A representative of MCI indicated that they were not customers of MCI. They received a billing with high rates from MCI. The Complainants are seeking to have the charges dismissed, a $1000 damage award and a $20,000 fine levied. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a 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 Janice Catron, Mitchell, South Dakota, against Qwest Communications, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainant indicates that her long distance service was switched without her authorization. For relief, the Complainant requests all charges be removed and $1000 damages be paid. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a December 14, 1999, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On December 17, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Rodney Mick on behalf of Farmers Union Coop Elevator, Kennebec, South Dakota, against Preferred Billing regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complaint indicates that U.S. Billing has been charging for services even though AT&T is the carrier. The complainant is requesting reimbursement from U.S. Billing, to be switched back to AT&T and to impose any fees or fines to keep Preferred Billing from doing this again.
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 led 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. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a February 2, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a February 2, 2000, meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a February 2, 2000, meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a February 2, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On January 26, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by John and Jeanie Endres, Watertown, South Dakota, against America's Tele-Network Corp. regarding unauthorized switching of phone service. Additional information was provided in an amendment to the complaint received January 31, 2000. The complainants allege their long distance phone service was switched from MCI WorldCom to America's Tele-Networks without their authorization. The complainants are requesting that all America's Tele-Network charges that have appeared on their telephone bills from October 9, 1999, to the present be removed. Those charges amount to $286.17. "In addition we request that a fine be placed upon America's Tele-Network for the illegal act of slamming us and causing the problems and expense that we --- and your Commission has to try to straighten out. Only by imposing the maximum fine on these companies is the problem going to be eliminated."
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On February 01, 2000, the Commission received a complaint from Gustave Orloske, Hill City, South Dakota, against Accutel and USBI regarding unauthorized switching of services. The complainant alleges that his long distance provider was switched and he has received unauthorized charges on his phone bill. The complainant is asking that the charges be returned and thinks any changes should have to be in writing. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a 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. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a February 29, 2000, meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
12. CT00-036 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY FRED PRAHL ON BEHALF OF WINDOWS, INC., DESMET, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST INACOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. REGARDING UNAUTHORIZED SWITCHING OF SERVICES. (Staff Analyst: Heather Forney. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
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." The Commission found probable cause in this matter a February 29, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On February 23, 2000, the Commission docketed a complaint filed by Byron Nogelmeier, Parker, South Dakota, against Excel Telecommunications, Inc. regarding billing issues. In July, 1999, complainant switched intrastate and interstate long distance service. Complainant continued to receive bills from his previous carrier, Excel Telecommunications through December, 1999. Complainant contacted Excel several times to inform them he had changed long distance carriers. The Complainant requests "that Excel be required to pay me the maximum amount allowed by law, which I believe is $1,000.00 and to refund to me all the charges for the months in question." The Commission found probable cause in this matter a March 14, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On February 29, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Lauer Capital Management LTD., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, regarding unauthorized switching of service against McLeodUSA. Lauer Capital Management, LTD switched all 6 of its phone lines from McLeod to Sprint on January 19, 2000. Calls were made from 3 of those lines January 22 - 25 and were billed by Sprint. The complainant alleges that all but one of the original 6 lines were switched back to McLeod service on or about January 25. The Complainant continues to receive billings from McLeod. The Complainant is requesting "$1,000 and the return of our long distance service to Sprint." The Commission found probable cause in this matter a March 14, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a March 28, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On March 23, 2000 a complaint by James and Darleen Frye, Vermillion, South Dakota, was docketed against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainants claim as a result of a deceptive telemarketing call, their long distance service was switched to OLS. They are seeking a full credit of the telecommunications charges plus expenses relating to the resolution of the complaint.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On March 29, 2000, the Commission docketed a formal complaint by Jeanette Braunstein, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against OLS indicating the company promised to send information for the Complainant's review before switching service. The Complainant's telecommunications service was switched even though no printed information was received and the assessed rates were higher than discussed during the telemarketing call. The Complainant is seeking reimbursement and compensation for her time.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
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 regarding purchased power within the fuel adjustment clause. On March 16, 2000, a Stipulation of Facts was filed in this matter. Staff and NSP agreed to a briefing schedule and upon the filing of briefs, to present oral arguments to the Commission. The parties presented oral arguments to the Commission at an April 13, 2000, Ad Hoc meeting.
TODAY, what is the Commission's decision?
On February 28, 2000, Northern States Power Company submitted a petition to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for modifications to the Controlled Air Conditioning and Water Heating Rider (Saver's Switch Program). The purpose is to provide NSP with potentially more load relief during times of volatile energy pricing and to manage the program with more flexibility. The proposed modifications would separate residential customer provisions from the commercial and industrial customer provisions.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff?
Natural Gas
On March 27, 2000, the Commission docketed the application by MidAmerican Energy to revise its South Dakota natural gas tariffs in order to increase flexibility and meet competition. MidAmerican Energy is proposing to increase flexibility by allowing all of its sales and transportation volumetric rates and service charges to flex downward in order to meet competition. Currently medium and small volume sales service and most service charges are not flexible.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
Telecommunications
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. A February 29, 1999, regular meeting, the Commission denied the request to amend the order granting the Certificate of Authority. On April 20, 2000, the company asked to withdraw its application.
TODAY, shall the Commission allow Telecommunications Resources, Inc. to withdraw its application?
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, what is the Commission's decision?
On February 9, 2000, the Commission docketed the application of UKI Communications, Inc. for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. UKI Communications, Inc. (UKI) seeks to provide resold long distance telecommunications services. UKI intends to offer 1+ and Travel Card services throughout South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to UKI Communications, Inc.?
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 granted intervention to Telecommunications Resellers Association, McLeodUSA, AT&T, and Midcontinent Communications a March 28, 2000, regular meeting. March 17, 2000, was the deadline for interventions. On April 10, 2000, Midcontinent Communications filed a Motion to Permit Late Filed Comments. Also, on April 17, 2000, New Edge Network, Inc filed a Petition for Late Filed Intervention. On April 17, 2000, U S WEST filed a Motion to Permit Filing of Reply Comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission allow late filed comments by Midcontinent Communications? AND, shall the Commission grant late filed intervention to New Edge Network? ALSO, shall the Commission grant U S WEST's motion to permit filing of reply comments?
On February 10, 2000, the Commission docketed the application of Comm South Companies, Inc. for a Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange services in South Dakota. Comm South Companies, Inc. seeks to provide resold basic local exchange telecommunication services in areas of South Dakota currently served by U S WEST Communications and any other relevant incumbent facilities-based LEC or other authorized local exchange carrier, excluding service areas of rural telephone companies. A majority of the applicant's customers are residential consumers who are unable to obtain local telecommunication services from other local exchange carriers due to credit problems or prior disconnection. Services will include local calling, access to 911 emergency and 800 number services to residential customers on a prepaid basis. Applicant does not permit customers of its local service to access usage-based services, such as direct-dial long distance calls, collect calls, operator-assisted calls and third-number billed calls.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Comm South Companies, Inc.?
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. The Commission granted intervention to AT&T a March 28, 2000, regular meeting. On April 11, 2000, AT&T filed to withdraw its intervention.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant AT&T's withdrawal of intervention?
7. IN THE MATTER OF THE SURVEY OF SERVICE STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best.)
On February 16, 2000, Staff mailed a questionnaire regarding Administrative Rules of South Dakota Chapter 20:10:33, Service Standards For Telecommunications Companies. This chapter went into effect December 27, 1998. The purpose of the questionnaire is to determine how the individual telecommunications company is complying with these rules. The questionnaire was mailed to 55 incumbent local exchange providers and to 36 competitive local exchange providers. The questionnaire requested that responses be returned by March 17, 2000. A second letter was mailed to companies which had not responded to the questionnaire on March 28, 2000. This letter requested responses by April 7, 2000.
TODAY, Staff has an update for the Commission.
Announcements
1. Hearings are scheduled during the week of May 1-5, 2000 in Pierre, for the OLS complaint dockets.
2. 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.
3. Commissioners Burg and Nelson will be attending a NARUC meeting in Montreal, Canada during May 21-24, 2000.
4. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, May 16, 2000, at 1:30pm, in Room 468 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
Sue.Cichos@state.sd.us
April 20, 2000
