Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Wednesday, September 13, 2000; 2:30 P.M.
State Capitol Building, Room LCR#1
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 September 12, 2000. PLEASE DON'T WAIT until the day of the meeting to contact us for the conference call.
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 Meetings Held On August 22, 2000. (Staff: Mary Giddings.)
Consumer Issues
1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Leni Healy.)
The Commission has received 1545 consumer contacts during 2000. 84 contacts have been received since the last Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 73 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 20 of the contacts involved the unauthorized switching of service; 13 contacts involved billing issues, 9 contacts involved unauthorized billing for services; 9 contacts involved raising rates without notice; 4 contacts involved delayed installation; 4 contacts involved disconnections; and the remaining issues were outages, charges, contracts, telemarketing, double billing, failure to cancel, phone cards, poor customer service, and won't disconnect.
ELECTRICITY: 5 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 2 contacts involved outages and the remaining issues were billing, delayed service, and disconnection.
NATURAL GAS: 6 contacts involving natural gas were reported. 3 contacts concerned high costs and the remaining issues were billing, disconnection, and payment plan.
1205 complaints have been resolved informally during 2000.
2. IN THE MATTER OF DISMISSING COMPLAINTS CT99-027, CT00-026, CT00-082, CT00-083, CT00-086, CT00-087, CT00-093, CT00-094, and CT00-095.
On August 6, 1999, the Commission received a complaint by Edward Peltz, Hill City, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding poor service and request to have lines updated. The Complainant submitted a petition, signed by neighbors in his area, claiming poor service. The Complainant seeks the following relief: "U S West (should) be forced to put some good equipment in." The Commission found probable cause in this matter on August 17, 1999. A hearing was scheduled for November 18, 1999. The hearing was cancelled.
On January 24, 2000, the Commission received a complaint from Timothy William Johnson, Mitchell, 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, and that he has been unable to get his long distance service switched back to his former carrier. The Complainant is asking to have his service switched back to Sprint and to receive a refund of all monies charged over and above Sprint's rates. The Commission found probable cause in this matter at the February 15, 2000, meeting
The Complainant alleges that when his local telecommunications service was switched from U S WEST to FirsTel, FirsTel did not continue his long distance service with AT&T. AT&T continued to transfer billing information to U S WEST. Since U S West was no longer the local carrier, billings were not sent to the Complainant. The Complainant eventually received a long distance billing from AT&T at very high rates. The Complainant seeks $1000 in compensation, additional compensation for time and effort, and removal of all long distance charges. A hearing was scheduled for August 22, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
The Complainants requested that phone line and service be moved to a new location on May 12, 2000. On this date, the Complainants were informed by U S WEST that "no lines were available" at the new site and the project was in HELD order status. The Complainants report they have not received any information on when the lines will be installed and service will be operational. The Complainants request that U S WEST provide and follow a completion deadline date for the "facilities hold"; and McLeodUSA assist with the costs of the cellular phone bill.
The Complainant claims that her telecommunication services were switched without her authorization. Attempts to resolve the complaint were unsuccessful. The Complainant is seeking fines and penalties to stop the company's practice. A hearing was scheduled for September 7, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
Complainant alleges that she was talked into changing her long distance services to Qwest through deceptive practices and that she did not authorize the switch to Qwest. She also alleges that she did not authorize Preferred Billing to switch her long distance services. She requests that the companies be liable for the wages of the PUC staff and any costs of changing back to her phone company, including the charges on her phone bill, since she did not ask for their services. On July 31, 2000, USBI filed a Motion to Dismiss.
The Complainants allege that they had agreed to a rate plan for telephone services and the rates were increased without notice, which is a violation of ARSD 20:10:34:10. The Complainants are requesting an adjustment of $203.20 by the company which is equal to the rates provided by the rate plan they had originally signed up for and a letter of apology. A hearing was scheduled for September 20, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
The Complainant alleges that EqualNet Corporation (EqualNet) switched his long distance services without authorization in September, 1999. Complainant further alleges that he attempted to cancel EqualNet services in February, 2000, to no avail. Complainant is requesting that EqualNet be required to credit the charges for the calls as EqualNet had earlier promised it would do; to reimburse him for the amount paid them for the previous re-rate, the amount of $70.27; and to compensate him for the time taken to resolve the matter or any other remedy allowable by law so EqualNet discontinues this practice.
Complainant alleges that on May 19, 2000, she set up new service and temporarily chose Sprint as her long distance carrier. The next day, May 20, 2000, she changed her carrier to AT&T. Sprint sent Complainant a phone card and Complainant called Sprint to ask why they sent it to her. She states that Sprint insisted she was a customer despite her local company's indication that she had been an AT&T customer since May 22, 2000. Complainant is asking the Commission to require Sprint to re-rate her charges consistent with her AT&T plan and to reimburse her for the additional charges billed by Sprint.
TODAY, if all of the above matters are resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaints and close the dockets?
The Complainant alleges that her telecommunication service was switched without her authorization. She began to receive billings from Business Options. She is seeking credit of charges and compensation for her time. On August 15, 2000, the Commission received a Motion to Add Crusade Communication as a party. A hearing is tentatively planned for September 20, 2000.
TODAY, shall the Commission add Crusade as a Party? AND, if so, shall the new hearing date of October 3 be set?
The Complainants claim that they did not authorize a switch in service. They received billings from AT&T although AT&T claims that the St. Gemme family is not a customer of AT&T. The Complainants are seeking a final resolution to this issue. On August 14, 2000, the Commission received a Motion to Add Qwest as a party. A hearing is tentatively planned for October 12, 2000.
TODAY, shall the Commission add Qwest as a Party? AND, if so, shall the new hearing date of November 2 be set?
Electric
Northern States Power Company has filed for Commission approval revised rate sheets for the Occasional Delivery Energy Service and Time of Delivery Energy Service. The proposed Occasional Delivery Energy Service rate sheet is revised to reflect a five cents per month increase in the metering charge and a 0.3 cents per kWh increase in energy payment. The proposed Time of Delivery Energy Service rate sheet is revised to reflect a fifty cents per month increase in the metering charge. Energy and capacity payments have also been revised to reflect the Company's 2000 avoided costs projection.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed revised rate sheets?
MidAmerican Energy filed an application for approval of a revision to its South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Electric Tariff No. I, Section No. 6, characterized as 3rd Revised Sheet No. 2. The revision proposes to update the back of its standard bill form, Sheet No. 2. MidAmerican proposes an effective date of September 12, 2000.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
The City of Pierre has submitted an application for a permit to construct transmission facilities as defined at SDCL 49-41B-2(9)(b). These facilities consist of approximately 4.03 miles of new 115 kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line and associated terminal facilities between the City's Ash Substation and the Western Area Power Administration Oahe-Pierre 115kV line. In addition, a 0.80 mile segment of the City's Ash to Evans 115kV transmission line would be relocated to a new route and constructed on new structures. Both transmission lines are located in Hughes County, South Dakota. SDCL 49-41B-12 requires a minimum filing fee deposit of $8,000.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee of $8,000?
Natural Gas
MidAmerican Energy filed an application for approval of a revision to its South Dakota Gas Sales Tariff, SD PUC Section VI, Third Revised Sheet No 3. cancels SD PUC Section VI, Second Revised Sheet No. 3. The revision proposes to update the back of its standard bill form, Sheet No. 3. MidAmerican proposes an effective date of September 12, 2000.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
NorthWestern Public Service has filed to revise its South Dakota Natural Gas Tariff by adjusting its fuel retention percentage. The Gas Transportation Tariff General Terms and Conditions call for the retention percentage for the Company's South Dakota distribution system to be adjusted annually based upon the actual percentage incurred by the Company in the prior year.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
Telecommunications
On April 12, 2000, an amendment, termed a "second" amendment to an interconnection agreement between DSLnet Communications, LLC and U S WEST Communications, Inc., was filed with the Commission for approval pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(e). The interconnection agreement amends a prior agreement approved by the Commission on September 23, 1999 in docket TC99-086. The amendment purports to allow DSLnet to access certain preexisting combinations of unbundled network elements in accordance with the FCC's November 5, 1999, Order and related federal regulations. It will add terms, conditions and rates with regard to unbundled network elements. A first amendment was later filed on June 5, 2000, to the interconnection agreement between DSLnet Communications, LLC and U S WEST Communications, Inc. This amendment adds provisions which include UDIT, ADSL and line conditioning and associated rate elements. On July 19, 2000, the Commission received a third amendment to the agreement between DSLnet Communications, LLC and U S WEST Communications, Inc. (Now Qwest Corporation). This third amendment adds provisions to allow DSLnet to add terms and conditions with regard to LIS Inter Local Calling area (LCA) Facility and terms and conditions and rates with regard to Unbundled Dark Fiber. Parties had until August 8, 2000, to file written comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendments to the interconnection agreement?
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. On July 11, 2000, Comm South filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the Commission. The Commission deferred the matter at the August 9, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, how shall the Commission rule on the Petition for Declaratory Ruling?
An interconnection agreement between essential.com and U S WEST Communications, Inc. has been filed with the Commission for approval pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 252(e). The resale agreement will extend certain arrangements to one another within the geographical areas where U S WEST is the incumbent local exchange carrier for the purposes of providing the resale of local telecommunications services. On September 1, 2000, essential.com filed to withdraw its application for a Certificate of Authority.
TODAY, shall the Commission deny the Interconnection Agreement and close the docket?
essential.com, inc. submitted an application to provide local exchange and interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. essential.com, inc. intends to provide local resale service in the exchanges of U S WEST and does not intend to provide service, at this time, in any rural telephone exchanges. On September 1, 2000, essential.com filed a request to withdraw its application.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the withdrawal and close the docket?
Advanced TelCom Group, Inc. submitted an application on April 25, 2000, to provided resold and facilities-based local exchange and interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. The applicant intends to market services to primarily small to mid-sized businesses and residential customers.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Advanced TelCom Group, Inc.?
On May 26, 2000, Midco Communications, Inc. and Sioux Falls Cable Television filed an application to transfer their respective certificates of authority to provide interexchange and local exchange telecommunication services to Midcontinent Communications, the applicants' parent company. Midcontinent Communications will be a South Dakota general partnership owned equally by Midcontinent and AT&TB&IS.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed transfers of Certificates of Authority?
7. TC00-097 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF NORSTAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC. D/B/A BUSINESS SAVINGS PLAN FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Heather Forney.)
Norstar Communications, Inc. d/b/a Business Savings Plan is seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide resold interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. The applicant intends to provide MTS, in-WATS, out-WATS, and Calling Card services.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Norstar Communications, Inc. d/b/a Business Savings Plan?
An interconnection agreement between ServiSense.com, Inc. and U S WEST Communications, Inc. was filed with the Commission. The agreement is a negotiated agreement setting forth certain arrangements to provide, within the geographical areas where U S WEST is the incumbent local exchange carrier, the resale of local telecommunications services. Parties had until July 6, 2000, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed Interconnection Agreement?
ServiSense.com, Inc. is seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide resold interexchange and local exchange telecommunication services in South Dakota. The applicant intends to offer services to residential and business customers utilizing switched access. Services include calling card services.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant a Certificate of Authority to ServiSense.com, Inc.?
IPVoice Communications, Inc. is seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide resold and facilities based local exchange and interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. The applicant intends to offer 1+ and 101XXXX outbound dialing; 800/888 Toll-Free inbound dialing; calling cards; Centrex and/or Centrex-like services; and digital subscriber line, ISDN, and other high capacity line services.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant a Certificate of Authority to IPVoice Communications, Inc.?
Telcorp, Ltd. is seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange telecommunication services in South Dakota. The applicant is a switch-based reseller who intends to offer 1+ and 101XXXX outbound dialing, Toll-Free inbound dialing and travel card/calling card services.
TODAY, shall the Commission Grant a Certificate of Authority to Telcorp, Ltd.?
A second amendment to an interconnection agreement between Qwest Corporation f/k/a U S WEST Communications, Inc. (Qwest) and MIDCO Communications, Inc. d/b/a MidContinent Communications, Inc. has been filed with the Commission for approval. The original agreement was approved by the Commission in Docket TC99-023 and was effective May 5, 1999. The first amendment to the agreement was approved by the Commission in Docket TC99-023 and was effective June 6, 2000. The Second Amendment will add the terms and conditions for Unbundled Dedicated Interoffice Transport (UDIT). Parties had until September 7, 2000, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the amendment to the Interconnection Agreement?
13. IN THE MATTER OF THE FAILURE OF CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES TO TIMELY FILE THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX. (Deputy Executive Director: Sue Cichos.)
The following companies have failed to timely file their gross receipts tax as required by SDCL 49- 1A:
ACC National Long Distance
Accutel Communications, Inc.
ACOMM, Inc
Alliance Group Services
Atlantic Telephone Co.
Clear Point Communications f/k/a FON Digital Network, Inc.
Columbia Tele d/b/a aXessa
Comdata Telecommunications Services
ConnectAmerica, Inc. d/b/a Connect US
ConQuest Operator Services Corp
Enhanced Communications Network, Inc.
Federal TransTel, Inc.
Home Owners Long Distance
IdealDial Corp
Inacom Communications, Inc.
Inmark, Inc. d/b/a Preferred Billing
Intercontinental Communications Group, Inc. d/b/a Fusion
International Telecommunications Corp
Legends Communications, Inc.
Long Distance America
NeTel Inc d/b/a TEL3
Nor Communications, Inc.
PNV.net Inc was Park N View
QCC, Inc.
Quest Telecommunications, Inc.
SBR, Inc.
Small Business Billing
StormTel
USBG, Inc.
Verizon Select Service Inc f/k/a GTE Communications Corp
TODAY, shall the Commission issue an Order To Show Cause as to why the Commission should not fine, or suspend or revoke the Certificates Of Authority of each of these companies for failure to pay the requisite gross receipts tax?
Announcements
1. On September 8, 2000, a hearing will be held in Docket GD00-001 (Wheetco) at 8:30am in Room 413 of the State Capitol.
2. A hearing is scheduled in Docket CT00-060 (Blindauer) for September 13, 2000, at 1:30pm, in Room LCR#1 of the State Capitol.
3. A hearing is scheduled for September 26, 2000, in Docket CT00-088 (DeWitt) for September 26, 2000, at 1:30pm in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
4. Commission meetings and hearings are being scheduled for October 3, October 17, and November 2, 2000.
5. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Thursday, September 26, 2000, at 9:30am, in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos, Deputy Executive Director
September 6, 2000
