Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, February 5, 2002; 2:30 P.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 468
Pierre, South Dakota
NOTE: If you wish to join this meeting by conference call, please contact the Commission at 605-773-3201 by 5:00 p.m. on February 4, 2002.
NOTE: Notice is further given to persons with disabilities that this Commission meeting is being held in a physically accessible place. If you have special needs, please notify the Commission and we will make all necessary arrangements.
AGENDA OF THE COMMISSION MEETING
Administration
1. Approval Of The Minutes Of The Commission Meeting Held On January 24, 2002. (Staff: Mary Giddings.)
Consumer Issues
1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Mary Healy.)
The Commission has received 193 consumer contacts during 2002. 72 of the complaints were received since the January 24, 2002, meeting. So far the Commission has resolved 154 informal consumer complaints.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 57 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 16 contacts concerned billing issues; 2 concerned the unauthorized switch in telecommunication services; 7 concerned delayed service or delayed disconnect; 5 contacts involved telemarketers; 4 contacts involved disconnects; 2 concerned unauthorized billing; 4 contacts involved increased rates; 6 contacts involved no long distance service, and some of the remaining contacts involved international charges, long distance blocks, cellular service, fees, and territory boundaries.
ELECTRICITY: 10 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 7 of the contacts concerned disconnect; 1 concerned energy assistance; 1 concerned master metering, and 1 involved municipal utilities.
NATURAL GAS: 3 of the contacts involved natural gas. 1 of the contacts concerned rates; 1 contact involved disconnects, and 1 concerned a payment plan.
2. IN THE MATTER OF DISMISSING DOCKETS CC01-002, CT01-054, CT01-055, CT01-058, CT01-061, and CT02-001.
Complainant alleges that he is unable to make the payment amounts required by NWPS to keep his gas and electric services connected. Complainant is requesting additional time to prevent disconnection and to obtain assistance and make reasonable payment arrangements that he can afford. Complainant alleges that he has extenuating circumstances due to reduced hours of employment. Complainant requests that the company become more willing to work out payment arrangements that he can afford.
Complainant states that in May 2001, he contacted Qwest to transfer his service and was given a due date of November 8, 2001. On November 7, 2001, Complainant contacted Qwest to verify that his service would be connected on November 8, 2001. Qwest informed him that his service would be connected on November 8, 2001. Complainant moved his business to his new location and Qwest did not connect his service on November 8, 2001. After Complainant contacted the PUC he was given a new due date for service of November 14, 2001. Complainant's service was not connected on November 14, 2001. Qwest then informed Complainant that it would be an additional 10 days before service would be connected. Complainant contacted the PUC again and his service was connected on November 15, 2001. Complainant states that had Qwest told him that they could not provide him service on November 8, 2001, he would not have moved his business. Complainant is unable to determine how much business he has been unable to obtain because he did not have phone, fax and internet service. Complainant did receive a fax on November 16, 2001, from the State of South Dakota indicating that Complainant was not in compliance with his contract since he was unable to be contacted by telephone and that he was in jeopardy of losing a $250,000.00 contract if they did not hear from him. Complainant feels that the Commission should assess a fine to Qwest for $100,000.00 for its poor service and for the delay in his service.
Complainant states that her long distance service was switched to WebNet and billed through ILD on her local phone bill. Complainant did not authorize the switch and requests that the Commission award her $1,000.00 as stated under South Dakota law, that all charges be removed from her bill and that she be given reimbursement for any expenses she may incur to settle the complaint.
Complainant states that Integriss falsely filed a charge on her credit card for telecommunication services she did not request or authorize. Complainant requests a hearing be held on this matter, that Integriss be required to attend the hearing, that she be awarded $1,000.00 under South Dakota law, that all charges be removed and that all of her expenses be reimbursed.
Complainant states that since he began his service, that he has never authorized AT&T to bill him for any services. Complainant requests that the Public Utilities Commission review the complaint and advise him of his rights. Under South Dakota law 49-31-93, the company that initiates the unauthorized billing for products and services shall pay the consumer $1,000.00.
Complainant states that his business 800# has been disconnected by Sprint every month since October 2001. Complainant has his account set up for automatic payment each month by Sprint accessing his credit card. Each month Sprint informs him that the problem will be fixed. Complainant was told he would be given a $25.00 credit which he has never received. Complainant requests that Sprint pay him $5,000.00 for his time, lost business income, lost clients, stress and for being told three times that he would not lose service again. Complainant would also like the Public Utilities Commission to fine Sprint in the amount the Commission deems necessary to ensure that Sprint does not treat any other customer in a way that he has been treated.
TODAY, if the above matters are resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaints and close the dockets?
Complainant states that her credit card was charged for unauthorized billing by Direct One Com.Long Distance. She states that she has never heard of the company and does not want their service. Complainant requests that the company not be allowed to do business in South Dakota, that the Commission fine Direct One for the harassment and fraud to the Complainant. A hearing was held on October 10, 2001. On November 8, 2001, Staff filed a Motion to Reopen the Record for the sole purpose of allowing Staff to enter the documentation showing the costs associated with appearing at the hearing. The Motion to Reopen was granted at the November 27, 2001, meeting. The matter was deferred at the January 3, 2002, regular meeting.
TODAY, what is the Commission's decision?
Electric
On October 11, 2001, Basin Electric Power Cooperative submitted an application for a permit to construct transmission facilities as defined at SDCL 49-41B. These facilities consist of an asynchronous tie that would connect the eastern and western transmission grids near Rapid City, South Dakota. The rating of the tie would be in the range of 100 to 300 million volt-amperes, depending on the capabilities of the associated transmission system. The project is known as the Rapid City Tie Project and includes: approximately 23 miles of 230 kilovolt transmission line; a line terminal at the western edge of the project referred to as the South Rapid City Substation; an asynchronous tie converter station 4 miles southeast of the South Rapid City Substation; and a line terminal bay at the existing New Underwood Substation, at the eastern edge of the project. The project is located completely in Pennington County, South Dakota. On November 8, 2001, Black Hills Power, Inc. was granted intervention. A hearing in this matter was held November 28, 2001, in Rapid City. On December 12, 2001, intervention was granted to David S. Lamb and Andrea Andersen. On January 25, 2002, the Commission received a Motion for Extension of Time for Final Determination from Basin Electric Power Cooperative. Basin requests the time be extended to May 7, 2002.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Basin's Motion for Extension of Time for Final Determination?
Natural Gas
On December 28, 2001, the Commission received a filing from MidAmerican Energy Company pursuant to Docket NG95-019 requesting: (1) approval of its 2001 economic development report; and (2) approval of its 2002 economic development budget.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed 2001 Economic Development Report and 2002 Economic Development Plan?
Telecommunications
On June 13, 2001, Direct One, Inc. filed an application for a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. Direct One, Inc. is a reseller and intends to offer interexchange services, including 1+ and calling card services throughout South Dakota. On January 25, 2002, Direct One filed a request to withdraw its application.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the withdrawal and close the docket?
On June 27, 2001, an Agreement between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and Preferred Carrier Services, Inc. (Preferred) was filed with the Commission for approval. According to the parties the agreement is a negotiated agreement with the parties adopting the terms and conditions of the negotiated Wireline Interconnection Agreement and any associated amendments, if applicable, between Qwest and Covad Communications Company which was approved by the Commission on November 18, 1999, in TC99-017. Parties had until July 17, 2001, to file comments. The matter was deferred at the July 24, 2001, regular meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
On October 16, 2001, James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company and Qwest jointly filed for approval of a proposed territory boundary change. As requested by the customer, Qwest has agreed to release the customer to James Valley. The customer resides in the Redfield exchange of Qwest's territory. He would like to be served by James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company from its Mellette Exchange. Additionally, James Valley and Qwest each also requested an amended Certificate of Authority pursuant to SDCL 49-31-69.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed boundary change? AND, shall the Commission amend the Certificates of Authority of James Valley and Qwest?
On December 5, 2001, staff attorney Kelly Frazier petitioned the Commission to issue an order to show cause as to why BuyersOnLine should not be found in violation of state law for selling telecommunication services without a certificate of authority and failure to pay gross receipt taxes.
TODAY, shall the Commission issue an order to Show Cause as to why BuyersOnLine should not be found to be violation of state law?
On January 3, 2002, the Commission received a filing of an Amendment to Type 2 Wireless Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (VZW) for the State of South Dakota. According to the parties the Agreement is a negotiated agreement and the Amendment is made to implement the requirements of the Order on Remand and Report and Order in CC Docket Nos. 96-98 and 99-68 regarding intercarrier compensation for Internet service provider bound traffic. Parties had until January 23, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendment?
On January 7, 2002, the Commission received a Filing of Statement of Generally Available Terms and Conditions for Interconnection, Unbundled Network Elements, Ancillary Services and Resale of Telecommunications Services between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and VarTec Telecom, Inc. (VarTec). According to the parties, the Agreement is a negotiated agreement which sets forth the terms, conditions and prices under which Qwest will offer and provide to any requesting CLEC network interconnection, access to unbundled network elements, ancillary services and telecommunications services available for resale within the geographical areas in which both parties are providing local exchange services at that time and for which Qwest is the incumbent local exchange carrier within the State of South Dakota for purposes of providing local telecommunications services. Parties had until January 28, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed Interconnection Agreement?
7. TC02-003 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN QWEST CORPORATION AND MCLEODUSA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. (Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
On January 9, 2002, the Commission received a filing from Qwest Corporation (Qwest) for approval of an amendment to the interconnection agreement between Qwest and McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (McLeod). According to the parties, the agreement is a negotiated agreement and is made in order to add to the agreement the terms, conditions and charges for CLEC-to-CLEC Cross-Connections as set forth in Attachment 1 and Exhibit A attached to the amendment. Parties had until January 29, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendment?
On January 9, 2002, the Commission received a filing from Qwest Corporation (Qwest) for approval of an amendment to the interconnection agreement between Qwest and Integra Telecom of South Dakota, Inc. (Integra). According to the parties, the agreement is a negotiated agreement and is made in order to add terms, conditions and rates for Enhanced Extended Loop to the agreement, as set forth in Attachment 1 and Exhibits A, B and C attached to the amendment. Parties had until January 29, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendment?
On January 9, 2002, the Commission received a filing from Qwest Corporation (Qwest) for approval of an amendment to the interconnection agreement between Qwest and TW Wireless, L.L.C. (TW Wireless). According to the parties, the agreement is a negotiated agreement and is made in order to add terms and conditions for the Single Point of Presence (SPOP) in the LATA, as set forth in Attachment 1 and Exhibit A attached to the amendment. Parties had until January 29, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendment?
On January 9, 2002, the Commission received a filing from Qwest Corporation (Qwest) for approval of an amendment to the interconnection agreement between Qwest and Midcontinent Communications, Inc. (Midcontinent). According to the parties, the agreement is a negotiated agreement and is made in order to add the terms and conditions for Single Point of Presence in the LATA, as set forth in Attachment 1 and Exhibit A attached to the amendment. Parties had until January 29, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendment?
Announcements
1. Commissioners and Staff will be attending the NARUC meeting in Washington, DC, on February 10-13, 2002.
2. A hearing is scheduled in Docket NG01-010 (MidAmerican Rate Case) for February 20-21, 2002, at the King's Inn in Pierre, SD.
3. A hearing in TC01-165 (Qwest 271 Filing) will be held on April 22-26, 2002, in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
4. Commission Meetings and Hearings are being planned for March 13, March 26 and April 16, 2002.
5. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held February 26, 2002, at 1:30pm, in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
sue.cichos@state.sd.us
January 29, 2002
