Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Thursday, May 9, 2002; 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 May 8, 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.
ADDENDUM TO THE AGENDA
Consumer Issues
Complainant has several concerns about Otter Tail service. Complainant's main concern is that she feels that the billing for her usage of electricity is extremely high. Complainant also states that when the company came to trim her tree which had grown into Otter Tail's electric wires, the company did not ask her permission and the company butchered her tree. She has attempted to work with Otter Tail to resolve several issues but has been unsuccessful. Complainant requests that hefty fines be placed on Otter Tail and that she be given compensation by the company. She would like to have the company go over her bills with her since the day she began service. She feels that there should be a flat fee on her meter where she would pay only $150 no matter how much usage she used all year. She would like two locks placed on all meters with one being placed by the customer and one being placed by the company. On May 2, 2002, Otter Tail filed a Motion to Continue Hearing To Allow Meter Testing Pursuant to Tariff and for an Order Requiring Complainant to Remove a Lock from Respondent's Meter Socket. The parties agreed to continue the hearing which was scheduled for May 9, 2002.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the Motion to Allow Meter Testing and Require Complainant to Remove Lock from Respondent's Meter Socket?
Complainant states that when she ordered an item from NSI Diabetic Socks/Publishers Choice, the telemarketer attempted to sell her long distance service. Complainant told the telemarketer that she was not interested. On her December 2001 credit card statement, Complainant had two charges for long distance service. One of the charges was from Direct One and one charge was from Paysystems.Com. Complainant's January 2002 credit card statement reflected another charge for long distance service from Long Distance USA. Complainant states that other than the charges to her credit card statement, she has never received anything in the mail from any of the billing companies. Complainant requests that each company listed on her billing be fined $1,000.00 as allowed under South Dakota law, and that the companies be stopped from deceiving South Dakota residents and using unethical practices to generate profits.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
Telecommunications
RDST, Inc. was granted a Certificate of Authority in docket TC99-044, subject to the condition that RDST continuously maintain a $25,000 surety bond. RDST is requesting relief from the Commission's bond requirement by accepting restrictions on prepaid cards, advanced payments and deposits. On May 7, 2002, RDST filed revised tariff sheets with the Commission.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve an amendment to the conditions of the Certificate of Authority of RDST?
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
sue.cichos@state.sd.us
May 7, 2002
