Commission Agendas | previous page
Please see Addendum to this Agenda
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Thursday, August 15, 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 August 14, 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 MEETINGS HELD ON JULY 23, AND 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 1244 consumer contacts during 2002. 308 of the complaints were received since the July 23, 2002, meeting. So far the Commission has resolved 1168 informal consumer complaints.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 275 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 39 contacts concerned billing issues; 171 involved cellular service; 9 concerned the unauthorized switch in telecommunication services; 3 concerned delayed service or delayed disconnect; 2 contacts involved telemarketers; 5 contacts involved disconnects; 6 concerned poor service; 5 involved rates; and some of the remaining contacts involved fees, repair and life line/linkup.
ELECTRICITY: 26 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 9 of the contacts concerned disconnect; 7 concerned outages; 2 involved poor service; and some of the remaining issues involved rates, late charges and service territory.
NATURAL GAS: No contacts involved natural gas.
Complainant states that although South Dakota had a mild winter in 2002, he noticed an increase in his billing on his February 11, 2002, electric statement. Complainant requested that the company reread the meter. After NorthWestern reread the meter, the company stated that the original reading was correct. Complainant then noticed a substantial increase in his natural gas usage. Complainant believes that NorthWestern has made a serious mistake with his billing by over reading his meters and fraudulently taking money from him and the low income energy assistance program. If Complainant's charges are substantiated, Complainant feels that all NorthWestern meter readers should be required to take a drug and alcohol test, thoroughly inspect the devices that are used to read the meters and repay or credit his account or low income energy assistance account.
Complainant states that the service that was offered to him by AT&T was not honored. Complainant was contacted by AT&T regarding AT&T long distance service. The representative offered Complainant a calling plan that would cost him $12.00 per month for unlimited calls, send him a $75.00 check, 2 $50.00 phone cards, 4 coupons for free pizza and remove his current long distance charges. When Complainant did not pay for the unauthorized billing dispute, the account was turned over to a collection agency. Although AT&T credited $80.29 of the charges Complainant believes that AT&T did not honor the offer that was made to him and he was signed up for a calling plan he did not agree to. Complainant requests that AT&T pay him for the remainder of the offer that he agreed to in the amount of $159.98 plus pay him $1,000.00 as stated in SDCL 49-31-93 for the unauthorized billing.
CT02-020 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY BRUCE OLSON, RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MIDWEST, INC. REGARDING UNAUTHORIZED BILLING FOR SERVICES. (Staff Analyst: Mary Healy. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
Complainant states that he is being billed for collect calls that were not accepted in his home. Complainant requests that all charges be removed and that he receive a letter of apology from AT&T admitting to the billing error.
Complainant's representative states that in 2001, it updated the facility to have high speed internet DSL service. McLeodUSA could not offer this service to the facility, so the Complainant changed its provider to Ionex. By switching to Ionex, the Complainant was also able to receive lower long distance rates than what it received from McLeodUSA. Complainant's representative states that it was told it should be released from the McLeodUSA contract under stipulation #6 "Most Favored Customer" in its contract with McLeodUSA. The Ionex representative then told the Complainant to write a letter of termination to McLeodUSA. Complainant was then double billed from McLeodUSA and Ionex for long distance calls and also assessed a termination fee from McLeodUSA. Complainant has since received notification from McLeodUSA that it has a credit balance and still owes a termination fee. Complainant's representative requests that McLeodUSA release it from any termination fees and pay Complainant $2,511.42 for the double billings.
TODAY, if the above matters are resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaints and close the dockets?
Electric
Application by Otter Tail Power Company for approval of a contract with deviations to serve the City of Elkton. The filing requests approval with less than 30 days notice. The existing contract expires September 1, 2002. The filing states the new contract does not include any new rates.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed contract with deviations?
Telecommunications
Gold Line Telemanagement Inc. has filed an application for a Certificate of Authority to provide resold interexchange services in South Dakota. The applicant proposes to resell 1+ and 101XXXX outbound dialing, 800/888 Toll-Free inbound dialing, directory assistance, data services, travel card service, and prepaid calling card service.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Gold Line Telemanagement Inc.?
On May 5, 1999, the Commission granted Level 3 Communications, LLC (Level 3) authority to provide local exchange services in those areas in South Dakota where U S WEST Communications, Inc. [now Qwest Corporation] is the incumbent local exchange carrier. On February 19, 2002, the Commission received an application from Level 3 to provide facilities-based local exchange services within the service territory of Beresford Municipal Telephone Company. SDTA was granted intervention. On July 29, 2002, Beresford filed a Motion to Dismiss.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Beresford's Motion to Dismiss?
On March 22, 2002, the Commission received for approval 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 KMC Telecom V, Inc. (KMC) for the State of South Dakota. 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 Qwest is providing local exchange service 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 April 11, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
On May 14, 2002, the Commission received an application to transfer the certificate of authority from One Call Communications, Inc. to OCMC, Inc. OCMC, Inc. purchased the assets of One Call Communications, Inc.'s operator services and long distance divisions. OCMC will lease lines from Qwest, MCIWorldcom and Sprint. They will contract with operators to handle the calls and OCMC will handle the billing.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed transfer?
5. TC02-051 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING FOR APPROVAL OF AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN MCLEODUSA TELECOM DEVELOPMENT, INC., MCLEODUSA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., MCLEODUSA INCORPORATED AND MIDCONTINENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (Staff Attorney: Rolayne Ailts Wiest.)
On May 22, 2002, the Commission received for approval a filing of an Interconnection Agreement between McLeodUSA Telecom Development, Inc., McLeodUSA Telecommunications Systems, Inc., McLeodUSA Incorporated, (all three collectively "McLeodUSA") and Midcontinent Communications, Inc. (Midcontinent). According to the parties, the Agreement sets forth the terms, conditions and prices under which the parties agree to provide interconnection and reciprocal compensation for the exchange of local traffic between Midcontinent and McLeodUSA in the DKI service areas. Parties had until June 11, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
On June 17, 2002, the Commission received for approval a filing of an Agreement for Terms and Conditions for Interconnection, Unbundled Network Elements, Ancillary Services and Resale of Telecommunications Services between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and Level 3 Communications, LLC (Level 3). 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. The Agreement is limited to the geographical areas in which Qwest is the incumbent local exchange carrier within the State of South Dakota for purposes of providing local telecommunications services. Parties had until July 8, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
7. TC02-061 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING FOR APPROVAL OF A RESALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN QWEST CORPORATION AND HOULTON ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A GUARANTEED PHONE SERVICE. (Staff Attorney: Rolayne Ailts Wiest.)
On June 17, 2002, the Commission received a filing for approval of a Resale Agreement between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and Houlton Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Guaranteed Phone Service. According to the parties, the Agreement is a negotiate agreement which sets forth the terms, conditions and prices under which Qwest agrees to provide unbundled network element platform and/or services for resale to Guaranteed Phone Service for the sole purpose of providing telecommunications services. Parties had until July 8, 2002, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
Airnex Communications, Inc. has filed an application with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Certificate of Authority of provide resold interexchange telecommunications service in South Dakota. The applicant intends to market services primarily to residential and small to
mid-sized businesses throughout South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Airnex Communications, Inc.?
On July 22, 2002, Qwest Corporation filed revisions to its Exchange and Network Services Tariff for approval. These revisions increase the Federal Telephone Assistance Plan credit from $6.75 to $7.75 to offset the $1.00 increase in the Residence Subscriber Line Charge.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
On July 29, 2002, Qwest Corporation filed revised Access Service Tariff pages to remove the Equal Access and Network Reconfiguration Recovery Charge. Qwest Corporation ceased collection of these revenues effective July 23, 2002.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
On July 29, 2002, Qwest filed a revision to its Access Services Tariff. The purpose of the filing is to add USOCs to various existing transport rate elements. The USOCs are being added to bring USOCs in the state access tariff in alignment with those in the FCC Tariff #1.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
On August 5, 2002, the South Dakota Department of Transportation filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling. The question to be answered is: Is 511 a noncompetitive service as defined by SDCL 49-31-1.1, so as to give rise to Commission price regulation in accordance with SDCL 49-31-4 and 49-31-1.4? The Petitioner has applied for and been approved by the Federal Highway Administration for its 511 Traveler Information Telephone Number Program Support Assistance Program to deploy a statewide 511 number providing travel information services. The deadline to intervene is August 14, 2002.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to any parties who may file?
Announcements
1. A public hearing in TC02-065 (DCT/Prairiewave) is scheduled for August 12, 2002, in Viborg, South Dakota, at 6:30pm.
2. A Commission meeting and hearings are being planned for September 24, 2002.
3. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held September 5, 2002, at 1:30pm, in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
sue.cichos@state.sd.us
August 8, 2002
