Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Thursday, October 17, 2002; 9:00 - 11:30 A.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 October 16, 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 MORNING COMMISSION MEETING
Natural Gas
1. NG02-007 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF CONTINUATION OF THE IGSPP. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson, Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
On August 27, 2002, the Commission received an application by MidAmerican Energy to Continue its Incentive Gas Supply Procurement Program (IGSPP). This program was initially approved by the Commission for a three-year period in 1995, and was approved with modifications for a second three-year period in 1999. This filing proposes to further extend application of the plan, with modifications, to be effective through October 31, 2005. The IGSPP compares actual gas supply costs to a benchmark and allows for a sharing of the difference between ratepayers and MidAmerican Energy.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve MidAmerican's request for Continuation of its Incentive Gas Supply Procurement Program?
Adjourning until 1:30 P.M.
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Thursday, October 17, 2002; 1:30 P.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 412
Pierre, South Dakota
AGENDA OF THE AFTERNOON COMMISSION MEETING
Administration
1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 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 1557 consumer contacts during 2002. 165 of the complaints were received since the September 24, 2002, meeting. So far the Commission has resolved 1472 informal consumer complaints.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 126 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 39 contacts concerned billing issues; 9 involved cellular service; 6 concerned the unauthorized switch in telecommunication services; 2 concerned delayed service or delayed disconnect; 3 contacts involved disconnects; 5 concerned poor service; 3 involved unauthorized billing for products or services; 8 involved rates; 4 concerned long distance providers and some of the remaining contacts involved voice mail, life line, do not call list and internet service.
ELECTRICITY: 27 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 14 of the contacts concerned disconnect; 3 involved rates; 3 involved billing; 4 concerned power outages; 1 concerned a power line; 1 involved property damage and 1 concerned a deposit.
NATURAL GAS: 7 of the contacts involved natural gas. 4 concerned disconnects; 1 concerned general information about a provider and 2 involved billing.
2. CT02-035 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY SHARON AND ROBERT HERRICK, EMERY, SOUTH DAKOTA, AGAINST SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. REGARDING UNAUTHORIZED SWITCHING OF SERVICES. (Staff Analyst: Mary Healy, Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
Complainants state that their service was switched without their authorization. Sprint has indicated in its informal response to the complaint that the switch was made over the internet by Robert. Complainants state that they did not switch service over the internet and that the social security number and date of birth for Robert are incorrect. Complainants request $1,000.00 allowed under South Dakota law. On September 26, 2002 the Commission received a Motion To Dismiss from Sprint. According to the Motion, the Complainant, Robert Herrick, admitted that his son initiated the switch via the internet. Sprint seeks dismissal pursuant to SDCL 25-5-15.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Sprint's Motion To Dismiss?
Electric
1. EL02-020 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY OTTER TAIL POWER COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH DEVIATIONS WITH THE CITY OF EDEN. (Staff Analyst: Michele Farris, Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
Otter Tail Power Company has filed for approval of a Municipal Contract with the City of Eden and a Summary List of Contracts with Deviations. The Municipal Contract for the City of Eden was updated because the old Contract will expire on October 26, 2002. The new Contract does not include any new rates that would be considered a deviation.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the contract with deviations?
Telecommunications
On May 31, 2001, the Commission received a Stipulation for Procedure on Remand entered into by GCC License Corporation (GCC) and the South Dakota Independent Telephone Coalition (SDITC). In the cover letter, SDITC stated that the Stipulation was "reached by the parties to facilitate a decision by the Commission consistent with the South Dakota Supreme Court's remand of the case for a determination regarding the remaining public interest issue." A stipulation between SDITC and GCC was approved by the Commission. On July 26, 2001, SDITC and GCC provided oral arguments before the Commission on the public interest remand issue. A September 7, 2001, meeting, the Commission found that it was in the public interest to designate GCC as an ETC in the rural telephone exchanges listed in the Stipulation, subject to certain conditions. On August 29, 2002, the Commission received the compliance filing from Western Wireless (formerly known as GCC). On September 24, 2002, the Commission deferred this ma
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On October 25, 2001, Qwest Corporation filed with the Commission a Petition For Commission Recommendation That The Federal Communications Commission Grant Qwest Corporation Entry Into The In-Region InterLATA Market Under Section 271 Of The Telecommunications Act Of 1996. Specifically, Qwest Corporation requests that this Commission find, based upon the record presented, that Qwest Corporation has met the competitive checklist and other requirements of 47 U.S.C. Section 271, which prescribe the mechanism by which Qwest Corporation may be found eligible to provide in-region interLATA services and rely upon that finding to provide a favorable recommendation to the Federal Communications Commission. In support of its petition, Qwest Corporation submitted 25 affidavits, a revised Statement of Generally Available Terms, and 7 Reports submitted in the Seven-State Process.
On September 26, 2002, the Commission received from AT&T a Motion to Reopen and Supplement the Record. On September 30, 2002, the Commission received from Qwest a Request for Acceptance of PO-20 for Inclusion in the QPAP.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant AT&T's Motion? AND, shall the Commission grant Qwest's Request? AND, shall the Commission find Qwest is in compliance with certain section 271 requirements?
On August 29, 2002, the Commission received for approval a Filing for Approval of Statement of Generally Available Terms (SGAT) and Conditions for Interconnection, Unbundled Network Elements, Ancillary Services and Resale of Telecommunications Services between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and New Edge Network (New Edge), Second Revision. According to the parties this SGAT 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 telecommunication services available for resale within the geographical areas in which Qwest is providing local exchange service at the time and for which Qwest is the incumbent local exchange carrier within the state of South Dakota for purposes of providing local telecommunication services. Any party wishing to comment on the agreement may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the agreement no later than September 18, 2002. Parties to the agreement may file written responses to the comments no later than twenty days after the service of the initial comments.
Today, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
On August 21, 2002, the Commission received for approval a filing of an Amendment for DC Power Reduction Procedure, Collocation Transfer of Responsibility, Collocation Decommission and Collocation Cancellation to the Interconnection Agreement Between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and New Edge Networks (New Edge) for the State of South Dakota. According to the filing, the Agreement is Amended by adding the terms and conditions (and associated rates where applicable) for DC Power Reduction Procedure, Collocation Transfer of Responsibility, Collocation Decommission and Collocation Cancellation as set forth in Attachments 1 through 4, and Exhibit A, attached to the filing. The deadline for intervention and filing comments was September 10, 2002. No petitions to intervene or comments were received.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendment?
On May 3, 2002, AmeriTel Prepaid, LLC filed an application for a Certificate of Authority to provide local exchange services in South Dakota. The Applicant intends to offer prepaid local calling services with various restrictions. The Company has failed to provide responses to Staff=s data requests.
TODAY, shall the Commission deny the Certificate of Authority for AmeriTel Prepaid, LLC?
6. TC02-044 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF NOW COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTH DAKOTA, INC. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE INTEREXCHANGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND LOCAL EXCHANGE SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Heather Forney, Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
NOW Communications of South Dakota, Inc. is seeking a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange and local exchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. NOW intends to offer services to residential customers with poor or no credit history who are often unable to obtain local exchange services from the ILEC. The applicant intends to provide interexchange service on a resale basis and local exchange service via resale and the purchase of local exchange carrier network elements (UNE).
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to NOW Communications of South Dakota?
Application of Choice Telco, LLC for a certificate of authority to provide resold interexchange telecommunications service in South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Choice Telco, LLC?
Ridley Telephone Company, LLC has filed an application with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange service in South Dakota. The applicant intends to provide resold interexchange service, including MTS, in-WATS, out-WATS, and calling card services throughout South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Ridley Telephone Company, LLC?
Application of Tralee Telephone Company, LLC for a certificate of authority to provide resold interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Tralee Telephone Company, LLC?
10. TC02-104 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF TELLISS, LLC FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE INTEREXCHANGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Michele Farris, Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
Telliss, LLC has filed an application with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange service in South Dakota. The applicant intends to provide resold interexchange service, including MTS, in-WATS, out-WATS, and calling card services throughout South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Telliss, LLC?
Application of ILOKA Inc. d/b/a Microtech-tel for a certificate of authority to provide resold and facilities-based local exchange and interexchange services in South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Iloka Inc. d/b/a Microtech-Tel?
12. TC02-107 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY VP TELECOM, INC. FOR APPROVAL OF ITS INTRASTATE SWITCHED ACCESS TARIFF AND FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM DEVELOPING COMPANY SPECIFIC COST-BASED SWITCHED ACCESS RATES. (Staff Analyst: Heather Forney, Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
VP Telecom has filed a request for an exemption from developing company-specific cost-based switched access rates contained in ARSD 20:10:27:07. The Company indicates that it does not have the available resources to determine company-specific cost-based intrastate switched access rates. VP Telecom is also requesting a waiver from the process to determine switched access rates under ARSD 20:10:27:12.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff and/or the requested exemption?
NECC Telecom, Inc. has filed an application with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange service in South Dakota. The applicant intends to provide resold interexchange service, including 1+ and 101XXXX outbound dialing, 800/888 Toll-Free inbound dialing, directory assistance, data services and travel card service to customers throughout South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to NECC Telecom, Inc.?
On August 28, 2002, Global Communications Consulting Corp. filed an application for a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. The Applicant intends to offer a full range of interexchange services on a resale basis. Services include direct dial, MTS, in-WATS, out-WATS and Calling Card services.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Global Communications Consulting Corp.?
On September 3, 2002, the Commission received for approval a Filing of Bill and Keep Compensation Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Ionex Communications North, Inc. for South Dakota (Ionex) and Qwest Corporation (Qwest). According to the parties, this is an Amendment to the negotiated interconnection agreement between Ionex and Qwest which was approved by the Commission on September 14, 1999, and is made to utilize the Bill and Keep Compensation Mechanism as set forth in Attachment 1, attached to the Amendment.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed Amendment?
16. TC02-116 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN QWEST CORPORATION AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC. (Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
On September 3, 2002, the Commission received for approval a Filing of Single Point of Presence (SPOP) Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Level 3 Communications, LLC (Level 3) and Qwest Corporation (Qwest). According to the parties, this is an Amendment to the negotiated Interconnection Agreement between Level 3 and Qwest which was approved by the Commission on June 17, 2002, in Docket No. TC02-060. The Amendment is made in order to add terms and conditions for SPOP in the LATA as set forth in Attachment 1 and Exhibit A, attached to the Amendment.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed Amendment?
On September 20, 2002, the Commission received for approval a Filing of Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (McLeodUSA) and Qwest Corporation (Qwest) f/k/a U S WEST Communications, Inc. According to the parties, this is an Amendment to the negotiated Interconnection Agreement which was approved by the Commission effective July 23, 1999, in Docket No. TC99-057. The filing is intended to amend the Amendment approved on or about January 24, 2001, by adding language to the end of section 1.11 and by replacing the platform recurring rates column with the chart which was attached to the filing.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed Amendment?
On September 23, 2002, Qwest Corporation filed revised pages from its Access Services Tariff. The revisions introduce Managed Long Distance Service (MLD) for interexchange carriers. MLD is a wholesale platform service offered by Qwest to IXCs to monitor and control long distance spending of end-users. Qwest requests an effective date of October 14, 2002.
On October 9, 2002, Qwest filed a letter to withdraw their filing.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the withdrawal and close the docket?
19. TC02-166 IN THE MATTER OF S&S COMMUNICATIONS/ALTERNA-CELL'S COMPLIANCE WITH COMMISSION ORDER. (Staff Analyst: Keith Senger, Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
On September 27, 2002, the Commission received a Motion from Staff requesting that the Commission issue an Order To Show Cause to S&S Communications/Alterna-Cell (S&S) as to why S&S should not be found in violation of the Order Granting Certificate of Authority in TC00-114 (Order) and of the laws of the State of South Dakota, including but not limited to SDCL 49-31-7.1 and ARSD 20:10:01:28, 20:10:06:05 and 20:10:24:05.05. According to the Motion, Staff has sent numerous data requests to S&S in order to determine the proper amount of bond which S&S must post pursuant to the Order. On September 24, 2002, Staff received a letter from S&S objecting to providing this information. The Motion alleges that this denial is in violation of state law and alleges that S&S is not properly bonded. Staff seeks an Order, inter alia, compelling S&S to produce the information requested by Staff, compelling S&S to meet the bond requirements of the Order or suspending or revoking S&S' certificate of authority. The intervention deadline for this docket is October 16, 2002. Any party wishing to comment on the Motion may do so by filing written comments with the Commission and the parties to the agreement no later than October 16, 2002. Written responses to the comments may be filed no later than twenty days after the service of the initial comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to any parties who have filed? And shall the Commission grant Staff's motion for the Commission to issue an Order to Show Cause?
20. IN THE MATTER OF THE FAILURE OF CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES TO TIMELY FILE THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX. (Finance Officer: Terri J. Iverson.)
The following companies have failed to timely file their gross receipts tax as required by SDCL 49-1A:
ACS Systems, Inc.
America's Tele-Network Corp.
Big Planet, Inc.
Capsule Communications, Inc.
CEO Telecommunications, Inc.
Cybertel Communications Corp.
EqualNet Corporation
Federal TransTel, Inc.
Global TeleLink Services, Inc, d/b/a South Dakota GTS
Inmark, Inc. d/b/a Preferred Billing
IPVoice Communications, Inc.
Maxtel USA, Inc.
NeTeL, Inc. d/b/a Tel3
NTERA, Inc.
Pac-West Telecomm Inc.
Preferred Carrier Services, Inc.
Premiere Network Services
Qwest Communications Inc.
RapTel Communications, LLC
Sterling Time Company
Storm Tel, Inc.
TalkNow, Inc.
Telephone Co. of Central Florida
TON Services, Inc.
United Services Telephone, LLC
USLD Communications, Inc.
West End Communications Inc.
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?
Grain Dealers
1. GD01-002 IN THE MATTER OF GRAIN DEALER'S BOND OF AGRIBIOTECH INC. (Staff Attorney: Rolayne Wiest.)
On August 2, 2001, the Commission filed with the Third Judicial Circuit a Petition to Appoint South Dakota Public Utilities Commission as a receiver of AgriBioTech, Inc. (ABT) pursuant to SDCL 49-45-16 and SDCL Chapter 21-21, to take possession of the cash proceeds of the grain dealer's bond numbered 400JR0028. On August 29, 2001, the Commission was appointed receiver by the Honorable Judge Ronald K. Roehr of the Third Judicial Circuit of South Dakota. A hearing was held as scheduled on November 1, 2001, in Watertown, South Dakota. At the end of the hearing, the record was left open pending Staff's further investigation into the issue of the Creditor Trustee's demand for the return of money paid to certain grain sellers on the basis that the payments constituted preferential transfers. Subsequently, Staff received additional proof of claims for cash grain related to the issue of preferential transfers. On September 8, 2002, the Commission received from Staff a Motion to Receive Evidence regarding the additional proof of claims.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Staff's Motion to Receive Evidence? AND, what is the Commission's decision regarding all of the proof of claims which have been received as evidence?
Administration
1. IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTRACT WITH SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID CONSULTING. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson.)
To approve a contract with Spiegel & McDiarmid to do consulting for Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company, FERC Docket No. RP00-107-000.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed $50,000.00 contract?
Announcements
1. A hearing will be held on November 7, 2002, at the Bennett County Court House in Martin, South Dakota, at 12:00 MST / 1:00 CST.
2. The office will be closed on November 11, 2002, in observance of Veterans' Day.
3. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held November 20, 2002, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
Terri J. Iverson
terri.iverson@state.sd.us
