Commission Agendas | previous page
Please click here for the Addendum to this Agenda
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Thursday, December 19, 2002; 1:30 P.M.
State Capitol Building, Room 464
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 December 18, 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 NOVEMBER 20, 2002. (Staff: Mary Giddings.)
Consumer Issues
1. STATUS REPORT ON CONSUMER UTILITY INQUIRIES AND COMPLAINTS RECENTLY RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION. (Consumer Affairs: Mary Healy.)
2. IN THE MATTER OF DISMISSING DOCKETS CE02-003; CT02-044
Complainant states that power failures and disruptions in service caused the taxpayers of Minnehaha County unnecessary expense due to mechanical failures in the amount of $4,018.58 which was caused by an imbalance on the Lincoln County 71 Feeder. Complainant is requesting Xcel Energy to credit account in the amount of $4,018.58 to fix equipment at the Juvenile Detention Center caused by their imbalanced load on 71 Feeder in Lincoln County.
The Complainant's representative alleges that Headlines Academy, Inc. (Complainant) was informed by McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (McLeod) that Complainant's contract with McLeod had expired. As a result, Complainant's representative believed Complainant was free to switch to another service provider, as it was under no contractual obligation to stay with McLeod. Complainant did switch to another service provider and McLeod then billed it $3,066.60 for termination liability. Complainant's representative requests that Complainant not be charged the $3,066.60.
TODAY, if the above matters are resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaints and close the dockets?
Christopher Cutler states that in March 2002, Complainant entered into an agreement with AT&T to receive Fragmented T1 service. On more than one occasion, the AT&T representative assured the Complainant that AT&T could provide this service. Complainant has now been informed that AT&T cannot provide the Fragmented T1 service. Complainant states that it has invested more than $150,000.00 in its business to utilize the Fragmented T1 service. Complainant requests that AT&T provide the Fragmented T1 service that stated it could provide. If the service cannot be provided, Complainant would be willing to negotiate a settlement with AT&T for the expenses the Complainant has incurred. Complainant feels that AT&T should put forth some form of effort to resolve this complaint. On October 24, 2002, AT&T filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment. On December 9, 2002, AT&T filed a Motion for Continuance because of a change of counsel in the case. The Motion for Continuance is scheduled to be heard at 1:30 P.M. on December 17, 2002.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant AT&T's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment?
Complainant states several issues with respect to CellularOne's credit, deposit, billing, customer service and customer information practices toward Complainant. On October 31, 2002, CellularOne filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to SDCL 1-26-18 requesting that the Commission find, based upon the pleadings on file and the Affidavit filed in support of the Motion, that there are no genuine issues as to any material fact in the case and that CellularOne is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant CellularOne's Motion for Summary Judgment?
On October 17, 2002, the Commission received a complaint from Guy and Linda Varud (Complainants) of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) and McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (McLeodUSA). According to the complaint, the Complainants' phone will not operate after there is rain or moisture in the air. Complainants state that Qwest has alleged it is a problem with McLeodUSA wiring. McLeodUSA has alleged it is a problem with Qwest wiring. Complainants believe that the wiring problem is a result of substandard inside wiring, which should fall within the inside wiring protection they have paid McLeodUSA for. Complainants seek to have the company responsible pay for the line repair inspection bill, pay to have the wiring fixed and provide reasonable compensation to Complainants for time spent seeking resolution of the problem.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant McLeodUSA's Motion that the complaint be dismissed? Shall the Commission dismiss Qwest as a party?
Electric
On August 16, 2002, the City of Fort Pierre and West Central Electric filed for approval an agreement with respect to territorial service areas. The joint agreement provides that the following territory shall become the service territory of the City of Fort Pierre: the South one-half of the Southeast one-forth of Section 17, and the South one-half of the Southwest one-forth of Section 16, Township 5 North, Range 31 East of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Stanley County, South Dakota, and land immediately to the east thereof, extending to the Missouri River, which provides the eastern boundary of said area, the foregoing parcels lying adjacent and immediately north of the north boundary line of the city limits of the City of Fort Pierre.
On September 9, 2002, the Frontier Road Homeowners Association (Homeowners) filed a Petition to Intervene as it believes that "it is discriminatory and at least facially conspiratorial for the City and West Central to agree in advance, before annexation, that the very area that City sought to annex in 1999 will now be penalized in the future if the area is annexed by City." Homeowners' petition was granted. On November 25, 2002, an Amendment to Agreement between City of Ft. Pierre and West Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Resolution No. 2002-033 was filed. On December 11, 2002, Homeowners filed a Withdraw of Intervention.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Homeowner's withdrawal? AND, how shall the Commission proceed?
On September 27, 2002, the Commission received for approval a filing of revised rate sheets for Occasional Delivery Energy Service and Time of Delivery Energy Service. According to the filing, the proposed Occasional Delivery Energy Service rate sheet is revised to reflect an increased metering charge and energy payment. The proposed Time of Delivery Energy Service rate sheet is revised to reflect a decrease in metering charge. Similarly, energy and capacity payments are also revised to reflect the Company's 2002 avoided costs estimate, as illustrated in attachment 1 to the filing.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve Xcel Energy's proposed tariff sheets?
Otter Tail Power Company filed a petition for approval of proposed changes to its standard Municipal Contract form. The form currently used may create deviations from Otter Tail's Outdoor Lighting Tariff. The changes proposed in this filing would create a standard form, which will be consistent among the three states in which Otter Tail provides retail electric service.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed revised Municipal Service Agreement form SDPUC?
3. EL02-023 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES CO. FOR APPROVAL OF A REVISION TO ITS FUEL CLAUSE TO PERMIT THE INCLUSION OF PURCHASED POWER COSTS RELATED TO RENEWABLE ENERGY PURCHASES. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson, Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
Application by Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. for approval of tariff revisions which would allow costs of energy produced by renewable resources to be included in and recovered by Fuel Clause Rate 58. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. has entered into an agreement to purchase electric energy from Dakota I Power Partners LLC which will construct wind generation facilities in the near future. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. is requesting authority to recover such costs, and specifically the costs of wind generated energy pursuant to the agreement, through Fuel Clause Rate 58.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. proposed tariff sheet and also the inclusion of purchased power costs related to energy purchased from Dakota I Power Partners LLC in Fuel Clause Rate 58?
Application by Otter Tail Power Company for approval of a contract with deviations with the city of Waubay. The current municipal contract providing electrical service expires January 2, 2003. The new contract is proposed to remain in effect for 10 years.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve Otter Tail Power Company's proposed tariff sheet and contract with deviations with the City of Waubay?
Natural Gas
Application by Berkland Organization, represented by Dennis K. Berkland, requesting a variance to Master Metering Rules pursuant to ARSD 20:10:26, for property located at 110 W. 6th St., Yankton, South Dakota. Mr. Berkland is renovating the heating system of the triplex in question and wishes it to be served by one natural gas meter instead of the existing three.
Today, does the proposed central water heating system fall within the exception of ARSD 20:10:26:04(6)?
Application by NorthWestern Energy for approval of revisions to its natural gas tariff to terminate Manufactured Gas Plant cost recovery. In Docket NG96-015, NorthWestern Energy filed to make numerous changes to its natural gas tariff, including recovery of costs associated with manufactured gas plant clean-up. The result of the filing was a per therm surcharge approved by the Commission to recover the manufactured gas plant costs. NorthWestern Energy has now completed recovery of the related costs and now requests discontinuance of the surcharge. NorthWestern proposes to pass back an associated over-recovery to customers through the commodity gas cost true-up.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve NorthWestern Energy's proposed tariff revision and allow overcollected, manufactured gas plant cleanup cost recovery funds to be returned to ratepayers through the Commodity gas cost true up?
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
Commissioner deferred this action.
TODAY, what is the Commission's decision?
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 for failure to pay gross receipt taxes. On September 24, 2002, the Commission voted to grant staff motion for an Order To Show Cause. On December 2, 2002, the Commission signed an Order granting Buyers United, Inc. d/b/a BuyersOnline a certificate of authority in TC02-163. As of that date BuyersOnline had also submitted all past due gross receipt taxes.
Today, shall the Commission withdraw the Order and dismiss the docket?
On May 7, 2002, the Commission received for approval a Filing of Wireline Adoption Interconnection and Concurrent Amendment to that Agreement as it is adopted between ICE Telecom Group, Inc. (ICE) and Qwest Corporation (Qwest). According to the parties, the Agreement is a negotiated agreement whereby ICE chooses to adopt, in its entirety, the terms and conditions of the Interconnection Agreement and any associated amendments, if applicable, between Sprint Communications Company and Qwest f/k/a U S WEST Communications, Inc., which was approved by the Commission on November 13, 2001, in Docket No. TC01-151. The filing also includes a Bill and Keep Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between ICE and Qwest which adds terms, conditions and rates for Bill and Keep as set forth in Attachment 1 and Exhibit A, which is attached to the Amendment
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed Interconnection Agreement as amended?
4. TC02-110 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING FOR APPROVAL OF TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY FROM PREMIERE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. TO VOICECOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC. (Staff Analyst: Keith Senger, Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
On August 26, 2002, Voicecom Telecommunications, LLC (Voicecom) filed an application with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange service in South Dakota. Voicecom intends to offer post-paid long distance calling card services throughout South Dakota through resale.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Voicecom Telecommunications, LLC?
On September 9, 2002, the Commission received for approval a Filing of Amendment for Internet Service Provider (ISP) Bound Traffic to the Interconnection Agreement between Black Hills FiberCom Inc. for the State of South Dakota, (Black Hills) and Qwest Corporation (Qwest). According to the parties, the Amendment is a negotiated agreement between Black Hills and Qwest which was originally approved by the Commission effective January 6, 1999, in Docket TC98-205. The purpose of the Amendment is to delete paragraphs 3.2.1 and 3.2.3 and replace them with language in the Amendment.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed Amendment?
6. TC02-164 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF NOBELTEL, LLC FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE INTEREXCHANGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Keith Senger, Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
On September 24, 2002, NobelTel, LLC filed an application with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange service in South Dakota. NobelTel intends to offer direct and dial-around outbound dialing, toll free inbound dialing, directory assistance, data services and travel card services.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to NobelTel, LLC?
On September 25, 2002, the Commission received a Petition for Approval of Amendments to Interconnection Agreements regarding the following Agreements: 1) U S WEST Service Level Agreement with Covad Communications Co. dated April 19, 2000; 2) Confidential Billing Settlement Agreement Between U S WEST and McLeodUSA dated April 28, 2000; 3) Confidential Settlement Agreement Between U S WEST and McLeodUSA dated May 1, 2000; and 4) Confidential Agreement Between McLeodUSA and Qwest dated October 26, 2000. According to Qwest, the company is petitioning the Commission to approve the attached agreements such that, to the extent any active provisions of such agreements relate to Section 251(b) or (c), they are formally available to other CLECs under Section 252(i) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Qwest reserved the right to demonstrate that one or more of these agreements need not have been filed in the event of an enforcement action in this area.
TODAY, to the extent the provisions of any of these agreements relate to section 252(b) or (c), shall the Commission approve the proposed Amendments?
Qwest Corporation submitted for Commission approval the following revised exchange boundary maps: Deadwood Locality Special Rate Area Map and Sturgis Locality Special Rate Area Map. These revisions are made to correct an error in the maps that are now on file with the Commission. No customers are affected by these revisions.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the withdrawal of the docket?
On October 28, 2002, Qwest Corporation filed changes to its Exchange and Network Services Tariff. The filing introduces new service options for wireless E911 connectivity in South Dakota providing Phase I and Phase II Selective Routing/Automatic Location Identification (SR/ALI). On November 12, 2002, Brown County and Pennington County filed petitions to intervene. On December 2, 2002, intervention was granted to Pennington County, Brown County, Minnehaha County, South Dakota Association of County Commissioners and the City of Sioux Falls. Qwest filed a Motion to Approve Interim Rates on December 6, 2002.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the Interim Rates?
10. TC02-176 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ARBITRATION ON BEHALF OF WWC LICENSE L.L.C. WITH CERTAIN INDEPENDENT LOCAL EXCHANGE COMPANIES. (Staff Analyst: Harlan Best, Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On October 31, 2002, WWC License, L.L.C. (Western Wireless), a commercial mobile radio service provider operating under the trade name CellularOne, filed for the Commission to arbitrate the unresolved issues remaining after negotiations for an interconnection agreement between Western Wireless and the small independent, cooperative, and municipal local exchange companies failed to reach agreement. The unresolved issues are: Scope of Reciprocal Compensation Obligations; Delivery of Land-To-Mobile Traffic; Rates For Reciprocal Compensation; Symmetrical Compensation at a Tandem Rate; Application of Tariffs; Local Numbers; Allocation of Billing Costs; Standard of Service; Usage Levels; Access to Numbering Resources; Dialing Parity; Procedure for Renegotiation; Reciprocal Compensation Credit Factor; Shared Facility Factor; Transit Rates; and Carrier Specific Information. A non-petitioning party may respond to the petition for arbitration and provide additional information by November 25, 2002. PrairieWave Community Telephone, Inc. filed a Petition to Intervene on November 22, 2002.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant intervention to PrairieWave Community Telephone, Inc.? AND, shall the Commission, pursuant to SDCL 49-31-44, require the companies to make a deposit not to exceed $75,000? Shall the Commission adopt a procedural schedule?
On November 4, 2002, the Commission received a filing regarding Amendment No. 4 to the Interconnection Agreement between AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. (AT&T) and Qwest Corporation (Qwest). According to the parties the filing is a Negotiated Agreement between AT&T and Qwest to amend an Agreement approved by the Commission effective March 4, 1999, in Docket No. TC96-184. The Amendment is made in order to add terms, conditions and rates for Local Switching and Unbundling Network Elements Combinations as set forth in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 and Exhibits A, B, and C attached to the Amendment.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed Amendment?
On October 15, 2002, Qwest Corporation (Qwest) submitted a copy of a contract dated September 19, 2002, between Qwest Corporation, including its controlled affiliates (collectively QC) and McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc., including McLeodUSA Incorporated and its controlled affiliates (collectively McLeod) with the Commission. The contract regards resolution of disputes and claims between QC and McLeod arising under certain Interconnection Agreements in 14 states, billing disputes and the SMDR function of Centrex Plus service. Based on Qwest=s interpretation of the Federal Communications Commission=s Order released October 4, 2002, in WC Docket No. 02-089, the contract was not filed pursuant to section 252(e) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and was submitted by Qwest as an informational filing.
TODAY, is Qwest the proper party to file this agreement on behalf of QC? Does this agreement fall under the mandatory filing requirements of 252(a)(1) of the 1996 telecommunications act? If so, shall the Commission approve the Agreement? How shall the Commission Proceed if Qwest did fail to file in violation of the 1996 Act?
On October 15, 2002, Qwest Corporation (Qwest) submitted a copy of a contract dated September 19, 2002, between Qwest Communications Corporation, including its controlled affiliates (collectively QCC) and McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc., including McLeodUSA Incorporated and its controlled affiliates (collectively McLeod) with the Commission. The contract regards resolution of disputes and claims between QCC and McLeod arising under two separate 10/02/00 Purchase Agreements and a 12/31/01 Confidential Billing Settlement Agreement. Based on Qwest=s interpretation of the Federal Communications Commission=s Order released October 4, 2002, in WC Docket No. 02-089, the contract was not filed pursuant to section 252(e) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and was submitted by Qwest as an informational filing.
TODAY, is Qwest the proper party to file this agreement on behalf of QCC? Does this agreement fall under the mandatory filing requirements of 252(a)(1) of the 1996 telecommunications act? If so, shall the Commission approve the Agreement? How shall the Commission Proceed if Qwest did fail to file in violation of the 1996 Act?
14. TC02-182 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF LCR TELECOMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE INTEREXCHANGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SOUTH DAKOTA. (Staff Analyst: Michele Farris, Staff Attorney: Kelly Frazier.)
On November 7, 2002, LCR Telecommunications, L.L.C. filed an application for a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. The applicant intends to provide resold interexchange services, including 1+ and 101XXXX outbound dialing, 800/888 Toll-Free inbound dialing, directory assistance, data services and travel card service throughout South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to LCR Telecommunications, L.L.C.?
On November 8, 2002, the Commission received a Filing of Data Exchange Amendment to Interconnection Agreement Between Level 3 Communications, LLC (Level 3) and Qwest Corporation in the State of South Dakota (Qwest). According to the parties the Agreement is a negotiated amendment to the interconnection agreement between Level 3 and Qwest which was approved by the Commission in August 29, 2002, in Docket TC02-060. The Amendment is made in order to add terms and conditions relating to data exchange for the billing of intraLATA switched access by adding language to Section 7.7.1.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed Amendment?
Other
1. XCEL ELECTRIC RELIABILITY STUDY. (Commission Analyst: Greg Rislov.)
XCEL commissioned an independent consultant, Power System Engineering (PSE), to do an electric reliability study for XCEL's South Dakota service area. The study was designed to assess the "adequacy, efficiency, and reasonableness of XCEL's South Dakota electric power delivery," and recommend any necessary improvements. On July 23, 2002, PSE presented both an overview and the results of their study. On November 20, 2002, XCEL presented a response to the PSE study. Following the presentation, the Commission determined that a more detailed report is necessary, and Xcel was then requested to appear in mid-December with that report. The Commission requested that the report include specific actions that have been or will be taken by XCEL to address the specific Sioux Falls distribution system problems identified in PSE's study. This report was also to include specific changes to Xcel's processes and procedures based on the PSE Study recommendations and respond to any specific PSE Study recommendations which Xcel has not yet addressed.
TODAY, XCEL is here to present a detailed and specific report on actions Xcel has taken to resolve distribution system-related problems in Sioux Falls as identified in the PSE Study.
2. WESTERN WIRELESS - STATUS REPORT ON WINNER AREA PLAN
On December 3, 2002, the Commission held a public input meeting in Winner to permit Western Wireless customers in the area to voice their concerns with their cellular phone service in recent months. After hearing the public comment, the Commission requested Western Wireless to report back to the Commission within two weeks with a voluntary plan for redressing the service deficiencies reported by Western's customers.
TODAY, has Western Wireless prepared a plan for presentation to the Commission for review?
Announcements
1. The office will be closed on December 25, 2002, in observance of Christmas.
2. The office will be closed on January 1, 2003, in observance of New Year's Day.
3. The first day of 78th Legislative Session is January 14, 2003, opening at 12:00 p.m.
4. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held January 16, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 464 of the State Capitol Building.
5. The office will be closed on January 20, 2003, in observance of Martin Luther King Day.
Terri J. Iverson
Finance Officer
terri.iverson@state.sd.us
December 12, 2002
