Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
January 31, 2012, 2:30 P.M. CST
Room 412, Capitol Building
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. CST on Monday, January 30, 2012. Lines are limited and are given out on a first come, first served basis, subject to possible reassignment to accommodate persons who must appear in a proceeding. Ultimately, if you wish to participate in the Commission Meeting and a line is not available, you may have to appear in person.
NOTE: To listen to the Commission Meeting live please go to the PUC's website www.puc.sd.gov and click on the LIVE link on the home page. The Commission requests persons who will only be listening to proceedings and not actively appearing in a case listen via the web cast to free phone lines for those who have to appear. The Commission meetings are archived on the PUC's website under the Commission Actions tab, Click on "Commission Meeting Archives," to access the recordings.
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 COMMISSION MEETING
Administration
1. Approval of the Minutes of the Commission Meeting Held on January 17, 2012. (Staff: Joy Irving)
Consumer Reports
1. Status Report on Consumer Utility Inquiries and Complaints Received by the Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Deb Gregg)
Electric
On December 30, 2011, Northwestern Corporation dba Northwestern Energy (NorthWestern) requested approval of revisions to its Electric Tariff. Specifically, NorthWestern requests approval of Section 3, sheet 25.2, as NorthWestern will no longer perform maintenance work on customer-owned lighting systems. NorthWestern also requests approval of revisions to Section 5, sheet 1, which adds language to allow NorthWestern to require a customer of at least legal age be present at service turn-on or during any work at the customer's premise.
Today, shall the Commission grant the tariff revisions?
On January 23, 2012, the Commission received a filing by Why Not Investments, LLC, requesting approval of its notice of an existing exception to the Master Metering Variance Rules under ARSD 20:10:26. Why Not Investments has purchased a 23 unit efficiency apartment building in downtown Rapid City and states that because it contained a central water heating system, the building meets the exception criteria under ARSD 20:10:26:04(6) exempting it from individual metering requirements.
TODAY, shall the Commission determine that the applicant's system qualifies for an exception? OR shall the Commission determine that the applicant must file an application for a variance?
Natural Gas
On December 30, 2011, the Commission received a filing by NorthWestern Corporation dba NorthWestern Energy (NorthWestern) to revise its Natural Gas Tariff. NorthWestern proposes to add language so the company may require a customer or customer representative of at least the legal age of majority, or 18 years of age, be present at service turn-on or be present when performing work inside a customer's facility. NorthWestern is also proposing that when calculating a contribution in aid of construction, the distance of the service will be measured from the company's gas main instead of the customer's property line.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the tariff revisions?
Pipeline Safety
On November 18, 2011, Commission pipeline safety staff filed a Petition for a Declaratory Ruling. The request seeks Commission clarification regarding the interpretation and implementation of 49 CFR 192.3. Specifically, pipeline safety staff question whether a NorthWestern Energy pipeline serving a large volume customer operating at less than 20 percent of SMYS is properly classified as a distribution line or transmission line. On November 23, 2011 NorthWestern Energy filed for intervention. On December 6, 2011, its request was granted. On December 23, 2011, Montana-Dakota Utilities filed for intervention. On January 3, 2012, its request was granted. On January 4, 2012, NorthWestern filed comments and on January 5, 2012, Montana-Dakota Utilities filed comments. Staff replied to both companies' filed comments on January 6, 2012. On January 13, 2012, NorthWestern filed a Motion requesting an extension of time. At its January 17, 2012, meeting, the Commission granted a two-week extension.
TODAY, how shall the Commission rule on the Petition for a Declaratory Ruling, AND how shall it proceed regarding any additional filing made by any party?
On December 19, 2011, the Pipeline Safety Staff filed a letter requesting that a $2,000 penalty be assessed against NorthWestern Energy for repeat welding violations in violation of 49 CFR 192.225(a). The penalty request is the result of a construction inspection of a natural gas pipeline intended to serve an electric generating facility and a beef processing plant in Aberdeen, S.D. On January 17, 2012, the Commission received NorthWestern Energy's Response to Staff's Request for Commission Approval of Penalty. On January 18, 2012, Staff filed a letter and attachment in response to NorthWestern's Response. On January 20, 2012, Staff filed a Penalty Calculation Worksheet and cover letter.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a civil penalty against NorthWestern?
In early December 2011, the South Dakota Pipeline Safety Staff conducted a public awareness effectiveness inspection. The inspection uncovered deficiencies in Montana-Dakota Utilities' (MDU) program. As a result of the deficiencies, on December 21, 2012, Staff filed a letter requesting Commission approval of an $800 civil penalty against MDU pursuant to SDCL 49-34B-12. On January 20, 2012, Staff filed a Penalty Calculation Worksheet and cover letter. On January 23, 2012, MDU filed a letter responding to Staff's request and a statement of corrective actions MDU commits to take to resolve the program deficiencies alleged by Staff.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a civil penalty against MDU?
Telecommunications
On May 4, 2010, the Commission received a complaint from Sprint Communications Company, LP (Sprint) against Native American Telecom, LLC (NAT), in which Sprint seeks: 1) a determination that the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has the sole authority to regulate Sprint's intrastate interexchange services and that NAT lacks authority to bill Sprint for switched access services without a Certificate of Authority and valid tariff on file with the Commission; 2) a declaration that because the Commission has the sole authority over Sprint's intrastate interexchange services, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Utility Authority is without jurisdiction over Sprint; 3) a determination that NAT must repay Sprint the amounts it inadvertently paid NAT for unauthorized and illegal switched access charges. On December 27, 2011, Sprint filed a motion requesting a Protective Order requiring the parties and intervenors to comply with a Confidentiality Agreement.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Sprint's Motion Requesting a Protective Order Requiring the Parties and Intervenors to Comply with a Confidentiality Agreement?
On June 22, 2011, Midstate Telecom, Inc. (Midstate) filed a petition for approval of its new intrastate switched access rates. Per ARSD 20:10:27:02.02, Midstate requested the Commission approve a higher rate than allowed under ARSD 20:10:27:02.01 and filed a cost study in support of the higher rate. Midstate also requested a phase-in period in which their current rate would be approved until November 30, 2011, after which the requested rate would go into effect.
TODAY, shall the Commission give the Executive Director authority to enter into necessary consulting contracts?
On July 5, 2011, Fort Randall Telephone Company, Wagner, South Dakota, filed a switched access cost study pursuant to the administrative rules established by the Commission.
TODAY, shall the Commission give the Executive Director authority to enter into necessary consulting contracts?
On October 11, 2011, Native American Telecom, LLC (NAT) filed an application for a certificate of authority to provide local exchange and interexchange service within the study area of Midstate Communications, Inc. NAT states that it is a tribally-owned full service telecommunications carrier operating on the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Indian Reservation pursuant to an Order Granting Approval to Provide Telecommunications Service by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Crow Creek Utility Authority dated October 28, 2008. NAT seeks to expand its authority to include areas within Midstate's study area off of the Crow Creek reservation. On January 12, 2012, NAT filed a Motion requesting a Protective Order requiring the parties and intervenors to comply with a Confidentiality Agreement.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Native American Telecom's Motion for a Protective Order Requiring the Parities to Comply with a Confidentiality Agreement?
On October 27, 2011, the Commission received an application from Wide Voice, L.L.C. for a certificate of authority to provide local exchange services in South Dakota. Wide Voice, L.L.C. proposes to offer competitive local exchange service, including exchange access service, within the state of South Dakota using its own facilities. Wide Voice intends to offer its services initially in the territory now served by Qwest. It may also utilize resold services available from the underlying ILEC or other facilities-based carriers. Petitioner will negotiate an interconnection agreement with Qwest Corporation. On January 11, 2012, Wide Voice filed a Motion requesting a Protective Order requiring the parties and interveners to comply with a confidentiality agreement.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Wide Voice's Motion for a Protective Order Requiring the Parties to Comply with a Confidentiality Agreement?
On December 20, 2011, 1 800 Collect, Inc. filed an application for a Certificate of Authority to Provide Interexchange Telecommunications Services in South Dakota. 1 800 Collect, Inc. intends to provide alternate operator telecommunications services, handling operator-assisted calls, such as collect, third party billed, person-to-person, and credit card calls from payphone locations and other traffic aggregator locations, such as hotels and hospitals. The applicant intends to provide services on a statewide basis.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant 1 800 Collect, Inc., a Certificate of Authority?
On January 6, 2012, the Commission received a request to approve the Wireline Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation and Spectrotel, Inc. dba OneTouch Communications dba Touch Base Communications
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the interconnection agreement?
Items for Commission Discussion
Announcements
- A hearing in Dockets TC12-002 through TC12-012 will be held Monday, January 30, 2012, beginning at 2:30 p.m. CST, in Room 412 at the State Capitol Building, Pierre, S.D.
- An Open House for Legislators will be held Thursday, February 2, 2012, from 7:30 to 11:00 a.m. CST, in the Commission office in the State Capitol Building, Pierre, S.D.
- Commissioners and staff will attend a pipeline safety emergency response program hosted by the South Dakota Pipeline Association on Thursday, February 2, 2012, at 5:30 p.m. CST, at the Ramkota in Pierre, S.D.
- The next regularly scheduled commission meeting will be held Tuesday, February 14, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. CST, in Room 412 at the State Capitol Building, Pierre, S.D.
- The PUC offices will be closed Monday, February 20, 2012, in observance of Presidents' Day.
- Commission meetings are scheduled for February 28 and March 13, 2012.
/S/ Cindy Kemnitz
Cindy Kemnitz
Finance Manager
puc@state.sd.us
January 24, 2012
