Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Tuesday, July 13, 1999; 10:30 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 July 12, 1999. Please keep in mind that a limited number of telephone lines are available. Every effort should be made for parties in the same city to be on the same line when calling in.
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 June 22 and June 24, 1999. (Staff: Shirleen Fugitt.)
Consumer Issues
1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Consumer Affairs: Leni Healy.)
The Commission has received 1393 consumer contacts during 1999. 242 contacts have been received since the June 22, 1999, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 242 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 65 of the contacts involved fluffing: the raising of rates without notice; 37 contacts concerned the unauthorized billing for services, 30 of the contacts involved the unauthorized switching of long distance service; 16 of the contacts involved billing issues; 10 contacts involved poor service; 8 contacts involved disconnections; 7 contacts concerned held orders; 6 contacts involved telemarketers; 5 contacts concerned random rates; 4 contacts outages; 4 contacts concerned unburied lines; 3 contacts concerned calling cards; 3 contacts involved directory issues; 3 contacts involved payphones; and the remaining issues involved prepaid phone cards, annoyance calls, repairs, fees, jamming, minimum monthly fees, toll blocking, won't disconnect and won't transfer.
ELECTRICITY: 20 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 8 disconnection issues were addressed; 3 contacts concerned billing; 3 contacts involved deposits; 3 contacts concerned high bills; and the remaining issues concerned drooping lines, repair, and tree trimming.
NATURAL GAS: 9 contacts involving natural gas were reported. 2 contacts concerned billing; 2 contacts concerned proposed rate increases; and the remaining issues were disconnection, won't disconnect, won't connect, gas line inspection, and late payment fees.
A total of 953 complaints have been resolved informally during 1999.
On July 13, 1998, the Commission received a complaint by Wilson Enterprises, Inc. against U S WEST regarding updating lines. "We are being served by old, antiquated telephone equipment. U S WEST has us on an "anaconda" phone system due to a lack of physical pairs of wires. With this system, we are unable to use or access any digital services, including Caller ID." Complainant requests the following relief: "Require U S WEST to provide newer, fast, more reliable and digital service to the phone numbers associated with our main number: 605-574-2684." A August 18, 1998, the Commission heard the matter and deferred the finding of probable cause until July 1, 1999.
TODAY, does the Commission find probable cause of an unlawful or unreasonable act, rate, practice or omission to go forward with this complaint and serve it upon the Respondent? OR, if the matter is resolved, shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On November 2, 1998, the Commission received a complaint by Don Jiracek against McLeod USA. The Complainant claims that a delay of installation of telephone service caused loss of income. The Complainant is seeking $33,000 in damages for lost business. On December 7, the Commission ordered a finding of probable cause to go forward with this complaint. The Commission approved the amendments to the complaint on December 14, 1998. A hearing in this matter was held on April 15, 1999. On June 11, 1999, McLeodUSA filed a motion to strike any reference to Exhibit A and Exhibit A itself.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the Motion to Strike? AND, how shall the Commission proceed?
On April 7, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Constance Johnson, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against U S WEST regarding a disputed billing. After a series of attempts to informally resolve billing concerns, the Complainant filed a formal complaint to address unresolved issues. As part of the remedy for relief, the Complainant has asked forgiveness of an unpaid billing in the amount of $539.
TODAY, does the Commission find probable cause of an unlawful or unreasonable act, rate, practice or omission to go forward with this complaint and serve it upon the Respondent? OR, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On June 11, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Philip and Darlene Bestgen, Whitewood, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding lack of easement for facility property. The Complainants claim that U S WEST Communications buried a cable on their property without an easement. They further claim that when U S WEST Communications was informed of the issue, U S WEST Communications signed a contract to remove the cable by November 29, 1998 and paid $1600 for indemnification. The cable has not been removed. The Complainants seek the following relief: "We ask that U S WEST pay the same daily indemnification from November 29, 1998, to the date of removal as they did from Aug. 29, 1998 to Nov. 29, 1998. We ask that this money be made payable to South Dakota schools of our choice and for the matter to be addressed as personal private property rights as the Constitution intended."
TODAY, does the Commission find probable cause of an unlawful or unreasonable act, rate, practice or omission to go forward with this complaint and serve it upon the Respondent?
On June 21, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Brady and Tiffiny Cramer, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, against MCI WorldCom regarding unauthorized switching of long distance service. The Complainants allege that their long distance telecommunications service was switched without their authorization. After several attempts to correct the problem over the past year, they remain unsatisfied. The Complainants are seeking a re-rating of their billing to 10 cents per minute plus an amount to hold the companies accountable for their difficulty.
TODAY, does the Commission find probable cause of an unlawful or unreasonable act, rate, practice or omission to go forward with this complaint and serve it upon the Respondent?
Electric
On May 21, 1999, the Commission received a filing from the City of Watertown, South Dakota for approval to modify the assigned service area between Codington Clark Electric Cooperative and the City of Watertown as a result of a recent annexation to the City of Watertown. The service territory boundary change includes Lot 2 and 28th Avenue South, within the South 2,000 feet of the East 1/2 of Section 7 of the plat entitled Benedictine Sisters Subdivision to the Municipality of Watertown in Section 7, T116N, R52W, of the 5th P.M. Codington County, South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed service territory boundary change?
Gas/Electric
On June 1, 1999, Northwestern Public Service filed a docket requesting review and approval pursuant to Administrative Rule 20:10:16:02 for their new Customer Handbook.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed customer information handbook?
Telecommunications
On March 30, 1999, Nor Communications Inc. filed a request for a Certificate of Authority to operate as a reseller of intrastate telecommunications services throughout South Dakota. Nor Communications intends to provide a full range of 1+ interexchange services, including, MTS, WATS, and calling cards.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Nor Communications Inc.?
On April 15, 1999, the Commission received an application by FON Digital Network, Inc. for a Certificate of Authority to provide telecommunications services in South Dakota. FON Digital Network, Inc. is a reseller which intends to offer 1+ and 101XXXX direct outbound dialing, 800/888 Toll-Free inbound dialing, travel card and prepaid calling card service.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to FON Digital Network, Inc.?
On April 21, 1999, the Commission received an application by DSLnet Communications, LLC for a Certificate of Authority to provide resold and facilities-based local exchange and interexchange services to subscribers throughout the state of South Dakota. Initially, DSLnet intends to provide data transmission services only.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to DSLnet Communications, LLC?
On April 28, 1999, East Plains Telecom, Inc. filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On April 29, 1999, Vivian Telephone Company filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On April 30, 1999, the Commission received an application by NET-tel Corporation d/b/a NET-tel Communications Corporation for a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange, intrastate, inbound, outbound and travel card services in South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to NET-tel Corporation?
On April 30, 1999, the Commission received an application by Columbia Telecommunications, Inc. d.b.a. aXessa for a Certificate of Authority to provide resold interexchange telecommunications services in the state of South Dakota. Proposed services include both inbound and outbound intraLata toll services.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Columbia Telecommunications, Inc.?
On May 3, 1999, Mt. Rushmore Telephone Company and Fort Randall Telephone Company filed a combined switched access cost study similar to an interstate filing with a combined study area. The switched access rates will be used by both companies. Mt. Rushmore was granted a waiver from filing switched access cost studies in TC93-034.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On May 26, 1999, U S WEST Communications, Inc. and McLeodUSA Communications Services, Inc. filed a negotiated Agreement For Local Wireline Network Interconnection And Service Resale on May 26, 1999. "The Agreement ... sets forth the terms, conditions and prices under which the parties agree to interconnect and pay reciprocal compensation for the exchange of local traffic.... However a dispute remains between the parties regarding Reciprocal Compensation provisions. It is U S WEST's position that those provisions apply only to local traffic. U S WEST requests that the Commission resolve this issue in dispute." Any party wishing to comment on the agreement had until June 17, 1999, to do so. Parties to the agreement may file written responses to the comments within twenty days of service of the comments.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
On June 7, 1999, Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association. It should be noted that the revenue requirement reflects the former Intrastate Telephone Company, Inc. and Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. as one entity. Intrastate Telephone Company, Inc. was rolled into Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc., therefore, the revenue requirement was developed on that consolidated basis.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 23, 1999, Splitrock Telecom Cooperative, Inc. filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 23, 1999, Midstate Telephone Company and Heartland Communications, Inc. filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 23, 1999, Valley Telecommunications Cooperative Association and Valley Cable & Satellite Communications filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 23, 1999, Sully Buttes Telephone Cooperative, Inc. and Venture Communications, Inc. filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 28, 1999, the Local Exchange Carrier Association filed tariff sheets implementing the switched access rates necessitated by revisions to its member companies' revenue requirements and switched access minutes of use. There is also one textual correction included in this filing.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 28, 1999, Stateline Telecommunications, Inc. filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 28, 1999, Brookings City Municipal Telephone Department filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 28, 1999, McCook Cooperative Telephone Company filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 28, 1999, Sanborn Telephone Cooperative filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 28, 1999, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc. filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 29, 1999, U S WEST Communications filed a switched access cost study "specifically in compliance with ARSD 20:10:27:07....U S WEST Communications is not asking for the Commission to change the switched access rate schedules at this time."
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 29, 1999, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On June 29, 1999, Mobridge Telecommunications Company filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association. Mobridge Telecommunications Company requests that the Commission allow the use of GVNW's cost study model as opposed to the Commission model for determining Mobridge Telecommunications Company's revenue requirement.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On July 1, 1999, Tri-County Telcom, Inc. filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On July 1, 1999, Tri-County Telcom, Inc. filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On July 1, 1999, Sioux Valley Telephone Company filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement that is included in the revenue requirement used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
On July 1, 1999, DTG Community Telephone filed a single switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual costs not to exceed $100,000?
Announcements
1. Commissioners and staff will be attending the NARUC meetings July 18-27, 1999.
2. A hearing in Docket TC99-053 is tentatively being planned for August 9-10, 1999 in Pierre.
3. Commissioners and staff will be attending the ROC meeting in Denver on September 11-13, 1999.
4. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, July 27, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. in Room LCR 1 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos, Deputy Executive Director
suec@puc.state.sd.us
July 6, 1999
