Commission Agendas | previous page
Please see ADDENDUM to the Agenda
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Wednesday, May 17, 2000; 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 May 16, 2000. 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 April 27 and May 10, 2000. (Staff: Mary Giddings.)
Consumer Issues
1. Status Report On Consumer Utility Inquiries And Complaints Recently Received By The Commission. (Staff Analyst: Leni Healy.)
The Commission has received 892 consumer contacts during 2000. 115 contacts have been received since the April 27, 2000, Commission meeting.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 94 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 25 of the contacts involved the unauthorized switching of service; 20 contacts concerning raising rates without notice; 12 contacts involved billing issues; 7 contacts concerned 900 number calls; 7 contacts involved disconnections; 7 concerned held orders; 5 involved directory services; 5 contacts concerned poor service; and the remaining issues were calling cards, deceptive practices, harassing calls, and lifeline issues.
ELECTRICITY: 17 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 6 contacts concerned disconnections, 4 contacts concerned power outages; 2 contacts involved billing disputes; and the remaining issues were construction, poor service, rates, and late payments.
NATURAL GAS: 4 contacts involving natural gas were reported. 2 of the contacts were disconnections and the remaining issues were late fees and a billing dispute.
892 complaints have been resolved informally during 2000.
On November 19, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Rueben W. Hoffmann, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainant indicates that he received a call from a telemarketer claiming to be with AT&T who wanted to combine his billing. As a result he received a billing from OLS. The Complainant is requesting removal of all charges and $1000 allowed by statute. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a December 14, 1999, regular meeting. A hearing was scheduled for May 2, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On November 22, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Allen and Joyce Beckler, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching of services through deceptive telemarketing practices. The Complainants indicate that a telemarketer contacted them indicating that she was with U S WEST contacting them about billing issues. As a result of the call, their service was switched to OLS, Inc. The Complainants request that all assessed charges be dropped and that $1000 in penalties be paid to them. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a December 14, 1999, regular meeting. A hearing was scheduled for May 4, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On December 27, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Jeanette Moes, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant indicates that through a telephone call, a man led her to believe he was with U S WEST offering 10 cents per minute long distance rates, 100 free minutes of long distance, and no monthly fees. The Complainant is requesting that the state laws on slamming be enforced, that she be compensated for her inconvenience, and all assessed fees be removed. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a February 2, 2000, regular meeting. A hearing was scheduled for May 5, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On December 30, 1999, the Commission received a complaint from Jeanne Stich, McCook Lake, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding promised rates which were not assessed. The Complainant alleges that OLS promised a rate of 10 cents per minute for all long distance calls, 100 free minutes of service, and no switching fees. When the Complainant received her billing, she was not assessed the promised rates or terms. The Complainant is requesting that all charges by this company be removed. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a February 2, 2000, regular meeting. A hearing was scheduled for May 5, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On January 5, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Herman H. Schamber, Yankton, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainant alleges that his long distance service was switched without authorization. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a February 2, 2000, regular meeting. A hearing was scheduled for May 3, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On December 10, 1999, the Commission received a complaint filed by Mary Ann Becker, Madison, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. After a deceptive telephone call, the Complainant's long distance service was switched. The Complainant wants all charges removed. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a February 2, 2000, regular meeting. A hearing was scheduled for May 3, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On February 2, 2000, the Commission received a complaint filed by Kathleen C. Glynn, Watertown, South Dakota, against OLS, Inc. regarding switching telecommunications services through deceptive tactics. The Complainant claims she was contacted by a telemarketer to switch her long distance service. The Complainant indicates that she requested information in writing and did not agree to switch service. For a resolution, the Complainant requests that her account be closed, all charges be removed and there be an imposition of appropriate laws. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a February 29, 2000, regular meeting. A hearing was scheduled for May 4, 2000. The hearing was cancelled.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On February 28, 2000, the Commission received a complaint from William and Ruby Thompson, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against USBI, Utility Analysts, Inc. d/b/a Basic Long Distance and QAI, Inc. d/b/a Long Distance Billing regarding unauthorized switching of services and unauthorized billing for services. The Complainants allege that they have been billed for unauthorized charges on their last four phone bills. The Thompsons believe these charges are basic long distance service charges. They ask that the fine be imposed and the charges refunded. The Commission found probable cause in this matter a March 14, 2000, regular meeting.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On March 22, 2000, the Commission docketed a complaint filed by Gary R. and Victoria A. Witcher, Watertown, South Dakota, against U S WEST Communications, Inc. and AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. regarding failure to switch services and unauthorized charges. The complainants indicate that they cancelled their long distance services with AT&T for two phone lines on 09/24/99 and they received a bill from AT&T in February, 2000. The complainants are alleging that either U S WEST failed to order the cancellation or AT&T mishandled the request to cancel the account. If U S WEST was at fault, the complainants are requesting an apology; if AT&T is at fault, the complainants are requesting that this be treated as slamming, since it is services against their authorization. On April 11, 2000, AT&T and U S WEST each filed Motions to Dismiss.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the Motion to Dismiss of AT&T and/or U S WEST?
On March 29, 2000, the Commission docketed a complaint by Jeanette Braunstein, Aberdeen, South Dakota, against OLS indicating the company promised to send information for the Complainant's review before switching service. The Complainant's telecommunications service was switched even though no printed information was received and the assessed rates were higher than discussed during the telemarketing call. The Complainant is seeking reimbursement and compensation for her time.
TODAY, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On April 25, 2000, the Commission docketed the complaint filed by Vesta Jensen, Brookings, South Dakota, against Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc., formerly Allnet Communication Services, Inc. d/b/a Frontier Communications Services and Teltrust Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Teltrust and d/b/a TCS regarding unauthorized switching of services. The Complainant states that her out-of-state long distance service was switched without authorization on February 24, 2000. She requests that "the Public Utilities Commission should enforce the stiffest fines and penalties to stop the long distance phone companies from changing anyone's service without permission." On May 5, 2000, Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. filed a Motion for Removal from Complaint.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc.'s Motion for Removal from Complaint?
Telecommunications
On October 20, 1999, the Commission received a request from PNV.net, Inc. (PNV) formerly known as Park 'N View, Inc. to amend its Certificate of Authority to Provide Telecommunications Services in South Dakota. PNV's Certificate of Authority was originally subject to the condition that they not offer a prepaid calling card or require advance payments without prior approval of the Commission. PNV is now requesting that the Certificate of Authority be amended to allow them to offer these services. The company is offering to post a bond in the amount of $25,000 in order to obtain Commission approval for this amended Certificate.
TODAY, shall the Commission amend PNV.net, Inc.'s Certificate of Authority?
A first amendment to an interconnection agreement between U S WEST Communications, Inc. and Advanced Communications Group, Inc. was filed with the Commission on March 21, 2000, for approval. The original agreement which was assigned to FirsTel was approved by the Commission on September 14, 1999. The amendment purports to address collocation.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed amendment to the interconnection agreement?
On July 23, 1999, U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S WEST) and Venture Communications, Inc. (VCI) a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sully Buttes Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (SBTC) entered into an Agreement for the sale and purchase of the Sisseton Exchange. On December 2, 1999, the Commission received a joint application from U S West and VCI/SBTC for approval of the sale. A hearing was held in this matter on April 10, 2000, in Sisseton.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the joint application?
On December 16, 1999, U S WEST Communications, Inc. filed an application for approval of revisions to its exchange and network services tariff. The purpose of the filing is to introduce a consistent method for applying charges when a customer cancels or defers service. The matter was deferred at the February 29, 2000, and March 28, 2000, regular meetings.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
On February 8, 2000, U S WEST Communications, Inc. filed with the Commission its Notice of Intent to File Section 271 Application and Motion for Alternative Procedure to Manage the Section 271 Process. U S WEST is asking the Commission to (1) allow it to file the ROC Master Test Plan with the Commission for its consideration and adoption in early second quarter 2000 and (2) to create a procedure that will allow the parties to consider all aspects of Section 271 in a timely manner. The Commission granted intervention to Telecommunications Resellers Association, McLeodUSA, AT&T, Midcontinent Communications, and New Edge Network, Inc.
TODAY, how shall the Commission proceed?
Shared Communications Services, Inc. (Shared) seeks a Certificate of Authority to provide resold interexchange telecommunications services. Shared intends to offer interLATA and intraLATA switched message toll service, 800, calling card, directory assistance and operator services throughout South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Shared Communications Services, Inc.?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
U S WEST Communications, Inc. has filed to change the text in the Exchange and Network Services Tariff to reflect that customers have additional options besides a check to pay their bill. Customers currently have multiple options for paying their bills, including a transfer of funds from their bank, credit card or debit charge. This filing also clarifies the application of the returned payment charge to accommodate the additional customer payment options available. U S WEST has requested an effective date of April 25, 2000, for the filed changes. On April 10, 2000, Staff filed a Motion asking the Commission to issue an order pursuant to SDCL 49-31-7.1 (3), (4), (6), and (7).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve Staff's Motion?
On April 4, 2000, Concentric Carrier Services, Inc. submitted an application to provide facilities-based and resold local exchange and interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. The applicant seeks authority to provide all forms of telecommunications service to business and residential customers. On May 9, 2000, Concentric requested to withdraw the application without prejudice.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant the withdrawal and close the docket?
On April 5, 2000, CRG International, Inc. submitted an application to provide resold interexchange telecommunications services in South Dakota. The applicant proposes to offer switched inbound/outbound, dedicated inbound/outbound, travel card, directory assistance and operator services.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to CRG International, Inc.?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
The above company has filed a reciprocal transport and termination agreement which was negotiated and entered into between it and GCC License L.L.C. which is an affiliate of Western Wireless Corporation. Commission approval is sought pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Section 252(e).
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the reciprocal transport and termination agreement?
"U S WEST Communications and Citizens [Communications] have entered into transactions whereby Citizens will purchase 14 U S WEST exchanges in Nebraska and 43 [U S WEST] exchanges in Minnesota....Approximately 95 South Dakota customers are served out of the Valentine, Nebraska exchange and approximately 520 South Dakota customers are served out of the Ortonville-Big Stone, Minnesota exchange....[U S WEST and Citizens] respectfully request that the Commission, as expeditiously as possible, issue two separate statements that: 1) contingent on the Nebraska Public Service Commission's approval of the Nebraska sale, the Commission does not object to the FCC granting study area waivers nor to any configuration of study area boundaries involving the South Dakota portion of the Valentine, Nebraska exchange and; 2) contingent on the State of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission's approval of the Minnesota sale, the Commission does not object to the FCC granting study area waivers nor to any configuration of study area boundaries involving the South Dakota portion of the
Ortonville-Big Stone, Minnesota exchange." On April 27, 2000, Staff filed a Motion for Hearing, more particularly, with regard to the Valentine exchange in Todd County, South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant Staff's motion?
Natural Gas
1. NG00-003 IN THE MATTER OF THE FILING BY MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF TARIFF REVISIONS. (Staff Analyst: Dave Jacobson. Staff Attorney: Karen Cremer.)
On March 27, 2000, the Commission docketed the application by MidAmerican Energy to revise its South Dakota natural gas tariffs in order to increase flexibility and meet competition. MidAmerican Energy is proposing to increase flexibility by allowing all of its sales and transportation volumetric rates and service charges to flex downward in order to meet competition. Currently medium and small volume sales service and most service charges are not flexible.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
On April 3, 2000, the Commission docketed the application by Associated Milk Producers to continue the currently effective gas transportation rate which was initially approved in June of 1998 in Docket No. NG97-015. The June 2, 1998 Order required Associated Milk Producers to submit an application for a change in the intrastate natural gas transportation rate by March 1, 2000. Associated Milk Producers subsequently requested and the Commission granted an extension of the March 1, 2000, date to April 1, 2000. No parties filed to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission assess a filing fee not to exceed $100,000?
MidAmerican Energy Company is proposing to add a provision to the Gas Tariff Rules and Regulations. The new provision is for diversion of gas service. This matter was docketed on April 13, 2000.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
Electric
MidAmerican Energy Company is proposing to add a provision to the Electric Tariff Rules and Regulations. The new provision is for diversion of electric service.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed tariff revisions?
The last two dockets require confidential treatment.
On March 14, 2000, Black Hills Corporation d/b/a Black Hills Power and Light Company filed a proposed contract with deviations to serve the United States Air Force for the military family housing and related facilities located in the Dakota Ridge Subdivision in Rapid City. Contracts of deviation require Commission approval.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed Contract with Deviations?
On March 14, 2000, the Commission received a filing from Black Hills Corporation d/b/a Black Hills Power and Light Company for approval of an Electric Power Service Contract with Deviations between Black Hills Corporation d/b/a Black Hills Power and Light Company, and Homestake Mining Company of California.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed Contract with Deviations?
Miscellaneous
1. IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTRACT WITH CRAFT AND ASSOCIATES (Executive Director: Bill Bullard)
Staff is requesting to enter a contract with Craft and Associates to produce a public service announcement to create greater public awareness for the availability of the Lifeline and Link up programs. The amount of the contract will not exceed $5,000.
TODAY, shall the Commission authorize the Executive Director to execute a contract with Craft and Associates?
Announcements
1. A hearing in docket CT00-054 (Sorbel/Business Options) is scheduled for May 11, 2000, at 1:30pm in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
2. Hearings in dockets EL00-002, EL00-003 and EL00-009 are scheduled for 10:00am on May 15, 2000, in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
3. Commissioners will be attending a MAPP meeting in St. Louis on May 16, 2000.
4. On May 16, 2000, at 9:00am at the Ramkota Inn in Pierre, the president of the Universal Service Administrative Company, Cheryl Parrino, will conduct a workshop on the USF Rural Health Care Program. The workshop is held in conjunction with the 14th Annual Rural Health Care Conference. More information can be found on the Commission's webpage.
5. A hearing is scheduled for May 18, 2000, at 1:30pm in Room 413 of the State Capitol for Docket CE00-001 (Pease/NWPS).
6. Commissioners Burg and Nelson will be attending a NARUC meeting in Montreal, Canada during May 21-24, 2000.
7. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held Tuesday, May 30, 2000, at 1:30pm, in Room 412 of the State Capitol Building.
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
Sue.Cichos@state.sd.us
May 10, 2000
