Commission Agendas | previous page
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting
Wednesday, October 10, 2001; 1:30 P.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 9, 2001.
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 September 7, 18 and 28, 2001. (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 2,413 consumer contacts during 2001. 223 of the complaints were received since the September 18, 2001, meeting. So far the Commission has resolved 2,266 informal consumer complaints.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 165 of the contacts involved telecommunications. 28 contacts concerned billing issues; 9 concerned the unauthorized switch in telecommunication services; 7 concerned delayed service or delayed disconnect; 11 contacts involved telemarketers; 5 contacts involved disconnects; 6 concerned unauthorized billing; 13 contacts concerned poor service; 8 contacts involved increased rates; 3 concerned 900#'s; 5 contacts involved cellular service, 8 concerned rates and some of the remaining contacts involved fees, unburied cable, long distance providers, directory assistance, construction cost, and life line.
ELECTRICITY: 37 of the contacts involved electricity issues. 16 of the contacts concerned disconnect; 4 concerned billing issues; 1 concerned outages; 1 concerned energy assistance; 2 concerned territory boundary; 1 concerned property damage and some of the remaining issues involved estimated billing, rates, property damage, deposit refund and construction cost.
NATURAL GAS: 14 of the contacts involved natural gas. 7 of the contacts concerned disconnect; 4 concerned billing issues; 1 contact involved budget billing; 1 concerned a deposit and 1 concerned property damage.
On October 8, 1998, the Commission received a complaint by Sheryl L. Klein against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding poor service. The Complainant outlines a series of service outages, repair difficulties, outdated service and staffing issues. The Complainant seeks the following relief: "We want the line fixed completely and permanently, so it functions at a 100% reliable level. We want this done now, before another winter sets in. We have been told several possible problems by U S West repairmen including aging lines and old systems. We do not know what the solution is, but want it found and implemented now. We ask that U S West be required to make whatever investment is necessary to fully remedy the problem. We also want to be reimbursed for a reasonable amount for the loss of phone service and the associated stress and hassles. We request $500.00." A hearing in this matter was held on February 3, 1999, in Mission, South Dakota. A second hearing was held on November 4, 1999. At the December 14, 1999, meeting the Commission denied fines and moved to keep the docket open.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On October 8, 1998, the Commission received a complaint by JoAnn C. Klein against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding poor service The Complainant outlines a series of service outages, repair difficulties, outdated service, phantom calls, and staffing issues. The Complainant seeks the following relief: "Contact U S West and insist that our long continuation of poor service and outages be corrected. Also reimbursement or credit for days when phone lines have been out." Mrs. Klein also requests that her billing for 24 directory assistance calls and long distance calls which were not made by the Kleins be credited from their billing. A hearing in this matter was held on February 3, 1999, in Mission, South Dakota. A second hearing was held on November 4, 1999.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On November 6, 1998, the Commission received a complaint by Lawrence Klein against U S WEST Communications, Inc. regarding poor service and a request to have lines updated. The complainant explains a history of poor and unreliable telephone service. The complainant outlines the necessity of the telephone and seeks reliable telephone service. A hearing in this matter was held on February 3, 1999, in Mission, South Dakota. A second hearing was held on November 4, 1999.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
On December 11, 1998, the Commission received a complaint from Margaret Figert, Mission, South Dakota, against USWC regarding poor service and request to have lines updated. The complaint notes a history of poor, interrupted, and sporadic service, and an inability to transmit data and use the internet. The complainant is requesting that USWC upgrade its lines throughout southern Todd County, South Dakota, or sell out to Golden West, Wall, South Dakota, who has fiber optic cable. A hearing in this matter was held on February 3, 1999, in Mission, South Dakota. A second hearing was held on November 4, 1999.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, if the matter is resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaint and close the docket?
6. IN THE MATTER OF DISMISSING DOCKETS CN01-001, CT01-034, CT01-037, and CT01- 038.
The Complainant states that MidAmerican Energy provides service to her building and to the business adjacent to hers. MidAmerican has attached meters and shutoffs to Complainant's building for both her business and for the business adjacent to hers. Complainant has requested that MidAmerican remove the meters and shutoffs that are not directly benefiting Complainant's property. Complainant requests that the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission intervene in this matter in requiring MidAmerican to remove the meters and shutoffs a own expense or require MidAmerican to produce documentation from the Complainant authorizing it to place the meters and shutoffs on her property.
Complainant's representative states he switched phone service from Excel Telecommunications to another provider. Complainant's representative notified Excel Telecommunications that he no longer wanted its service. Approximately one year later the Complainant received a bill from Excel for $118.36. Complainant also received a bill from a collection agency for $531.26. Complainant's representative is requesting that the Excel bill and the collection charges be eliminated.
Complainant reported that he put a collect call block on his telephone to prevent calls from a correctional facility. The block failed to block calls from the correctional facility and complainant has received a bill for calls and he refuses to pay it. Complainant is requesting that he should not be liable for the charges since he took the proper steps to block collect calls.
The Complainant states that Direct One Com.Long Distance charged his credit card for unauthorized service. Complainant states that when he contacted Direct One Com.Long Distance, he was told that he ordered something from a company called Cornerstone and in the order he agreed to Direct One Com.Long Distance. Complainant denies that he authorized service and states that he does not know what Cornerstone is. Complainant requests that the Commission put this company out of business in South Dakota, assess any penalties under South Dakota Law, and remove the charges.
TODAY, if all of the above matters are resolved shall the Commission dismiss the complaints and close the dockets?
Electric
The City of Vermillion and Clay-Union Electric Corporation jointly request that the Commission grant an electric service territory boundary change. The parties have agreed that Clay-Union shall have the right to provide electrical service to all consumers located in the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 19, Township 92 North, Range 51 West of the 5th P.M. in the area described as Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 11 inclusive, Block 3, Countryside Addition to the City of Vermillion, Clay County, South Dakota.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed boundary change?
Application by Xcel Energy for approval of its year 2000 economic development report on actual expenditures and proposed year 2001 economic development budget. This report and budget are filed annually pursuant to the Commission's Order in Docket EL91-004.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed report and plan?
Natural Gas
Application by MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican) for approval of a general increase in rates. MidAmerican proposes to increase rates for natural gas service in South Dakota by approximately $3,697,000 or approximately 5.6% effective October 27, 2001. MidAmerican acknowledges that this effective date may be suspended pending review.
TODAY, shall the Commission suspend the imposition of the tariff for 90 days? AND, shall the Commission assess a filing fee for actual expenses not to exceed $100,000?
Telecommunications
In its Order on Reconsideration in Docket TC96-184, In the Matter of the Petition for Arbitration on Behalf of AT&T Communications of the Midwest Inc. with U S WEST Communications, Inc., the Commission stated that the prices, terms, and conditions set by the Commission in that docket were interim prices, terms, and conditions. The Commission further stated that it would open a new docket to set permanent prices, terms, and conditions for interconnection with U S WEST. A October 28, 1997, meeting, the Commission considered whether to open a docket to set permanent prices, terms, and conditions for interconnection with U S WEST. U S WEST and AT&T both stated that they had no objection to the Commission opening the docket. The Commission unanimously voted to open the docket.
TODAY, staff has an update. AND, shall the Commission close the docket?
On August 25, 1998, the Commission received a request from GCC License Corporation (GCC) requesting designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) for all the exchanges contained within all of the counties in South Dakota. A hearing was held as scheduled and briefs were filed following the hearing. A April 26, 1999, meeting, the Commission unanimously voted to deny the application. GCC appealed the Commission's decision to circuit court. The circuit court reversed the Commission's decision and remanded the case to the Commission for findings on whether it is in the public interest to grant ETC status to GCC in areas served by rural telephone companies. The Commission, SDITC, and U S WEST appealed the circuit court's decision to the Supreme Court. On March 14, 2001, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision. On August 30, 2001, the Commission received a proposed order from GCC along with a list of the Qwest exchanges within which GCC would be designated as an ETC.
TODAY, shall the Commission designate GCC as an ETC for nonrural telephone exchange areas consistent with the court's decision?
Black Hills FiberCom filed an application with the Commission for approval of its Intrastate Switched Access Tariff No. 1. The tariff filing is in concurrence with the rates, terms and conditions of the current LECA Tarifff No. 1, with the exception of the switched access rates which are based on a statewide average. The company is also requesting that the Commission exempt it from the requirement to develop intrastate switched access rates based on company specific costs. The company requested an effective date of November 22, 2000. A hearing was scheduled for October 4, 2001. The hearing was cancelled. On October 1, 2001, the Commission received a Stipulation and Agreement in this matter.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed stipulation and agreement?
On November 27, 2000, a Resale Interconnection Agreement between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and New Access Communications, LLC. (New Access) was filed with the Commission for approval. The agreement is a negotiated agreement which sets forth the terms, conditions and prices under which Qwest will provide services for resale to New Access for the provision of local exchange services. Parties had until December 18, 2000, to file comments. The Commission voted to approve the agreement at the September 7, 2001, regular meeting.
TODAY, shall the Commission reconsider its decision? IF SO, what is the Commission's decision?
On June 7, 2001, Global Crest Communications, Inc. (Global Crest) filed for a Certificate of Authority to provide interexchange telecommunications services throughout South Dakota. Global Crest intends to offer resold 1+ and 101XXXX outbound dialing, 800/888 Toll-Free inbound dialing, directory assistance, data services, travel card service and prepaid calling card service.
TODAY, shall the Commission grant a Certificate of Authority to Global Crest Communications, Inc.?
Western Telephone Company, Faulkton, South Dakota, filed a switched access cost study developing a revenue requirement and minutes of use that are included in the revenue requirement and minutes of use used to determine the switched access rates for the Local Exchange Carrier Association. No parties have filed to intervene.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed revenue requirement?
On July 6, 2001, the Commission received a Filing for Approval of an Agreement for Terms and Conditions for Interconnection, Unbundled Network Elements, Ancillary Services and Resale of Telecommunication Services between Qwest Corporation (Qwest) and NOS Communications, Inc. (NOS). According to the parties the agreement is a negotiated agreement which sets forth the terms, conditions and prices under which Qwest will provide services for resale to NOS for the provision of local telecommunication services. Parties had until July 26, 2001, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
On August 22, 2001, the Commission received a Filing of a Joint Petition for Approval of Reciprocal Transport and Terminations Agreements between SDITC, on behalf of its member local exchange carriers, and Midwest Wireless Communications, LLC, Rural Cellular Corporation and Wireless Alliance, LLC. According to the parties the Petition seeks Commission approval pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 252(e) of certain Reciprocal Transport and Termination Agreements executed between all of the parties. Parties had until September 11, 2001, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
On August 31, 2001, the Commission received a Filing of an Amendment re: Dark Fiber to the Interconnection agreement between Integra Telecom of South Dakota, Inc. (Integra) and Qwest Corporation (Qwest). According to the parties the Agreement is a negotiated agreement with the parties adopting the negotiated interconnection agreement between Integra and Qwest which was approved by the Commission effective August 25, 2000, in TC00-058. This Amendment is made in order to add terms, conditions and rates for Dark Fiber to the Agreement, as set forth in Attachment 1 and Exhibits A and B, to the Amendment. Parties had until September 20, 2001, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
On September 10, 2001, the Commission received a request for approval of a Reciprocal Transport and Termination Agreement and Type 2 Wireless Agreement between Brookings Municipal Utilities d/b/a Swiftel Communications (Swiftel) and Beresford Municipal Telephone Company (Beresford). According to the Agreement, the parties agree to establish Type 2 Interconnection arrangements to one another allowing for the transport and termination of wireline to wireless and wireless to wireline traffic over each other's network. The parties also agree that Beresford will provide tandem and transport arrangements to interconnect Swiftel with other carriers. Parties had until October 1, 2001, to file comments.
TODAY, shall the Commission approve the proposed agreement?
Announcements
1. A Rules Hearing is scheduled for October 11, 2001, at 10am in Room 412 of the State Capitol.
2. A Wind Energy Conference will be held on October 29-30, 2001, at the Ramkota in Pierre, South Dakota.
3. Commission Meetings and Hearings are being planned for November 8, November 27 and December 12, 2001.
4. The next regularly scheduled Commission meeting will be held October 23, 2001, at 1:30pm, Capitol Complex Visitor Center.
Sue Cichos
Deputy Executive Director
sue.cichos@state.sd.us
October 3, 2001
