Year
|
State Rule Compliance
|
Federal Rule Compliance
| ||
Percent Control
|
Remaining Hg Emissions (lbs.)
|
Percent Control
|
Remaining Hg Emissions (lbs.)
| |
2015
|
83 – 87%
|
550 – 743
|
84 – 86%
|
584 – 663
|
2016
|
83 – 87%
|
550 – 743
|
87 – 89%
|
446 – 558
|
2021
|
89 – 92%
|
345 – 449
|
87 – 89%
|
446 – 558
|
State
|
Existing State Hg Rule (Y/N)
|
Response to Federal MATS
|
Illinois
|
Yes
|
Have not considered state response to federal MATS in detail. Expect that sources will need to meet both state and federal regulations.
|
Michigan
|
Yes
|
Revising the state rule to be consistent with MATS.
|
Minnesota
|
Yes
|
Adopting federal MATS rule. Will also require compliance with more stringent state rule.
|
Iowa
|
No
|
No action at this time. Waiting for EPA's response to reconsideration of the MATS rule.
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA-2049 (R03/2012)
|
Division of Executive Budget and Finance
101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
FAX: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
| ||||
⍽ Original X Updated
⍽ Corrected
| ||||
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| ||||
Chapter NR 446 Subchapter III - Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-fired Electric Generating Units
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Revision of the initial compliance date under subch. III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, from January 1, 2015 to April 16, 2016.
| ||||
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| |||
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
NA
| |||
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
X No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽ Decrease Cost
| ||
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| ||||
⍽ State's Economy
X Local Government Units
|
X Specific Businesses/Sectors
X Public Utility Rate Payers
⍽ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
| |||
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes
X No
| ||||
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
| ||||
Mercury emitted by coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) in the state will be regulated under recently promulgated federal rules beginning on April 16, 2016. According to s. 285.27(2)(d), Wis. Stats, these same EGUs will be exempt from the state mercury rule requirements under subch. II and III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, when mercury emissions are regulated under the federal rules. The Department is proposing to change the initial compliance date under subch. III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, from January 1, 2015 to April 16, 2016 to aid the transition of regulating mercury emissions from under the state rule to the federal rules.
| ||||
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
| ||||
The state mercury rule affects EGUs operated by six electric utilities: Alliant Energy, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Manitowoc Public Utilities (MPU), Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, We Energies, and Xcel Energy. The Department solicited information from the affected utilities, local units of government, and individuals in finalizing the economic impact assessment. The Department received comments from three of the affected utilities, Dairyland Power Cooperative, MPU and Xcel Energy.
| ||||
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
| ||||
Manitowoc Public Utility (MPU) is owned and operated by the City of Manitowoc. MPU provided comments supporting the conclusion that the rule change will reduce compliance burden and cost.
| ||||
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
| ||||
The objective of the proposed rule change is to aid transition of mercury emission regulation from under state rule to federal rule and therein reduce potential compliance costs and burden. As a result, there is no increase in costs to the affected EGUs and electric rate payers. Likewise, there is no negative impact on the state's economy. The Department received comments supporting this conclusion from three of the affected EGUs. The Department received no other comments.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The proposed rule change is intended to reduce potential compliance cost and burden. The alternative is to take no action which will result in electric utilities complying with state rule requirements in subch. III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, on January 1, 2015 and then federal rule requirements beginning on April 16, 2015. These dual, staggered compliance requirements with both the state and federal rules will result in additional undue cost and use of resources. The proposed rule change modifies the initial compliance date for requirements in subch. III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, from January 1, 2015 to April 16, 2016. This approach accomplishes two goals; 1) it allows EGUs to comply first with federal requirements and thereby be exempt from the state rule requirements and 2) it ensures that mercury emission reductions are achieved in a timely fashion in the event that federal rules are delayed past April 16, 2016.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
According to s. 285.27(2)(d), Wis. Stats., mercury emitted by electric utilities will no longer be regulated under state rules once emissions are regulated under federal rules. This means that in the long-term, mercury emitted by electric utilities will be regulated under federal rules. This proposed rule change is intended to facilitate this transition to regulation under the federal rules. Therefore, the proposed rule does not change the long-term outcome for regulating mercury emitted by coal-fired electric utilities.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
This rule action is consistent with federal rules regulating electric utility mercury emissions.
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
Mercury emitted by electric utilities in neighboring states will also be regulated by the same federal rules affecting Wisconsin electric utilities.
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Tom Karman
|
(608) 264-8856
|
ATTACHMENT A
|
1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
The proposed rule change does not have a fiscal impact on small business for purposes of this EIA.
|
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
|
3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?
|
⍽ Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements
⍽ Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting
⍽ Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements
⍽ Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards
⍽ Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements
⍽ Other, describe:
|
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
|
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
|
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
|
⍽ Yes ⍽ No
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA 2049 (R 07/2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
| |||
Type of Estimate and Analysis
| |||
X Original ⍽ Updated
⍽ Corrected
| |||
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| |||
PI 21, Driver Education Programs
| |||
Subject
| |||
Modifying the Course Plan Approval Process and the Driver Education Certificate Process
| |||
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| ||
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
| |||
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| |||
⍽ No Fiscal Effect
X Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
X Decrease Costs
| |
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| |||
⍽ State's Economy
⍽ Local Government Units
|
⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
| ||
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes X No
| |||
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
| |||
PI 21.05 requires the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to issue certificates. This will soon be unnecessary since the Department of Transportation (DOT) is going to issue on-line certificates which will apply to students in school driver education programs. This rule change will not take effect until DOT begins issuing these on-line certificates.
Additionally, PI 21.04 requires DPI to approve driver education course plans. However, to be more efficient, DPI is modifying the way it reviews driver education course plans. The DPI proposes modifying PI 21.04 to state that a public or private high school, county children with disabilities education board, or a CESA submitting on behalf of a district that it has contracted with to provide driver education instructional services, must submit an assurance stating they are complying with the program requirements in PI 21.04 in order to receive DPI approval. This assurance will substitute for DPI actively approving the specific program components. The DPI will continue to review each program's instructors to verify that their departmental driver education certification is current and valid.
| |||
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
| |||
Local:
None. School districts would only need to provide DPI with the names and teacher file numbers of driver education instructors as well as an assurance that they are complying with the program requirements. Students in driver education programs would still receive credit for completing these programs but DOT, instead of DPI, would be in charge of that process. Additionally, this eliminates the need for storage of paper completion certificates; schools were required to store paper copies for 7 years but now local completion records will be able to be maintained and stored electronically.
State:
This rule change will avoid duplication of effort on DPI's part because DOT is going to be issuing on-line certificates which will apply to students in school driver education programs. This rule change will eliminate printing costs associated with the printing of PI 1714 forms; eliminate shipping and postage associated with getting certificates to schools; and eliminates the time required to ship and mail certificates to schools. It will also save the Department resources because employees will not need to spend time reviewing driver education course plans.
| |||
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| |||
This rule change will avoid duplication of effort on DPI's part because DOT is going to be issuing on-line certificates which will apply to students in school driver education programs. It will also save the Department resources because employees will not need to spend time reviewing driver education course plans.
| |||
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| |||
The Department will reduce its role with regards to driver education programs while the roles of the DOT and those submitting driver education course plans will increase.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| |||
No information.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| |||
No information.
| |||
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
| |||
Katie Schumacher, Department of Public Instruction Administrative Rules Coordinator, (608) 267-9127.
|