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 |
155 – PSC 135 – Pipeline Safety Regulations |
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis |
☑ Original ☐ Updated ☐Corrected |
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number |
PSC 135, Gas Safety |
3. Subject |
Adoption of federal gas pipeline regulations |
4. Fund Sources Affected | 5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected |
☐ GPR ☑ FED ☑ PRO ☐ PRS ☐ SEG ☐ SEG-S |
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule |
☑ 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 ☐ Local Government Units | ☐ Specific Businesses/Sectors ☐ Public Utility Rate Payers ☐ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A) |
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ☐ Yes ☑ No |
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule c |
Under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, the commission is authorized to enforce federal natural gas pipeline safety requirements as set out in the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 C.F.R. Parts 192, 193, and 199. As part of the agreement, the commission adopts the federal pipeline safety code in Wis. Admin. Code s. PSC 135.019. The commission’s latest version of that rule adopts the federal code up to January 1, 2013. New gas pipeline safety code requirements are generally enacted in October of each year. As a result, the commission needs to amend its rule to include those federal rule changes made since January 2013. Adoption of these amendments will keep the commission in compliance with its obligation to adopt all federal changes in the pipeline safety area. |
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. |
All gas utilities, Wisconsin Utilities Association, Utility Workers’ Association, and National Federation of Independent Businesses. |
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA. |
N/A |
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) |
This rule will result in no economic impact since pipeline operators are already required, under federal law, to follow the federal regulations. Any economic impact of those federal regulations has already occurred. This rulemaking just updates the state’s enforcement authority. |
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule |
Adoption of these amendments will keep the commission in compliance with its obligation to adopt all federal changes in the pipeline safety area. Being in compliance increases the amount of federal money received by the state. |
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule |
The only long-range implication is that the state's enforcement authority will be updated. |
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government |
As this is the adoption of the federal regulations, it is the same approach as the federal government. |
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota) |
All states, including the neighboring states, adopt the federal pipeline regulations. |
17. Contact Name | 18. Contact Phone Number |
Lisa Farrell | 06/13/2014 |
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) |
N/A |
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule’s impact on Small Businesses |
N/A |
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 |
N/A |
5. Describe the Rule’s Enforcement Provisions |
N/A |
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form) |
☐ Yes ☑ No |
