Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

2011 Wisconsin Act 166 created s. 115.415, Stats., regarding the educator effectiveness evaluation system and the ability to have equivalent models.

Section 115.415 (3), Stats., mandates the promulgation of an equivalency process to review alternative educator evaluation models for use by public school districts and charter schools established under s. 118.40 (2r), Stats. The equivalency process shall be based on the 2011 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium and the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Educational Leadership Policy Standards.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report

The proposed rules will indirectly benefit some small businesses involved in creating alternative educator evaluation programs since these have the potential to be approved and used throughout the state.

Anticipated costs incurred by private sector

There are no required costs associated with implementing this rule. It provides an opportunity for different businesses and parties which may come with their own costs, but the implementation of the rule itself does not create significant costs.

Effect on small business

The rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats.

Agency contact person

The agency person to be contacted if there are substantive questions on the rules:

Sheila Briggs, Assistant State Superintendent, Division for Academic Excellence, [e-mail], [phone].

The agency person to be contacted for the agency's internal processing of rules:

Katie Schumacher, Administrative Rules Coordinator, [e-mail], [phone].

Agency procedure for promulgation

A public hearing will be held under ss. 227.17 and 227.18, Wis. Stats.

Description of any forms

The Equivalency Review Process Application form is the form that districts, consortia of districts, or charter schools must fill out to apply for approval for their Equivalent Models. The Equivalency Review Process Application form may be obtained at no charge from the Department of Public Instruction, Educator Effectiveness Team, P.O. Box 7841, Madison, WI 53707-7841.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The proposed rules are not anticipated to have a fiscal effect on small businesses as defined under s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats.

Fiscal Estimate

This rule will impact local government units and specific businesses/sectors. To receive a copy of the complete fiscal estimate, please contact Katie Schumacher using the contact information below.

Economic Impact Analysis

This rule provides school districts, consortia of districts, or charter schools established under s. 118.40(2r), Stats., with the opportunity to develop and submit a new model for evaluating educator practice. The application for approval of an equivalency model takes time to complete. Thus, the rule will require some staff time from the applicants during the application process. To receive a copy of the complete economic impact analysis, contact Katie Schumacher using the contact information below.

Agency Contact Person

Katie Schumacher, Administrative Rules Coordinator and Small Business Regulatory Coordinator, [e-mail], Department of Public Instruction, 125 South Webster Street, P.O. Box 7841, Madison, WI 53707-7841.

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: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   ⍽ Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
PI Chapter 47: Educator Effectiveness Equivalency Process
3. Subject
Educator Effectiveness Equivalency Process
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   X PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽SEG-S			20.255 (1) (hg)
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
⍽ No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		X Increase Costs X 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 ⍽ 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
This rule recognizes the state's model for evaluating educator practice within the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System might not suit every district's unique needs. As such, this rule allows a school district, consortium of districts, or charter school established under s. 118.40 (2r), Stats., to submit a new model for evaluating educator practice for review to the department. The equivalency process applies only to the educator practice component within the state system; the student outcomes component is not subject to equivalency.
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.
School districts and the organization developing their equivalent model were asked about any possible compliance or implementation costs. For this economic impact analysis, the department contacted those school districts and organizations that notified the department of their intention to apply for an equivalent model for the 2013-14 school year.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
School districts that notified the department of their intention to apply for an equivalent model for the 2013-14 school year were asked to notify the department of any possible compliance or implementation costs.
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 provides school districts, consortia of districts, or charter schools established under s. 118.40 (2r), Stats., with the opportunity to develop and submit a new model for evaluating educator practice. The application for approval of an equivalency model takes time to complete. Thus, the rule will require some staff time from the applicants during the application process.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Benefits of implementing this rule include giving districts more local control in selecting the model for evaluating educator practice that best meets their unique needs. Alternatives include having every district across the state implement the state's model for evaluating educator practice set forth within the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Recognizing each district has unique needs, this rule would allow districts the flexibility to develop or choose an alternative model for evaluating educator practice which best meets those needs.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
NA.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Illinois has established a similar educator effectiveness system, the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) to address the needs of effective educator evaluations. Teachers and principals may be evaluated by any person who successfully completes training and a pre-qualification. Unlike Wisconsin's state model, Illinois is requiring all districts to design and implement systems to measure teacher and principal performance. Districts then have two options for adopting a new system that incorporates student growth measures into teacher evaluations. A school district can develop its own system that meets minimum standards mandated by state rules; or it can choose to use all or portions of a state-designed optional model. A special advisory group, the Performance Evaluation Advisory Committee (PEAC) will provide input on rules for districts wanting to develop their own teacher and principal evaluation systems; and recommendations for a statewide model for principal evaluation and a default/optional model for teacher evaluation. Iowa allows districts to design educator evaluation systems as long as they align with the state teaching standards. School districts are required to determine what policies, procedures and processes are needed to support Iowa Teaching Standards and Criteria. A teacher evaluation system should be built around a range of sources of data and information that will encourage and support the demonstration of teacher mastery of the Iowa Teaching Standards. Michigan is currently in the process of developing an educator evaluation system. The Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness (MCEE) will develop a fair, transparent, and feasible evaluation system for teachers and school administrators. The system will be based on rigorous standards of professional practice and of measurement. The goal of this system is to contribute to enhanced instruction, improve student achievement, and support ongoing professional learning. Currently Michigan is in the process of piloting over 800 different systems designed by school districts. Minnesota has a voluntary program, Quality Compensation, or Q Comp, that allows local districts and exclusive representatives of the teachers to design and collectively bargain for a plan incorporating career ladder/advancement options, job-embedded professional development, teacher evaluation, performance pay, and an alternative salary schedule.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Sheila Briggs				[phone]

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request

Notice of Hearing

Public Service Commission

(PSC Docket # 1-AC-227)

rulemaking_notices CR 13-033 CR 13-033

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin proposes an order to repeal s. PSC 113.0921 (1) (g); renumber ss. PSC 113.0923 and (title) and 185.78 and (title); renumber and amend s. PSC 185.77; amend ss. PSC 113.0614, 113.0921 (1) (e) and (f), 113.0922 (title), 134.20, 134.31 (3), 185.19 (1), 185.73 (2), 185.73 (4), and 185.77 (title); repeal and recreate ss. PSC 113.0919 (1) and (2), 134.19 (1) and (2), and 185.46 (1) and (2); and create ss. 113.0919 (1) (title), (2) (title), (3) (title) and (4) (title), 113.0922 (1) (title), 113.0922 (3), 113.0922 (6), 134.19 (1) (title), (2) (title) and (3) (title), 134.31 (4) and (6), 185.46 (1) (title), (2) (title) and (3) (title), a note following 185.76 (6), 185.761 (2) and 185.77 (3) and (5), regarding the retention of customer meters so that they are available for testing.

Hearing Information

Pursuant to s. 227.16 (2) (b), Stats., the commission will hold a public hearing on these proposed rule changes.

Date:   Thursday, May 30, 2013
Time:   1:30 p.m.
Location:   Amnicon Falls Hearing Room
  Public Service Commission Building
  610 North Whitney Way
  Madison, WI

This building is accessible to people in wheelchairs through the Whitney Way (lobby) entrance. Handicapped parking is available on the south side of the building.

The Commission does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the provision of programs, services, or employment. Any person with a disability who needs accommodations to participate in this proceeding or who needs to obtain this document in a different format should contact the docket coordinator listed below.

Written Comments

Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. The record will be open for written comments from the public, effective immediately, and until Thursday, June 13, 2013, at noon. All written comments must include a reference on the filing to docket 1-AC-227. File by one mode only.

Industry: File comments using the Electronic Regulatory Filing system. This may be accessed from the commission's website (http://psc.wi.gov).

Members of the Public: Please submit your comments in one of the following ways:

•Electronic Comment: Go to the commission's website at http://psc.wi.gov, and click on the “ERF - Electronic Regulatory Filing" graphic on the side menu bar. On the next page, click on “Need Help?" in the side menu bar for instructions on how to upload a document.

•Web Comment: Go to the commission's website at http://psc.wi.gov, and click on the “Public Comments" button on the side menu bar. On the next page select the “File a comment" link that appears for docket number 1-AC-227.

•Mail Comment: All comments submitted by U.S. Mail must include the phrase, “Docket 1-AC-227 Comments" in the heading, and shall be addressed to:

  Sandra J. Paske, Secretary to the Commission

  Public Service Commission

  P.O. Box 7854

  Madison, WI 53707-7854

The commission does not accept comments submitted via e-mail or facsimile (fax). Any material submitted to the commission is a public record and may appear on the commission's website. The commission may reject a comment that does not comply with the requirements described in this notice.

Small business questions may be directed to Anne Vandervort at [phone], or via e-mail at [e-mail]. Media questions should be directed to Matt Pagel, Acting Communications Director, at [phone]. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may also use the commission's TTY number: if calling from Wisconsin, [phone]; if calling from outside Wisconsin, [phone].

Analysis Prepared by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Statutory authority and explanation of authority

This rule is authorized under ss. 196.02 (1) and (3), 196.06 (3), 196.17 (1), and 227.11, Stats.

Section 227.11 authorizes agencies to promulgate administrative rules. Section 196.02 (1) authorizes the commission to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction. Section 196.02 (3) grants the commission specific authority to promulgate rules. Section 196.06 (3) allows the commission to prescribe the manner and form in which utilities keep records. Section 196.17 (1) requires the commission to provide for meter testing.

Statute interpreted

This rule interprets ss. 196.03 (1) and 196.17.

Related statutes or rules

Sections PSC 113.0922, 113.0923, 134.31, 185.77, and 185.78 deal with customer-requested and commission-refereed tests. This rulemaking deals with how long to retain meters after such tests so that they are available should further tests be requested. Sections PSC 113.0614, 134.20, and 185.19 deal with the retention of records.

Brief summary of rule

This rule establishes retention periods for meter test records. It also ensures that meters remain available for a reasonable period of time for subsequent testing, if necessary, to resolve a customer dispute. Further, it ensures that referee-tested meters are retained long enough that they are available should further testing or review be needed. It also requires that meters being retired from service must either be tested or stored so that they are available should a customer or the commission request testing. Finally, the rule ensures that when meters are tested for other reasons, and the test results in either a back-billing or a credit, the meters are retained long enough that they are available should further testing or review be needed.

The proposed rule changes are slightly different for the water industry than those for the electric and gas industries, due to unique concerns about maintaining the integrity of the meters during storage. Specifically, water meters must be kept in a “wet" condition because a meter may test differently if the internal mechanism is allowed to dry out.1 Like other industries, water utilities are given the option of testing all retired meters and disposing of those that are accurate, or retaining all meters. The options are provided to give individual utilities the flexibility to make the economic choice that makes sense for them: retaining all meters or testing all meters.

1 Some members of the water industry have raised concerns that, even then, the meter may test differently since, for example, transporting the removed meter may dislodge accumulated scaling and silt.

Comparison with existing or proposed federal legislation

49 CFR 192 contains some records retention regulations for gas pipeline operators. 18 CFR 225 contains some gas records retention requirements. 18 CFR 125.3. contains some electric records retention regulations. They do not address the issue of meter retention.

Comparison with similar rules in surrounding states

This rulemaking was opened after the commission dealt with a number of situations in which a customer had requested an accuracy test of a meter, but then the meter was thrown away before a second, commission-refereed test could be requested and performed. The approach is to require that a meter be retained for a period of time after an initial test to ensure that it is available for a follow-up test, should one be requested. This rulemaking involves three types of utility service: gas, electric and water.

Although surrounding states anecdotally report at least some of the same problems experienced by this commission, none of them have rules that specify time periods for which meters must be retained. However, Iowa does advise utilities to keep meters until the time for an appeal has passed, especially if a referee test is performed. Further, when the Iowa Utilities Board issues orders granting waivers from meter testing requirements, it requires the utility to hold the meters for 120 days before disposing of them.

Retention periods for meter testing records vary among surrounding states, although the general format is the same. Records from an individual meter test must be retained for a period of time after the results are recorded in a history record that contains a wide variety of information about a particular meter, including all of the test results for that meter. That history record is retained for a longer period of time. The proposed rule requires utilities to retain an individual test record until it is recorded in the meter history record and the meter is tested again. The meter history record must be kept for the life of the meter, plus six years. Six years was chosen because it is the general statute of limitations for consumer issues. This retention period will help ensure that appropriate records remain available should an issue arise during that time.

Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois require that initial test records be kept for at least three years, while Michigan requires that they be kept for at least two years. In Minnesota, such records must be kept longer if necessary to permit compliance with commission rules. In Michigan, they must be kept longer if necessary to comply with rules regarding refunds on fast meters. In Illinois, meter history records need only be kept for three years. In Michigan and Minnesota, they must be kept for the life of the meter.

Effect on small business

The s. 227.114 (1), Stats., definition of “small business" states that to be considered a small business, the business must not be dominant in its field. Since they are monopolies in their service territories, gas, electric and water utilities are dominant in their fields, and so, are not small businesses.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This rule will not affect small businesses. The s. 227.114 (12), Stats., definition of “small business" states that to be considered a small business, the business must not be dominant in its field. Since gas, electric and water utilities are monopolies in their service territories, they are dominant in their fields, and so, are not small businesses.

Fiscal Estimate

An Economic Impact Analysis is included.

Agency Contact Person

Questions regarding this rule should be directed to Docket Coordinator Joyce Mahan Dingman at [phone], or via e-mail at [e-mail]. Small business questions may be directed to Anne Vandervort at [phone], or via e-mail at [e-mail]. Media questions should be directed to Matt Pagel, Acting Communication Director, at [phone]. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may also use the Commission's TTY number: if calling from Wisconsin, [phone]; if calling from outside Wisconsin, [phone].

Text of Proposed Rule

SECTION 1. PSC 113.0614 is amended to read:

PSC 113.0614 Preservation of records. The A utility shall preserve the following records shall be preserved in a readable format and kept keep them available for inspection by the commission for the periods indicated. The list is not to be taken as comprehending a complete list of all types of utility records.

Description of Records	Period to be Retained
(1) Maps showing the location and physical characteristics of existing facilities	Perpetually
(2) Engineering records in connection with construction projects if construction of projects results wholly or in part	Until record is superseded or 6 years after plant is retired
Production Records:
(3) Station and system generation records	Permanently
(4) All other records taken in the plant	6 years
Operating Records:
(5) Load dispatcher data	6 years
(6) Interruption records	6 years
(7) Meter test records Note that if meter test records are being used as meter history records under PSC 113.0919 (2) (b), the meter test records must be preserved for the time period required for meter history records.	See PSC 113.0919 Until the information in the meter test record is entered in the meter history record and the meter is tested again
(8) Meter history records	Life of meter plus 6 years
(9) Annual meter accuracy summary	16 6 years
(10) Results of test made when a meter is retired (11) Voltmeter records	6 years See PSC 113.0706 (5)
(12) All other records of operation	6 years
Equipment Records:
(13) Must be placed in mortality study before destroying	Life of equipment
Customers' Records:
(14) Inspection of customers' premises	6 years
(15) Customers' complaint record	6 years
(16) Meter reading sheets records	* years 6 years
(17) Billing record	* years 6 years
(18) Customer deposits	6 years after refund
(19) Filed rates and rules	Permanently

Note: See also “Regulations to Govern the Preservation of Records of Electric, Gas and Water Utilities" adopted by the commission in dockets 2-U-5005 and 2-U-5396, May 4, 1972, for more comprehensive listing of retention periods of specific records.

*Where machine billing is used and meter readings recorded on tabulating cards the register sheets may be considered the “meter reading sheets" and the “billing records." “Meter reading sheets" and “billing records" or the “register sheets" shall be kept 6 years or until they are no longer needed to adjust bills. This means that the records must be kept 6 years or from the date of one meter test to the next whichever is longer.

SECTION 2. PSC 113.0919 (1) (title) is created to read:

PSC 113.0919 (1) (title) Meter test records.

SECTION 3. PSC 113.0919 (1) is repealed and recreated to read:

PSC 113.0919 (1) A utility shall create a record of a test whenever a unit of metering equipment is tested. If the unit is tested again, the utility need not retain the previous test record once the information in that record has been entered in the meter history record. The meter test record shall include all of the following:

(a) Information to identify the unit of metering equipment.

(b) The location of the unit of metering equipment.

(c) The equipment with which the unit of metering equipment is associated.

(d) The date of the test.