Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

Analysis Prepared by the Office of the State Public Defender

Statutes interpreted

Sections 977.02 (3) (a) and (4m) and 977.075, Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 977.02 (3) (a) and (4m) and 977.075, Stats.

Agency authority

Section 977.02 (3) (a), Stats., requires the public defender board to consider the anticipated costs of effective representation for the type of case in which the person seeks representation. Section 977.02 (4m), Stats., requires the state public defender board to promulgate rules for payments to the state public defender under s. 977.075, Stats. Section 977.075, Stats., requires the state public defender board to establish by rule a fee schedule that sets the amount that a client responsible for payment shall pay for the cost of the legal representation if the client does not pay the applicable discount fee.

Related statutes or rules

None.

Plain language analysis

This proposed rule will revise three sections of the PD administrative code to include a new “felony diversion" case category. This proposed case category will apply to cases in which the SPD and the prosecutor negotiate felony diversion agreements as an alternative to the filing of formal criminal charges.

SPD case categories reflect the anticipated cost of retained counsel and set the required payment amounts for legal representation. The proposed rule adds the felony diversion case category to three schedules: cost of retained counsel, s. PD 3.02 (1); payment for legal representation, s. PD 6.01; and discount option, s. PD 6.02 (1). The SPD currently provides representation in diversion cases within the case category of “special proceedings." The new felony diversion case category will more accurately reflect the amount of time attorneys spend when representing clients in felony diversion cases.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations

There are no existing or proposed federal regulations that address the activities of the proposed rules.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Adjacent states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota) generally require defendants to reimburse the state or county for the cost of public counsel. Those states do not have rules like Wisconsin regarding the cost of retained counsel, payment for legal representation, and discount options for particular case types.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

None.

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

The rule will require individuals who are represented in felony diversion cases to pay $240 toward the cost of their representation, which is lower than for other felony cases. Clients also have the option to pay a lower discount amount of $60 as provided in s. PD 6.02 (1). As this rule would impact only individual clients of the SPD, there is no anticipated economic impact of implementing the rule.

Effect on Small Business

None.

Agency Contact Person

Devon Lee, [e-mail] or [phone]

Office of the State Public Defender

315 N. Henry Street, 2nd Floor

Madison, WI 53703.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Administrative Rule Chapter PD 3, Indigency Criteria, s. 3.02. Administrative Rule Chapter PD 6, Payment for State Public Defender Representation, ss. 6.01 and 6.02.
Subject
Creation of Felony Diversion case category.
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S			None
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 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
The anticipated cost of counsel reflects the likely cost for a prospective client to hire a private attorney. The SPD includes this amount in its determination of an applicant's financial eligibility for SPD services. The required payment for legal representation reflects the average attorney costs for the SPD in the respective case categories. A new felony diversion case category will more accurately reflect the amount of time attorneys spend when representing clients in felony diversion cases.
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 has no economic or fiscal impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole. There are no implementation or compliance costs.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
A new felony diversion case category will more accurately reflect the amount of time attorneys spend when representing clients in felony diversion cases. The rule will require individuals who are represented in felony diversion cases to pay $240 toward the cost of their representation, which is lower than for other felony cases. This increased cost reflects the significant time attorneys invest in felony diversion cases. Clients also have the option to pay a lower discount amount of $60 as provided in PD s. 6.02 (1).
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
There are no long range implications of implementing the rule.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
The case categories used by the office of the state public defender are unique to the SPD and have no federal equivalent.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Neither Illinois nor Michigan has a statewide public defender system. In Iowa, courts order defendants to repay the costs for a public defender to the extent they are able. In Minnesota, courts may require a defendant to reimburse the state for legal fees.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Devon M. Lee Legal Counsel WI State Public Defender [phone]

Notice of Hearing

Public Service Commission

rulemaking_notices CR 13-048 CR 13-048

(PSC Docket # 1-AC-229)

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin proposes an order to repeal ss. PSC 113.0301 (1m) (j) and (3), 113.0406 (7), 134.062 (2), 134.063 (1) (L), 134.13 (7), 185.33 (18), and 185.37 (2) (L); to amend ss. PSC 113.0301 (1m) (i), 134.062 (1) (k), and 185.37 (2) (k); and to create ss. PSC 113.0408, 113.0409, 134.051, 134.053, 185.30, and 185.305, relating to applications for service and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

Hearing Information

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

Date:   Monday, July 29, 2013
Time:   10:00 a.m.
Location:   Amnicon Falls Hearing Room
  Public Service Commission Building
  610 North Whitney Way
  Madison, Wisconsin

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 get this document in a different format should contact Justin Chasco, as indicated in the previous paragraph, as soon as possible.

Written Comments

Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. The hearing record will be open for written comments from the public, effective immediately, and until Monday, August 12, 2013 at noon. All written comments must include a reference on the filing to docket 1-AC-229. File by one mode only.

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

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

•   Electronic Comment. Go to the commission's web site 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 web site at http://psc.wi.gov, 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-229.

•   Mail Comment. All comments submitted by U.S. Mail must include the phrase “Docket 1-AC-229 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 web site. Only one comment may be submitted per person during a comment period. The commission may reject a comment that does not comply with the requirements described in this notice.

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), 196.745 (1) (a), and 227.11, Stats.

Section 227.11, Stats., authorizes agencies to promulgate administrative rules. Section 196.02 (1), Stats., authorizes the commission to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction. Section 196.02 (3), Stats., grants the commission specific authority to promulgate rules. Section 196.745 (1) (a), Stats., grants the commission specific authority to adopt rules requiring that the construction and operation of gas facilities be done in a reasonably adequate and safe manner.

Statutes interpreted

Section 196.02 (1), Stats., authorizes the commission to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction. Section 196.03 (1) Stats., requires public utilities to furnish adequate service. Section 196.37 (2), Stats., requires utility practices and services to be reasonable.

Related statutes or rules

Chapters PSC 113, 134, and 185, which contain the commission's rules for the provision of service by electric utilities, standards for gas service and standards for water public utility service.

Brief summary of rule

This rule is intended to harmonize the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act with the commission's administrative rules on the provision of service by utilities. Specifically, the rule requires public utilities in Wisconsin to take steps to identify and mitigate identity theft risks by verifying the identity of applicants for service as required by the FACT rules. Many Wisconsin utilities already use procedures consistent with the requirements of this rule. This rule permits utilities to require an applicant for service to provide initial identifying information. If an applicant for service refuses to provide identifying information or provides inadequate identifying information, the rule permits utilities to require additional identifying information as a pre-condition for establishing service. If an applicant for service fails to provide identifying information, the utility may refuse to provide service to the applicant.

Comparison with existing or proposed federal regulations

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act1 (FACT) included a number of changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act2. Many of these changes addressed identity theft risks and plans that companies must develop to ensure the identity of those who already have accounts, or who open new accounts, with the company. This rule is intended to harmonize the requirements of the federal government and the commission with regard to identity theft risks.

1Pub. L. No. 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952.

215 U.S.C. 1681.

Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states

Michigan permits utilities to request customer identification similar to this rule (MI Admin. Rule 460.106). Illinois (see, e.g., 83 Ill. Adm. Code 280.70), Minnesota, and Iowa (see Iowa Admin. Code r. 199-19.4(16)) do not have administrative rules either allowing or prohibiting a utility to require identification as a pre-condition for service, but each state requires utilities to comply with company-specific tariffs when they review applications for service. Many of those tariffs allow utilities to require supporting documentation, including identification.

Effect on Small Business

This rule has no effect on small businesses since these utilities, as monopolies and unlike small businesses, are all dominant in their field. Further, these rules primarily harmonize the commission's rules on the provision of utility service with federal regulations.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This rulemaking will not have an effect on small business.

Contact Person

Questions regarding this matter should be directed to Justin Chasco at [phone] or [e-mail]. Small business questions may be directed to Anne Vandervort, Gas and Energy Division, at [phone], or [e-mail]; Gary Evenson, Telecommunications Division, at [phone], or [e-mail]; or Denise Schmidt, Water Division, at [phone] or denise.schmidt@ wisconsin.gov. Media questions should be directed to Nathan Conrad, 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].

Text of the Rules

Section 1. PSC 113.0301 (1m) (i) is amended to read:

PSC 113.0301 (1m) (i) Failure of an applicant for utility service to provide adequate verification of identity and residency, as provided in sub.(3) to provide information or documentation required by s. PSC 113.0306.

Section 2. PSC 113.0301 (1m) (j) and (3) are repealed.

Section 3. PSC 113.0406 (7) is repealed.

Section 4. PSC 113.0408 and 113.0409 are created to read:

PSC 113.0408 Application for residential service.

(1) For purposes of this section, “written" or “in writing" means legibly printed on paper or, with the intended recipient's permission, legibly printed in an electronic form that the recipient can electronically store and retrieve for future reference.

(2) (a) A residential user of electric service shall apply for service.

(b) A utility may require a verbal or written application for residential service. The utility shall establish a written policy for when a written application is required. A utility may accept an application for service from a person other than the user or potential user of service.

(c) 1. Except as provided in par. (d), a utility may only require that an applicant provide the following information in an application:

a. Legal name and birthdate of the user of service and the person responsible for bill payment, if different than the user.

b. If the user of service and person responsible for bill payment have telephone service, the telephone number of the user of service and the person responsible for bill payment, if different than the user. Lack of telephone service is not grounds for service refusal.

c. Address where service is to be provided.

d. Mailing address if different from service address.

e. Date requested for service to begin.

f. The most recent previous address of the person responsible for bill payment.

g. Initial identification data under subd. 2.