LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 76th Regular Session Revision 1 May 5, 1999 TO: Honorable Kim Brimer, Chair, House Committee on Business & Industry FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE: HB537 by Danburg (relating to telephone solicitation; providing penalties), Committee Report 1st House, Substituted ************************************************************************** * Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for * * HB537, Committee Report 1st House, Substituted: impact of $0 * * through the biennium ending August 31, 2001. * * * * The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal * * basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of * * the bill. * ************************************************************************** General Revenue-Related Funds, Five-Year Impact: **************************************************** * Fiscal Year Probable Net Positive/(Negative) * * Impact to General Revenue Related * * Funds * * 2000 $0 * * 2001 0 * * 2002 0 * * 2003 0 * * 2004 0 * **************************************************** All Funds, Five-Year Impact: ************************************************************************** *Fiscal Probable Probable Revenue Change in Number of * * Year Savings/(Cost) from Gain/(Loss) from State Employees from * * General Revenue Fund General Revenue Fund FY 1999 * * 0001 0001 * * 2000 $(327,710) $327,710 5.0 * * 2001 (274,501) 274,501 5.0 * * 2002 (274,501) 274,501 5.0 * * 2003 (274,501) 274,501 5.0 * * 2004 (274,501) 274,501 5.0 * ************************************************************************** Fiscal Analysis The bill would impose new requirements on telephone solicitors for the proper execution of solicited transactions, and would provide consumers with additional protections relating to those transactions. The bill would require the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to maintain a "no-call" list for Texas residents requesting inclusion on the list, and to conduct an educational campaign to make consumers aware of the list. The PUC would be required to develop a form for consumers to request inclusion on the list, and to mail the form to any consumer requesting it. The PUC would also be required to maintain a toll-free number for consumers to call to request such a form. The PUC would also have enforcement responsibility for the no-call list. Any administrative penalties charged by the PUC for solicitors' violations of the no-call list would be dedicated for administering the provisions of the bill. Additionally, the PUC would have the authority to charge a fee, not to exceed $200, for providing copies of the list to non-registered telephone solicitors. Revenue from this fee could only be used to defray enforcement expenses in excess of the amount available through the administrative penalties. The bill would also reduce the current $200 telephone solicitor registration fee to $75, and dedicate the revenue from that fee for the activities of the Secretary of State and the PUC in registering telephone solicitors and administering the no-call list. Methodology It is assumed that the PUC would incur costs for the educational, enforcement, and administrative tasks required by the bill. It is estimated that four additional employees could perform the work required by the bill. In addition, the Secretary of State would incur costs for registering additional telephone solicitors; it is estimated that one FTE would be able to handle the additional registrations. According to the Secretary of State, only 26 entities are currently registered as telephone solicitors. Consequently, the registration fee reduction is not expected to result in significant revenue reductions. Revenue would be available from three sources to offset the cost of implementing the bill. First, it is expected that administrative penalties would increase in conjunction with enforcement efforts. Secondly, non-registered solicitors could be charged up to $200 for copies of the no-call list. Finally, it is expected that the enforcement activities would result in an increase in the number of entities paying the fee to register with the Secretary of State. Local Government Impact No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated. Source Agencies: 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts, 475 Office of Public Utility Counsel, 473 Public Utility Commission of Texas LBB Staff: JK, TH, RT, CB