LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
Austin, Texas
FISCAL NOTE, 77th Regular Session
February 17, 2001
TO: Honorable David Sibley, Chair, Senate Committee on
Business & Commerce
FROM: John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE: SB244 by Shapleigh (Relating to the regulation of
telemarketing; providing penalties.), As Introduced
**************************************************************************
* Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for *
* SB244, As Introduced: positive impact of $0 through the biennium *
* ending August 31, 2003. *
* *
* 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 *
* 2002 $0 *
* 2003 0 *
* 2004 0 *
* 2005 0 *
* 2006 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 2001 *
* 0001 0001 *
* 2002 $(82,679) $82,679 2.0 *
* 2003 (134,676) 134,676 4.0 *
* 2004 (134,676) 134,676 4.0 *
* 2005 (134,676) 134,676 4.0 *
* 2006 (134,676) 134,676 4.0 *
**************************************************************************
Technology Impact
No significant technology impact is anticipated.
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would amend Section 1, Title 4 of the Business and Commerce Code
by adding Chapter 43. It would require the Public Utility Commission
(PUC) to develop and adopt rules to establish and maintain a "no-call
list" of persons in the state not wanting to receive telemarketing phone
calls. The bill would establish enforcement authority for the PUC and
would authorize the Office of the Attorney General to investigate
violations and take civil actions against violators in court.
Individuals requesting to be placed on the no-call list would pay a fee
not to exceed $3. Placement on the no-call list would be for three-year
periods, after which people would need to renew the request and again pay
the fee. The bill would also allow for entities or persons to purchase
the no-call list from the PUC for a fee not to exceed $75 per issuance.
The bill would take effect on January 1, 2002.
Methodology
It is estimated that approximately 1% (200,000) of the total Texas
population of 20,000,000 would request listing each year. This estimate
of a participation rate of 1% is based on the assumption that a large
number of renewals would offset a smaller number of initial requests. It
is estimated that 5,000 requests to obtain a copy of the no-call list
would be received in fiscal year 2002 and 10,000 requests in each
subsequent year. The PUC estimates the increased workload from
implementing the bill would require 2 FTEs in 2002 and 4 FTEs in
subsequent years. The PUC would incur costs of $82,679 in the first year
and $134,676 for each subsequent year.
It is assumed the agency would set fees in an amount to offset any costs
associated with implementation of the bill.
Local Government Impact
No fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated.
Source Agencies: 475 Office of Public Utility Counsel, 473 Public
Utility Commission of Texas, 313 Department of
Information Resources, 302 Office of the Attorney
General, 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBB Staff: JK, JO, RT, KM