Honorable Allan Ritter, Chair, House Committee on Natural Resources
FROM:
John S O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE:
HB193 by Walle (Relating to the location of water utility rate hearings conducted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.), As Introduced
Estimated Two-year Net Impact to General Revenue Related Funds for HB193, As Introduced: an impact of $0 through the biennium ending August 31, 2013.
The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill.
Fiscal Year
Probable Net Positive/(Negative) Impact to General Revenue Related Funds
2012
$0
2013
$0
2014
$0
2015
$0
2016
$0
Fiscal Year
Probable Savings/(Cost) from Water Resource Management 153
Change in Number of State Employees from FY 2011
2012
($185,432)
2.0
2013
($177,432)
2.0
2014
($177,432)
2.0
2015
($177,432)
2.0
2016
($177,432)
2.0
Fiscal Analysis
The bill would require the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to hold contested case hearings locally within the service area of a water utility that is the subject of the hearing.
Methodology
It is estimated that the TCEQ would incur rulemaking costs and increased travel costs in the agency's Utilities & Districts Section, Plan and Groundwater Review, Environmental Law Division, and the Office of Public Interest Council. It is estimated that there would be an average of 48 cases per year that would require travel to other venues outside of the agency's headquarters in Austin. Travel time for approximately 48 cases annually for four staff members is estimated to be 3,072 hours. This estimate assumes that 2.0 additional FTEs would be needed because of increased time frames for reviewing and processing of certificate and convenience and necessity cases resulting from travel times. This estimate assumes that costs of the additional FTEs and travel would be paid out of the General Revenue-Dedicated Water Resource Management Account No. 153.
Local Government Impact
Local governments involved in contested case hearings could experience savings because they would not be required to travel to Austin. The savings would depend on the entity's distance from Austin and the number of contested cases the entity would be involved in.