Final
BENEFIT-COST AND REGULATORY ANALYSIS
CDOT Utility Accommodation Code Rulemaking
Minimum Vertical Clearance Over Roadways
August 17, 2009
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Safety and Traffic Engineering
Branch staff has prepared this cost benefit and regulatory analysis to provide additional
information to the Transportation Commission (Commission), parties, and public, in
accordance with requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). As
contemplated by the APA, this analysis addresses the proposed rules regarding
minimum utility clearance requirements over state highways only, and provides
information on its purpose, its anticipated benefits and costs, the persons affected, and
certain alternatives.
Because of the importance of, and interest in this rulemaking, CDOT staff prepared this
analysis. CDOT staff requested cost information from all twenty-three (23) Rural
Electric Associations (REAs) operating in Colorado through the CREA (Colorado Rural
Electric Association), as all other electric utilities already have standard minimum
vertical clearance requirements which exceed CDOT’s proposed ones. That cost
information was to include all projects completed in the last five years and costs
associated with projects planned in the next five years.
Since not all the needed information was provided, CDOT staff proceeded with the
analysis using the best available information and judgment at this time.
In accordance with the APA, the staff will make this report available to the public five
days before the rulemaking hearing commences.
Statutory Requirements
The APA serves as the legal authority for this rule-making process, setting forth
requirements for both benefit-cost and regulatory analyses. Under the APA, the
Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) may direct an agency engaged in a rulemaking to conduct a benefit-cost analysis. Any such request must occur at least twenty
days prior to the hearing on the rules, and the benefit-cost analysis must be submitted
to DORA and made available to the public at least five days prior to the hearing. The
benefit-cost analysis must include a good faith description of the reason for the rule, the
anticipated economic benefits and costs, any adverse effects on certain economic
sectors and factors, and the costs and benefits of at least two alternatives.
Also under the APA, any person may request an agency engaged in a rule-making to
prepare a benefit-cost/regulatory analysis. Any such request must occur at least fifteen
days prior to the hearing on the rules, and the benefit-cost/regulatory analysis must be
made available to the public at least five days prior to the hearing. The regulatory
analysis must include a good faith discussion of the classes of persons who will be
affected, the probable quantitative and qualitative impacts on such classes, the
Page 1 of 6
Final
probable costs to the agency for implementation and enforcement, a comparison of the
probable costs and benefits of the proposed rule to those of inaction, whether there are
less costly or intrusive alternatives, and any alternatives. The analysis must also
include quantification of the data to the extent practicable and take account of both
short-term and long-term consequences.
Preparation of Analysis
Recognizing the importance of and public interest in this rule-making, CDOT staff began
preparing both a cost benefit and a regulatory analysis of the proposed rules shortly
after the initial April 2009 rulemaking hearing was recessed. In an effort to consolidate
possibly redundant information, the staff has combined both analyses into a common
format that addresses: the purpose of the proposed rule; the resulting benefits and
costs and the parties receiving or bearing those benefits and costs; any adverse effects
on certain economic or geographic sectors; and a comparison of the costs and benefits
for alternatives considered and an explanation why those alternatives were rejected.
At the outset of this process, CDOT staff sought cost and benefit information from the
regulated community and other stakeholders. The staff also corresponded with CREA
via telephone and e-mail on numerous occasions to develop acceptable rules and
ascertain needed information from their members regarding these minimum vertical
clearance requirements.
Ultimately CDOT staff relied upon internal expertise regarding potential benefits
associated with the rules, and regarding the benefit-cost analysis. CDOT staff also
consulted with staff at DORA regarding the APA benefit-cost requirements as well as
the scope and content of similar analyses prepared by other state agencies.
Cost Benefit Analysis Requirements:
A benefit-cost analysis shall include the following:
(I)
The reason for the rule or amendment;
To improve worker safety by establishing higher minimum clearances for
transverse aerial utility crossings of State Highways.
On average, CDOT issued 51 permits for overhead Rural Electric
Association (REA) utility line highway crossings in each of the last five
years. Since two CDOT employees died as a direct result of electrocution
after coming into contact with overhead electrical utility lines in the past
twenty-six years with one such fatality in the last two years; CDOT is
requesting that the vertical clearance for transverse utility line crossings
over CDOT roadways be increased from the current minimum of 20.5 feet to
24.0 feet to improve worker safety.
Page 2 of 6
Final
The L150 Volvo, a five cubic yard front-end loader, and various models of
twelve cubic yard dump trucks are the most common pieces of equipment
currently used within CDOT right-of-way during normal maintenance
operations. During a normal loading operation, the L150 Volvo loader
bucket can reach heights of up to 23 feet 9 inches, and during normal
dumping operations, the dump trucks can reach heights of 22 feet 6 inches.
Therefore, minimum vertical utility line roadway clearances have been
recommended to be raised to 24 feet to eliminate direct contact with
electric utility lines. There has been no change from the current vertical
clearance minimum of 20 feet for longitudinal installations since they are
required to be as close to the edge of the right-of-way as possible.
Section 9-2.5-102(1), Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), requires all electric
utility lines with less than ten feet of overhead vertical clearance between
operated equipment and those lines to be effectively shielded. A tractor
with lowboy trailer simply hauling the L150 loader to, from or on the jobsite
require effective shielding of every overhead electric utility line whose
overhead vertical clearance is less than 24 feet.
(II)
The anticipated economic benefits of the rule or amendment, which shall include
economic growth, the creation of new jobs, and increased economic
competitiveness;
While it is impossible to quantify the value of a human life, the insurance
industry experts estimate the value to exceed $1.2 million in 2009 dollars.
One CDOT worker died in the last five years as a result of maintenance
activities when a maintenance vehicle contacted an overhead power line.
The 51 annual highway crossings that have occurred in each of the last five
years would cost an estimated average cost of $800 per crossing. That
would increase costs for each of the 23 REAs by less than $1,775 per year
in 2009 dollars. If one life is saved every thirteen years, the net overall
benefit will result in an average savings of $2.26 for each dollar spent in
2009 dollars. This equates to a benefit-cost ratio of 2.26:1.
(III)
The anticipated costs of the rule or amendment, which shall include the direct
costs to the government to administer the rule or amendment and the direct and
indirect costs to business and other entities required to comply with the rule or
amendment;
Increasing the current minimum vertical clearance standard of 20 feet 6
inches over roadways to 24 feet will require longer utility poles. This rule
will increase the cost of each typical new overhead utility line roadway
crossing by less than $800.00 (in 2009 dollars). This will increase annual
operating costs for each REA by $1,775 in 2009 dollars. All other electric
utilities operating within the State have minimum vertical clearance
requirements that exceed the proposed minimums included in this rule.
Page 3 of 6
Final
No other electric utility has communicated any concern over increased
costs. Over the last five years, on average 51 transverse overhead utility
line crossings of CDOT roadways have been constructed at an average
annual cost to each REA of $1,775. It is not anticipated that CDOT costs
will change because the State Highway Utility Accommodation Code has
been used as a guide for more than three years and formalizing it into a
rule does not create any additional program costs.
(IV)
Any adverse effects on the economy, consumers, private markets, small
businesses, job creation, and economic competitiveness; and
Whereas this change only affects new utility line crossing State highway
right-of-way, the overall impact will be negligible. Variance procedures are
built into the State Highway Utility Accommodation Code for those utility
companies experiencing financial difficulties to comply with the increased
vertical clearance requirement.
(V)
At least two alternatives to the proposed rule or amendment that can be identified
by the submitting agency or a member of the public, including the costs and
benefits of pursuing each of the alternatives identified.
(1) The alternative of taking no action, wherein CDOT makes no change to
the minimum vertical clearance requirement of 20 feet 6 inches over
roadways, would cost CDOT and CREA nothing. However, this approach
fails to improve worker safety.
(2) Establish the minimum vertical clearance at 25 feet based on the
minimum standard used by Xcel Energy as well as the equipment in (I)
above. This will have no net effect on CDOT costs, but will also increase
REA costs by approximately $800 per crossing. No specific projects have
been identified that will cross State highways in the next five years. This
rule applies only to new installations, so existing facilities are not required
to be upgraded to the proposed vertical clearance requirements.
Regulatory Analysis Requirements:
(4.5) (a) Upon request of any person, at least fifteen days prior to the hearing, the
agency shall issue a regulatory analysis of a proposed rule. The regulatory
analysis shall contain:
(I)
A description of the classes of persons who will be affected by the proposed rule,
including classes that will bear the costs of the proposed rule and classes that
will benefit from the proposed rule;
All persons served by any REA or other similar electric utility whose
facilities must cross a State highway in the future will be affected, albeit
Page 4 of 6
Final
minimally. The $800.00 cost increase per crossing would likely be passed
on to existing customers utilizing the service. There have been no specific
projects identified to be constructed in the next five years that this change
will affect.
All persons entering and working within the State Highway right-of-way will
be positively impacted by this proposed rule. The proposed rule will have
the effect of increasing their safety while working within the right-of-way in
the vicinity of overhead electric facilities.
All citizens of Colorado will be positively affected by this proposed rule.
The increased safety of those working within the right-of-way may have the
effect of lowering workers compensation, health and insurance rates
(II)
To the extent practicable, a description of the probable quantitative and
qualitative impact of the proposed rule, economic or otherwise, upon affected
classes of persons;
There were 659,927 customers served by Colorado REAs in 2007. Fifty one
crossings that cost an average of $800.00 per crossing amount to an
annual total expense of $40,800.00. The cost of this rule would amount to
an average monthly cost increase of $0.005 for each REA customer in
Colorado.
(III)
The probable costs to the agency and to any other agency of the implementation
and enforcement of the proposed rule and any anticipated effect on state
revenues;
None are anticipated as the State Highway Utility Accommodation Code
has been utilized as a guide by CDOT for more than three years to date.
(IV)
A comparison of the probable costs and benefits of the proposed rule to the
probable costs and benefits of inaction;
These costs are unknown. Intuitively, increasing electrical line clearances
over roadways may save lives.
(V)
A determination of whether there are less costly methods or less intrusive
methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule; and
The department has undertaken an active campaign to train and remind
maintenance workers about operating heavy equipment under overhead
lines. There are approximately 1,440 maintenance workers who have been
trained over the past 12 months as part of an ongoing, existing safety
program. Every Transportation Maintenance worker in CDOT attends
annual training at the Maintenance Training Academy located at Camp
Page 5 of 6
Final
George West in Golden. Safety training is included in this annual training.
Costs of the training associated with overhead lines were absorbed within
the budget of the Maintenance Training Academy’s operating costs of
$595,405 per year.
(a) A description of any alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the
proposed rule that were seriously considered by the agency and the reasons
why they were rejected in favor of the proposed rule.
As stated above, maintenance worker safety measures are already in place
to supplement this proposal, but other active measures are not costeffective. One such measure would be to require all crossings to be made
underground at a significantly increased cost above this proposed
alternative.
(b) Each regulatory analysis shall include quantification of the data to the extent
practicable and shall take account of both short-term and long-term
consequences.
Very little data is available on the subject matter; however, based on the
limited data discussed above, the short-term and long-term consequence
of this regulation is improvement of roadway worker safety.
(c) The regulatory analysis shall be available to the public at least five days prior
to the rule-making hearing.
(d) If the agency has made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection (4.5), the rule shall not be invalidated on
the ground that the contents of the regulatory analysis are insufficient or
inaccurate.
Page 6 of 6