MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND LABOR
Sixty-seventh Session
June 4, 1993
The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 8:30 a.m., on Friday, June 4, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator Ann O'Connell
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Lori L. Brown
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Ernest E. Adler, Capital Senatorial District
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Beverly Willis, Committee Secretary
Brian Davie, Senior Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Todd Russell, Nevada State Board of Accountancy
Tim Carlson, Executive Director, Commission on Economic Development
Sue Oldham, Director, Government Affairs, Sierra Pacific Power Company
Max Jones, Vice President, Energy Services, Sierra Pacific Power Company
John Mendoza, Chairman, Public Service Commission
Fred Schmidt, Consumer Advocate, Attorney General's Office
Terry Page, Nevada Public Service Commission
Keith Ashworth, Lobbyist, Nevada Power Company
Nancy Dallas, Lyon County Commissioner, District 1
Jim Wadhams, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Health Underwriters
Teresa P. Rankin, Commissioner, Department of Insurance
Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Philip Morris USA
Jim Shelly, Senior Research Analyst, Employment Security Department
Robert Barrengo, Lobbyist, Lens Crafters
Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Land Surveyors
The hearing opened with the testimony of Todd Russell, Nevada State Board of Accountancy, on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 384 and A.B. 588.
ASSEMBLY BILL 384: Makes certain changes to requirements for certification as certified public accountant.
ASSEMBLY BILL 588: Makes various changes relating to certified public accountants.
Mr. Russell noted A.B. 384 allows Nevada statutes to conform to the new uniform Certified Public Account (CPA) examination. A.B. 588 has aspects to allow an out-of-state CPA the ability to come to Nevada and start practicing with more ease. At this point, there was a short discussion between Senator Townsend, Senator Brown and Mr. Russell regarding this bill.
SENATOR BROWN MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 384.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
The next order of business was S.B. 588.
SENATOR BROWN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 588.
THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY SENATOR O'CONNELL.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator Townsend opened the work session at this time.
The first item to be handled was S.B. 434.
SENATE BILL 434: Provides for licensing of administrators of residential facilities for groups.
At this time, Exhibit C, an amendment to S.B. 434 was introduced. Senator Nevin gave an explanation of this bill. Senator Lowden noted she had received a large amount of communication regarding this bill and voiced her concerns. Senator Nevin, Senator Townsend, Senator Shaffer, Senator Brown and Senator McGinness, discussed various problems and possible solutions.
Senator Townsend stated S.B. 434 had been passed, with Senator O'Connell abstaining. Senator Townsend went on to say, he would mention the amendment on the floor.
Senator Lowden stated for the record:
I probably won't vote for this, unless we have broader language on the test. I really don't think that, not having seen the test, because it's not fully developed, I just don't want some good people who are now working as administrators not being able to continue to do their job, because they don't understand the language, or they can't take a test. Not having seen the test, I have a problem with that.
Senator Nevin noted he did not think a test would be available for another 6 months.
Next to testify was Ernest E. Adler, Capital Senatorial District. Senator Adler presented information regarding S.B. 231 (Exhibit D).
Senator Adler proceeded to give an explanation of Exhibit D.
SENATE BILL 231: Requires public service commission of Nevada to adopt regulations authorizing public utilities to provide electricity to steel mills at flexible or interruptible rates.
There was a discussion between Senator Adler, Senator O'Connell and Senator Townsend on the merits of this bill. Senator O'Connell voiced concerns over various points.
Tim Carlson, Executive Director, Commission on Economic Development, gave further testimony on this bill. Mr. Carlson addressed, in particular, section 5, subsection 2, regarding certification of a new business coming into the state.
At this time, Sue Oldham, Director, Government Affairs, Sierra Pacific Power Company, testified, stating steps were taken to see that new companies to the area did not leave facilities with only existing customers to pay for the new facilities. Ms. Oldham went on to note this was usually done through a parent company guarantee. Essentially, this means that the larger parent company of a smaller subsidiary new to the state would guarantee the company would not leave the area before a stated time and throw a bigger financial burden on those companies already in existence.
There was further discussion between Ms. Oldham, Senator Brown and Senator Adler.
Max Jones, Vice President, Energy Services, Sierra Pacific Power Company, was next to testify. Mr. Jones presented Exhibit E, a statement regarding S.B. 231. He went on to explain this statement and lent his support to this bill.
John Mendoza, Chairman, Public Service Commission, (PSC) testified, stating the PSC had been involved in drafting S.B. 231. Mr. Mendoza stated, if this bill is passed, the door is opened to retail wheeling and this would have consequences at some point in time. Senator O'Connell wanted information on the consequences. Mr. Mendoza noted the rate payer might be called upon to pay if any subsidies were needed. He went on to state that is why there is specific and express language in S.B. 231 to protect rate payers other than the two parties directly involved.
Fred Schmidt, Consumer Advocate, Attorney General's Office, made a statement voicing his concerns over the implications of S.B. 231. Mr. Schmidt went on to note, however, he did not wish to state that S.B. 231 should not be adopted, because negotiations in subcommittee, had developed protection he believes to be the best protection that could be developed. He went on to explain his reasons.
Senator Townsend questioned the effect that S.B 231 would have on the financial market relative to the utilities ability to borrow. Responding to Senator Townsend, Terry Page, Nevada Public Service Commission, came forward to testify. Mr. Jones, Mr. Page and Senator Townsend continued to discuss this situation.
At this point, Ms. Oldham made a statement for the record.
This last session of congress when the National Energy Strategy Act was passed, there was a great deal of concern over open access transmission provisions of that act. Edison Electric Institute (EEI) which took a position of just say no to any open access transmission really wasn't able to play or to protect our shareholders and therefore, Sierra Pacific took a very active role in the development of that legislation. We took the position there, as we have here, that not every transaction is a bad transaction. That only those transactions which bring benefit to the state should be allowed and that we ought to have significant state jurisdiction attached to these kinds of transactions so that in the future we can be in a position to protect our customers, not from the particular retail wheeling transactions of the utilities inside the state, but as other transmission lines begin to be built, the shortest point between two points will be right directly through the State of Nevada that we're in a position to prevent retail wheeling transactions by those facilities, we consider this a precedent which is somewhat inconsistent with our Thousand Springs position, which is that the State of Nevada should take jurisdiction over these kinds of transactions; that we are, in fact, supporting the State of Nevada being in a position to protect our core customer group. In the case of the Thousand Springs legislation, effectively by making those kinds of facilities non-jurisdictional, we also recognize that it made a Los Angeles facility non-jurisdictional and as we move down the road and as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) authority is expanded and the move that's now in congress continues towards retail wheeling, we think we're going to be in a much better position as a state to see to it that these kinds of transactions are monitored carefully and protect our core customer group and are only allowed in the specific instances we have here where they're bringing benefits to the state, not just coming through and using the state.
Senator Shaffer, Senator Townsend, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Page held further discussion.
Keith Ashworth, Lobbyist, Nevada Power Company, stated he did not know exactly what his organization's position would be, but felt it might be acceptable to Nevada Power Company. He went on to state Nevada Power Company does support the concept of what the bill is trying to accomplish. Mr. Ashworth noted there are concerns about retail wheeling.
Next to testify was Nancy Dallas, Lyon County Commissioner, District 1. Ms. Dallas stated for the record.
The Lyon County Commissioners fully support this bill and advocated passage. We feel it will not only benefit the Yerington area, but Lyon County as a whole and with the associated industries that will come in with the business, if this bill is passed, with North Star Steel, it will benefit all of northwestern Nevada.
Senator Townsend noted:
It was this committee that generated and supported and passed the bill to allow the Thousand Springs concept and the people still on the committee believe eventually it could be a great potential for Nevada and development of electricity and energy sources to be exported. It's one of the best pieces of legislation, I think, that we've developed from an economic development point of view.
He went on to state:
S.B. 231 and the appropriate amendment is here for a specific company or companies. It was the responsibility of this committee to be concerned about developing public policy for all the state and to benefit everyone in the state. So as a result, we have language that will be able to be used by many people in every county in the state, and that, of course, was the goal.
The issue of balancing the interest, between the investor owned utilities and the payers of rates in the State of Nevada, which is always a very delicate thing the committee has to deal with. Obviously, we have professionals, to deal with the specifics, but we have to create a decent atmosphere in which two things can happen.
Senator Townsend went on to note:
The encouragement of cheap investments so utility shareholders can get a decent return, while at the same time, they can build a plant that is necessary to meet the demands by the individuals in the state at a fair rate. We have tried to do that and this bill, we hope, because it does break, in fact, new ground, still needs that fine balance.
Senator Townsend noted an amendment was being drafted and an explanation written.
The next item was Amendment No. 712 on S.B. 467 (Exhibit F).
SENATE BILL 467: Makes various changes relating to group insurance.
Essentially, this amendment would delete sections 2, 4 and 5. Jim Wadhams, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Health Underwriters, testified as to the purpose of the amendment.
Teresa P. Rankin, Commissioner, Department of Insurance noted the amendment needs to be reworked.
There followed a discussion between Senator Brown and Mr. Wadhams on some fine points of this amendment.
Next to be discussed was Amendment No. 690 for A.B. 436 (Exhibit G).
ASSEMBLY BILL 436: Precludes persons receiving certain benefits for industrial injuries from receiving unemployment compensation at same time.
Jim Shelly, Senior Research Analyst, Employment Security Department, stated this amendment is satisfactory.
SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 436 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 690.
SENATOR NEVIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
The next bill to be addressed was S.B. 346.
SENATE BILL 346: Provides that prohibition against discrimination against employee for use of product outside premises of employer does not preclude higher health insurance premiums.
Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Philip Morris USA, testified on S.B. 346. Mr. McMullen is in favor of Amendment No. 713 (Exhibit H).
SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 346 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 713.
SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Robert Barengo, Lobbyist, Lens Crafters, testified regarding S.B. 247, stating that both Amendment No. 655 (Exhibit I) and Amendment No. 665 (Exhibit J) are satisfactory.
SENATE BILL 247: Makes various changes to provisions governing practice of optometry.
SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 247 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 655 AND AMENDMENT NO. 665.
SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Next to be addressed was S.B. 396.
SENATE BILL 396. Makes various changes relating to professional land surveyors.
Jan Gilbert, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Land Surveyors, testified, stating that Amendment No. 697 (Exhibit K) is satisfactory.
SENATOR NEVIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 396 WITH AMENDMENT NO. 697.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR BROWN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
* * * * *
Senator Townsend called for a motion to introduce Bill Draft
Request (BDR) 57-1037.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 57-1037: Allows certain policies or contracts of health insurance to require payment directly to insured rather than to provider of health care.
SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 57-1037.
SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
10:30 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Beverly Willis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor
June 4, 1993
Page 1
Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor
June 4, 1993
Page 3