MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY sELECT Committee on Energy
Seventy-First Session
April 17, 2001
The Select Committee on Energy was called to order at 2:06 p.m., on Tuesday, April 17, 2001. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 1214 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairman
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr.
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mrs. Debbie Smith
Ms. Kathy Von Tobel
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. David Humke
Ms. Sandra Tiffany
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mr. David Parks
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kevin C. Powers, Committee Counsel
David S. Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Cheryl Meyers, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Sydney H. Wickliffe, Director, Department of Business and Industry, State of Nevada, Carson City, Nevada
Debra Jacobson, Director, Government and State Regulatory Affairs, SouthWest Gas Corporation, Las Vegas, Nevada
Timothy Crowley, Representative, Nevada Mining Association, Las Vegas, Nevada
Michael J. Brown, Vice President, Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Assembly Bill 661: Revises and repeals various provisions concerning utilities and energy. (BDR 58-1128)
Sydney H. Wickliffe, Director, Department of Business and Industry, State of Nevada, commented on a section in A.B. 661 that proposed to move the energy office from the Department of Business and Industry to the Department of Consumer Protection. She was neutral in regard to the movement of the office out of Business and Industry; however, she would like to see all of the energy entities of the state put together for a cohesive plan towards energy. She thought the energy office would be more effective if it would be relocated to such a place. She had been at the Governor’s Office that day and spoke with his Chief of Staff, Marybell Batjer, who informed her the Governor was presently reviewing A.B. 661 and he did not agree with moving the energy office to the Bureau of Consumer Protection. The Governor would like to have a cohesive energy plan and would like to engage in future conversations with the committee in regard to where the energy office should be located. The staff was working at the present time on language to amend A.B. 661 with the Governor’s plan and he would like to use that office as an energy resource planning office in conjunction with what the statutes provided. He believed it could function more effectively somewhere other than the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
Assemblywoman Leslie asked Ms. Wickliffe when the committee would be receiving the amendment because the bill had to be voted on quickly. Ms. Wickliffe stated she was aware of the urgency and Ms. Batjer had spoken about completing the amendment within the next few days. Ms. Wickliffe would anticipate the committee would be in receipt of the amendments very shortly. Ms. Leslie asked Ms. Wickliffe to take a message back to the Governor’s Office and related she would like to talk to them about the amendment.
Assemblywoman Buckley related to Ms. Wickliffe the deadline for the bill to be out of the Assembly was the previous week and the committee had received a one-week exemption. She stated time had almost run out and if it were anyone else making the suggestion the committee would have to say, “Too late.”
Debra Jacobson, Director, Government and State Regulatory Affairs, SouthWest Gas Corporation, commented she had noticed in Section 31 and Section 33 of the bill there was a mention of posting notices and schedules of rates that would affect not only electric companies but the natural gas company as well. She was not clear as to the meaning of “station” in the section. SouthWest Gas had pay stations located all over in all different outlets such as Raley’s, Albertson’s, and Mail Boxes, Etc. These places were just for paying a gas bill. There were no customer service people there to help a person and she had a concern about posting notices or schedules in places of that type. There would be no problem posting in business offices; however, with pay stations there would be a real problem. In questioning the people employed at the pay stations, they were not sure they could continue to still take payments under those circumstances. The service was provided as a convenience for their customers where they did business.
Kevin Powers, Committee Counsel, responded and stated the use of the term “station” came from existing language and the requirement was already there in NRS 704.080 and the addition in A.B. 661 was only to mirror existing language. The need for the language was not necessary, but was only copied and the change could be made in an amendment.
Timothy Crowley, Representative, Nevada Mining Association, and Michael J. Brown, Vice President, Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Washington, DC, wanted to comment on the discussions in regard to the opportunity of the state to add capacity to the state by allowing large consumers of electricity to search out and contract with additional generation facilities. They had pledged at that point they would submit language to A.B. 661 that would allow them to proceed. He wanted to go on the record that they had been working on the language and would have it ready in the very near future. The Mining Association wanted to be part of the solution and hoped the committee would entertain the proposal. Mr. Brown stated they had conveyed the amendment to the utility and they were waiting for input in regard to technical concerns.
Chairman Bache reminded Mr. Crowley and Mr. Brown it was the committee’s intent to take action on Thursday on A.B. 661 and it could be they would have to submit the amendment to the Senate if it was not ready soon.
Chairman Bache seeing no further testimony on A.B. 661 closed the hearing and opened the hearing on A.B. 369.
Assembly Bill 369: Revises and repeals various provisions governing the regulation of public utilities. (BDR 58-1156)
Chairman Bache asked Mr. Powers to review the changes made by amendments to A.B. 369 since the previous week’s amendments.
Mr. Powers stated the amendment that was adopted by the Senate on the previous Friday, Amendment No. 354, was similar in some aspects to Amendment No. 219 that was discussed the previous week. Mr. Powers related all of Amendment No. 219 that related to the moratorium and deferred accounting and the transaction of Portland General Electric Power remained the same in Amendment No. 354. The first reprint of A.B. 369 repealed the restructuring act. Amendment No. 219, which was not adopted, took out the repeal of the restructuring act. Amendment No. 354 put the repeal of the restructuring act back in the bill. Therefore the only significant difference between the amendment discussed the previous week and the second reprint was the second reprint continued the repeal of the restructuring act that the committee voted for when it passed the first reprint of A.B. 369. He would certainly review any portion of the second reprint that was covered the previous week and provide whatever information the committee needed.
Chairman Bache stated if any committee member had a question regarding the amendments, Mr. Powers could counsel. The Chairman did not want to imply that the amendment was Mr. Powers’; however, he could interpret for the committee.
Assemblywoman Leslie asked if Mr. Powers could point out anything that was new in the amendment. Mr. Powers stated he would use the second reprint to explain the changes. The first reprint contained the moratorium on the sale of generation assets and the repeal of the restructuring act. The moratorium in the first reprint involved a moratorium to July 1, 2003, during which time the only vehicles for selling a generation asset were selling the entire business, substantially all of the generation assets and all other assets pursuant to an approved merger, acquisition transaction or other transfers of public convenience and necessity. The other avenue during the two-year period to July 1, 2003, was a sale to the state or an agency or instrumentality of the state and that was based on the definition of “person” in the first reprint of A.B. 369. Again in the first reprint of A.B. 369 after July 1, 2003, to July 1, 2007, the sale of a generation asset could occur under the two avenues just mentioned and could also occur if there was a substantial financial emergency proved by the utility by clear and convincing evidence. After July 1, 2007, then the standard was the Public Utilities Commission had to approve the disposal of the generation asset based on the public interest. The Senate bill changed that equation in several aspects. During the period until July 1, 2003, the only avenue for disposal of a generation asset under the Senate bill was the sale of the entire business. By changing the definition of “person” in the second reprint the state was not an eligible purchaser except through the sale of the entire assets. After July 1, 2003 the Senate bill imposed the restriction the assets could only be sold if it was in the public interest. Those were the significant differences between the first and second reprint with regard to the moratorium. Again the first reprint repealed the restructuring act and the second reprint from the Senate also repealed the restructuring act. Finally all of the new provisions in the second reprint related to deferred accounting and the re-implementation of deferred accounting.
Chairman Bache closed the discussions on A.B. 369 and reminded the committee members to read through the bill to assess any questions or problems they may have. He believed the Senate would pass the bill this day and the committee would have to make a decision on whether to concur or not concur.
Chairman Bache seeing no further business before the committee adjourned the meeting at 2:22 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cheryl Meyers
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: