MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-Second Session
May 2, 2003
The Committee on Commerce and Laborwas called to order at 11:38 a.m., on Friday, May 2, 2003. Chairman David Goldwater presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. David Goldwater, Chairman
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairman
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. David Brown
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. Ron Knecht
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Diane Thornton, Senior Research Analyst
Wil Keane, Committee Counsel
Patricia Blackburn, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Sande III, Legislative Advocate, Western States Petroleum Association
Anthony Bandiero, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association
Don Soderberg, Chairman, Public Utilities Commission
Thelma Clark, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Silver Haired Legislative Forum
David Noble, Assistant General Counsel, Public Utilities Commission
Debra Jacobson, Director/Government and State Regulatory Affairs, Southwest Gas Corporation
Steven Boss, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Energy Buyers Group
Helen Foley, Legislative Advocate, T-Mobile
James Jackson, Legislative Advocate, Cingular Wireless
Dan Musgrove, Legislative Advocate, Clark County
Fred Hillerby, Legislative Advocate, Verizon Wireless
Chairman Goldwater:
We will call the meeting to order as a subcommittee until a quorum is present. It is 11:38 a.m. We will start with S.B. 422.
Senate Bill 422: Revises certain provisions relating to operation of service stations by refiners. (BDR 52-1071)
John Sande III, Legislative Advocate, Western States Petroleum Association:
This bill is basically an amendment to the divorcement legislation that was originally passed in 1987 and amended in 1997. It has been working for a number of years and most of the language in the bill, as you can see from my letter to Peter Krueger (Exhibit C), [results from] the bill drafters deleting obsolete provisions of the statutes.
Divorcement states that a refiner is, in most cases, a major oil company or [of] a certain size. Those refiners cannot have a company-operated station; [they] must have either a contract dealer, which is someone who owns the station, or it could be a regular dealer. If a lease were terminated or if a contract dealer was terminated, S.B. 422 would allow a refiner to operate a company-operated station. Currently, if a refiner takes back a station, it can only operate for a short period of time. I believe it is 180 days. This bill would allow the refiner to operate indefinitely. Presently, if a company has less than 30 stations, it can increase its company-operated stations by 5 additional service stations per calendar year; if they have more than 30 stations, they can increase them, but a dealer must operate one of the additional stations out of every two. This not only benefits the refiner, but it also benefits a dealer that may want to sell to a refiner, because it could potentially increase the price of the service station.
There is no opposition, to my knowledge, to this legislation and I would urge your support. I would be glad to answer any questions.
Chairman Goldwater:
This appears to remove some obsolete language and institutes one of two conditions that must be met: A retailer either voluntarily terminates a franchise, has agreed not to renew it, or the franchise has been terminated pursuant to statutory ability to remove it.
John Sande III:
Right. It would allow a company to operate the station as long as they didn't violate the 30 service station limit language provisions.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I remember how hotly contested this was in 1997. It was probably one of the most hotly contested bills we had that session. Do any of these changes reverse the core of what we did in 1997?
John Sande III:
No, absolutely not. Under existing law, if a dealer is terminated, either voluntarily or involuntarily, and if the dealer wishes to sell the station back to the refiner, they [the refiner] can only operate the service station for a limited period of time. I believe that is 180 days. During those 180 days, the refiner has to find some other dealer to come in and operate the station. [With S.B. 422,] if the refiner decided they would like to operate that station as a company operated station, the refiner could do so, as long as they did not violate all of the restrictions that you put in there. This makes sense because there may be circumstances, for instance it might be an [excellent] location, and the refiner believes, from a company-operated standpoint, they could do well at that location. They approach the dealer and state they will buy it, they will pay more money, potentially, for that station than they would under existing law. Back in 1997 there was a lot of distrust. There is not the distrust anymore, and I think there will be testimony that indicates that things are pretty copasetic in the oil industry as far as distribution and retail sales.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
Everything except the prices. Thank you, Mr. Sande.
Chairman Goldwater:
Further questions? There are none.
Note for the record that a quorum is present.
Anthony Bandiero, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association:
We do want to go on record in support of this bill. We believe they are trying to give the extra days to allow them to operate the store. We don't see any problem with that. A letter was submitted on behalf of Mr. Sande and we want to make sure that is part of the permanent record. We have no opposition [to this bill].
Chairman Goldwater:
Thank you. Questions for Mr. Bandiero? I don't see any. Thank you for your testimony. Further testimony on S.B. 422? Any opposition to this bill? We will close the hearing on S.B. 422.
I will open the hearing on S.B. 102.
Senate Bill 102 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions relating to the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. (BDR 58-968)
Don Soderberg, Chairman, Public Utilities Commission:
[Introduced himself] S.B. 102 is a conglomeration of a few concepts that began in the Senate Commerce [and Labor] Committee. Some of those concepts were brought forward by Ms. Thelma Clark and are the evolution of S.B. 414 in which it was the desire of the Governor's office that we repeal existing provisions in the law that would expand the Commission from the current 3 members to 5 members in the coming months. We have not been supportive of that concept for budgetary reasons. We estimate that it will cost us an additional $1.2 million in the first year to pay for the expansion of the Commission from 3 members to 5 members. That would include [support] staff, an increase in the substantive portions of the agencies that will have to deal with more simultaneous hearings, and the expansion of our Las Vegas office to accommodate the additional employees.
We feel that we can stem our workflow by [using] the authority that you [gave] us in the 1999 Session to utilize hearing officers for certain cases. We have adopted regulations that had a great deal of public input as to how we would go about doing that and how parties would be able to take a proposed order from a hearing officer and voice their concerns directly to the Commission. There is a "fail-safe" on that and you passed statutes in the last session that would prohibit certain high policy type cases from being heard by a hearing officer, as opposed to a Commissioner, as they are currently doing.
[Mr. Soderberg continued] We have not hired a hearing officer as of yet. We have made that request in our budget, but we have appointed various employees of our agency to act as hearing officers on a small number of cases during this late winter and spring and it has worked out very well. It has turned out to be very efficient for us to process those cases and it has helped us work out some of the problems that we might have in that test program. We think we are ready to go forward with actually having a hearing officer process some of our cases, and we feel with three commissioners and a hearing officer we can handle the work load, get to our cases in an efficient manner and not spend the extra money that we would need to have five commissioners.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I want to disclose that this bill will not affect me any differently than it would any other PUC economist. I will be participating and voting on this measure. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Soderberg. From someone who has done regulatory practice in over 25 states, one of the things I am impressed within Nevada is the expeditiousness with which we handle cases. I think use of a hearing officer could be a very good addition to that process. Would we be changing any of the deadlines, any of the processing times for cases, or would we give up anything in that regard?
Don Soderberg:
No, we are not proposing changing any of our deadlines. The manner in which a hearing officer is handling a case would change. We have written in our regulations that when a hearing officer comes up with a proposed order the parties to that case have one last opportunity to comment in writing. That adds a couple of weeks. It condenses the hearing officer's time to do his work, as opposed to a regular Commissioner, but it does not elongate the case itself. Those statutory regulatory deadlines still stay the same.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I am not sure how I feel about reducing the commissioners from five to three. I think one of the reasons was to have more accountability at the PUC, to have a consumer member, and I think a lot of it was concern about global settlements and the perception that the PUC was not being responsive. During the last few years, I think those concerns have been alleviated. I have a lot more confidence in the PUC and its direction these days, but still, we fought very hard to get that in last session. I am a little hesitant about repealing something we fought so hard to get. So, I am going to think that through, about what the right policy decision is. You are welcome to comment on any of that.
Don Soderberg:
I thank you for the compliment. I am glad that you feel comfortable with us as a body. The issue of going from 3 to 5, when you first looked at that a session ago, was more a policy, and we bring forward our recommendation more on a matter of efficiency. If it is the will of this Legislature that we do expand to 5 members, we will do it. We have a plan to do that.
Chairman Goldwater:
I apologize to you, Mr. Soderberg, I had not read this bill as thoroughly as I did when you first approached me, but I have long felt, personally, that one of the ways we can help Nevada become a even better state, from a macro standpoint, is to bring back the balance in the branches of government. I think that very few would argue that our Executive Branch of government doesn't have a disproportionate amount of influence relative to the Legislative and Judicial Branches. Do you think it is good policy, here in S.B. 102, that when a Commissioner is out, the Governor can appoint someone very quickly to do one or two dockets and then take them out? Some local governments, in the southern part of the state, have elected officials who sometimes are conflicted out and the interested parties know how to play those games and conflict people out. Are you concerned, at all, that that will occur?
Don Soderberg:
No, but I guess because I look at the experience. I'll ask Ms. Clark to address your concerns, as well, because these are the portions of the bill that originated from the things that Ms. Clark brought forward, as opposed to what was in S.B. 414. We have had very few opportunities to take a vote on the Commission, where we have had even one member absent. We have a tradition that when you are on vacation, you phone in. The only times that we have been able to do that has been when somebody has had a conflict. Those conflicts have been, for example, statements I made to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee.
On reflection of those comments, I was concerned that somebody might be able to read into it that I was taking a side before the evidence was in. So, I voluntarily pulled myself off. More than likely, [this occurs] when someone is unavailable. We had a Commissioner who was in Europe and we couldn't find that person. Every number we had, we seemed to be three hours behind the tour, so we had to vote with two.
[Mr. Soderberg continued] I think the concern, and I will let Ms. Clark correct me, was that the existing statute was written from the old PSC statute when we were reduced from 5 members to 3. It was written quickly. You could read that to say that one individual could decide matters if people weren't there. I think there was a general feeling that was wrong. This was created to alleviate one commissioner from . . .
Chairman Goldwater:
I got that, but what I don't want to see is somebody ducking an issue and having the Governor appoint a replacement. We like our current Governor, and we like you, but someday there might be two people in those spots who we don't like so much, or people we don't have as much confidence in as we do you. We don't want to see that game being played.
Don Soderberg:
Well, the testimony that we had before the Senate, Mr. Chairman, revolved around the fact that if you were going to get down to two people for some reason not being able to vote, we have to have the ability to get another commissioner. At the same time, that is a time-consuming process. I only remember us doing it in one instance, and that was when our staff director was appointed a commissioner. He had a list of cases that he could not participate in and, therefore, that list was given to the Governor and a temporary commissioner was appointed to deal with that entire list. We juggle the need to have somebody come in on a temporary basis, versus the efficiency of when I decide that I shouldn't vote on a couple of matters. I made that decision 15 minutes ahead of the meeting. I see your point, at least from a theoretical standpoint; I can't look at an instance where that may have come up.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I believe the majority leader raises a very thoughtful point and I would just like to offer this piece of information for the members' consideration. In prior years, I had a policy position as a Commissioner's senior advisor at the California Energy Commission. This was a five-member commission to which the members were appointed from the same kind of backgrounds and with the same kind of restrictions as are currently proposed to go into effect later this year, including consumer representatives. I can tell you that nobody in California during the 1970s, 1980s while those provisions were in effect at the California Energy Commission thought that it made one whit of difference, certainly not a positive difference, to have those restrictions and those provisions in the law. Essentially, a governor is going to appoint good commissioners, or not, with or without those restrictions. That would be my conclusion from having operated and having been in a policy position at a commission that operated under those restrictions. I just commend that for your thought.
Assemblyman Brown:
Was there any discussion in regard to the number of 3 or 5, amending those provisions for an effective date of July 1, 2005? I see it somewhat in terms of the present economics with the fiscal condition of the state. If we are able to function with 3, I think that is what we should do, although, perhaps a Commission of 5 may be better, but as long as we are treading water, let's keep it at 3, rather than repeal the entire previous legislation. Was there discussion of that in the prior hearing?
Don Soderberg:
I do not recall any discussion of that, but it seems like an interim solution. It would give us the opportunity to institute hearing officers and give the public who practices before us an opportunity to see whether they feel that is efficient or not. In the meantime, if our work load grows, and sometimes it tends to grow without us knowing that it occurs, then we may be in a position, two years from now, to feel differently. It also gives you an opportunity to discuss with your constituents if they are satisfied with the Commission in its current makeup or if there is something that we are doing that more members would alleviate.
Assemblyman Brown:
I think that just might be a possible middle ground.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I'll just raise an issue that is being discussed in the halls and Don and I had actually talked about this past summer. I am going to keep my mind open regarding the 3 and 5 [members]. I think it is time that we also discuss, again, the consolidation of the TSA (Transportation Services Authority) back into the PUC. That would allow for the need for the additional commissioner or commissioners in that case. It doesn't necessarily save a lot of General Fund money, but I think things are changing again and it is time to think about that.
Don Soderberg:
Thank you. We have discussed this and it has been our position that we don't the mixture of the two regulatory schemes is [not] good. We are always open to suggestions.
At one time there was only one agency. We feel it didn't work too well. A number of people in the transportation industry felt that they were "ignored" by the PUC. As I look at it in the context of the issue of 3 to 5 commissioners, I view those separately. I think if we are going to stay as a utility agency, as we are with our current regulatory responsibilities, 3 commissioners is the most efficient way to go. I guess, in my perfect world, if you sought in your discretion to pass this bill and, then, if there is discussion of merging those agencies, we look at that separately. If we wind up being 5 members because we are an agency with more regulatory responsibility, then, that would be the way to go. If we went to 5 [members], with the hope of merging something and it didn't get merged in, then we would have 2 commissioners who have very little work to do.
Chairman Goldwater:
We will probably look at that under a different bill and let it stand on its own merit. I probably should ask Diane Thornton [Senior Research Analyst], before we bring this back for consideration, to see what other states do relative to swift gubernatorial appointments to fill vacancies or to fill for conflicts. That is a major concern and I agree with you, Don, that 99 percent of the time, it is not going to be an issue. But, for expediency and for logistical reasons, we would need somebody there and the Governor's appointment would be fine: There is probably 1 percent of the time where you could get into some serious game playing and it would be at a time when it really mattered. Some of the considerations you might want to look for with other states are:
Please see what other states do. I would be curious to know what else is out there. I would be a little concerned doing it this way. We will have that back for the Committee.
Don Soderberg:
Mr. Chairman, one comment before we quit this topic. An idea that we had floated internally that didn't get accepted or rejected, it just didn't come out in the hearing, was, if there was a need for an expedient appointment, the appointment of a so-called default type of commissioner would make life easier for a sitting governor and the process designating, for example, the Commission's general counsel, who would be there anyway. If 15 minutes before a meeting I decided I shouldn't vote on something, or if the Director of Policy Analysis, who has a great hand in the actual orders that the Commissioners render anyway, has a conflict, this is something we had tossed around and has [not] been rejected or discussed. Since you bring that subject up, I thought it might be time to throw it out there and see if that is something that could be worked on. We would be happy to work with your staff on that to see if there is any meat on that bone.
Chairman Goldwater:
Thank you for the non-sports metaphor. Thelma? Welcome back.
Thelma Clark, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Silver Haired Legislative Forum:
This is my bill, I guess. I asked for one thing when this bill was drafted. I had nothing to do with anything else in it. It came to me with a lot more things in it. All I wanted was the change in the Public Utilities Commission's voting. I wanted a majority to be required to vote on any rate case or any policy issue. That is all I asked for. However, I am in favor of a five-member Commission because stacks of petitions had been brought to this Legislature back in 1989, or maybe before that, and those petitions asked the Legislature to increase the Commission to five members. I have always been in favor of a five-member Commission, just because I worked so hard to get it. I think Don [Soderberg] has done a remarkable job as the Commissioner. All the commissioners are good, and we hope we keep them, but we are afraid we won't. I think the PUC can do what they want to do without the Governor appointing another commissioner. I think they can always have two votes.
Chairman Goldwater:
What if they wanted to appoint you, Ms. Clark?
Thelma Clark:
I'm not available. You know, they just had a birthday party for me over in Senate Commerce.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
That was what I was going to say. I was over in Senate Commerce with a bill this morning, and Ms. Clark was pleasantly surprised by the fact that one of her dear friends in Las Vegas had arranged to have her thoroughly embarrassed. She will be 85 on Sunday, and they are having a party for her on Monday. The Senate and the Chairman of Commerce and Labor managed to put together all of the consumer advocates who have ever served since she was a major proponent of that office being created. They included a picture of Senator Townsend, as well, because he was part of creating that office. This thoroughly embarrassed Ms. Clark. She also received some roses and a great party to recognize her for her efforts in state government. She has been an activist, as we all know, and I think we should commend her, as well, as did Senator Townsend for her willingness to come in here and fight for what she believes in and take advantage of Nevada's open system and the fact that we appreciate citizens who come in and spend time and effort to make this a better place to live. I think we should give her a big hand and celebrate her birthday a little bit. [applause]
Chairman Goldwater:
Thelma, happy birthday. Mr. Hettrick's remarks are echoed by all of us. We appreciate your work, and so do the people we represent. Further testimony or further birthday wishes? I don't see any. I will close the hearing on S.B. 102.
[Diane Thornton, Senior Research Analyst submitted an e-mail (Exhibit D) from James Greene of Verizon, stating Verizon's support of S.B. 102 for the record.]
I will open the hearing on S.B. 125.
Senate Bill 125 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to utilities and providers of new electric resources. (BDR 58-488)
Chairman Goldwater:
Mr. Noble, welcome back to Commerce and Labor.
David Noble, Assistant General Counsel, Public Utilities Commission:
S.B. 125 has three prongs. The first part is deferred accounting, which I will let Ms. Jacobson handle. The next portion deals with UEPA noticing, that is Utility Environmental Protection Act and the final portion deals with exit cases.
Debra Jacobson, Director, Government and State Regulatory Affairs, Southwest Gas Corporation:
[Introduced herself] Section 2 of the bill deals with deferred accounting, [amending] the law for natural gas utilities only. Deferred accounting is a generally accepted accounting procedure that allows costs or revenues for a specific program to be recorded separately. The recovery method is also specifically decided and approved by the Commission. Currently, the language only allows the Commission to approve deferred accounting treatment for purchase of natural gas for resale. Several years ago we applied in a rate case to set up a tariff program that would have required deferred accounting treatment. The Commission told us they didn't believe they had the authority under current law to approve that program. It has taken us a while to come back and ask for this, but with [what is] going on in the federal area with the Pipeline Safety Act of 2002, we thought the deferred accounting treatment for that type of program might be appropriate. We would still apply to the Commission and they would review and approve it if they thought it was appropriate. The Commission did tell us they still did not believe they had the authority to approve this type of program. That is what this section does. It would simply allow the Commission to approve this balancing or deferred account treatment for a specific program if and when a natural gas utility applied, and it was reviewed and approved by the Commission.
David Noble:
Continuing, Sections 3 and 4 deal with noticing of applications that come in requesting permits under the UEPA. As the language stands right now, the applicant dictates the notice timelines. It is based on 30 days after they have served interested parties and 30 days after they have published notification of the application in the newspapers in general circulation in those counties. There has been some confusion when people receive notice of these. Sometimes the applications will be rejected by the Commission for deficiencies; they don't have docket numbers attached to them or we haven't heard that there is going to be an application coming in and have no idea what this intervention is for. Sections 3 and 4 are cleanup. We ask that the intervention period track the Commission's notice, which would be sent out within five business days of receipt of the application.
Sections 6 through 11 deal with exit cases. There is language dealing with exit cases in A.B. 139, which was before this Committee earlier this session and that language was carved out. After that happened, we held a meeting with all interested parties, including ourselves, Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific, Newmont and Barrick, Reliant – which is one of the possibly new providers under eligible customers leaving the system – Merit Nevada Resorts Association, which represents some of the possible eligible customers, and also Nevada Energy Buyers Group. From that meeting we came up with the language in Sections 6 through 11.
Section 7 deals with an eligible customer [that] has already left the system to switch providers. As it stands, they must go through the entire application process again. The language in Section 7 says if there are no changes to the current terms and conditions of those contracts, except possibly price, they would notify the Commission and the parties that were present and participating in the docket that granted their exit from the system. If nobody objected, if they did not see any substantive changes, then it would be deemed approved. If the terms and conditions were different, the Commission would hold an expedited review process. We anticipate the Commission giving notice of 10 days to object and a hearing within 30 days to expedite this process.
Chairman Goldwater:
David, on Section 7, paragraph 4 (a) and (b), why the confidentiality there?
David Noble:
I believe that tracks the confidentiality that is in NRS 704B with the original applications. This is a separate application process. They track that same language.
Chairman Goldwater:
Do they need the same protection here? Give me an example of why this confidentiality may be necessary.
David Noble:
They are negotiating price. Either one side or the other does not want that price open to the public when negotiations are in process. They don't generally have a contract that is signed, sealed, and delivered when it comes to us. They are still going through the process when we first receive these applications, and with this expedited process, hopefully, they have that all hammered out. My understanding is, price is a very sensitive issue that all parties involved have not wanted public.
Sections 8 and 9 are procedural cleanups. Section 10 is basically clarification language to ensure that eligible customers that have temporarily come back onto the system of Sierra Pacific and Nevada Power are taking service under the incremental pricing tariff and don't have to go through a full-blown hearing process again. This is not meant to cover emergency situations. Those situations are covered under NRS 704B.350 and also regulations and codes on the federal level.
Also, [there] is a 180-day timeline between the time that they file the application and the time they are allowed to leave the system. There is no flexibility in that. [However], if everybody involved has complied with the Commission orders, all the infrastructure is set up, and they are ready to leave the system before that 180 days is up, [Section 10] would give them the flexibility to leave the system earlier; that is, only if everybody is satisfied and they are ready to go.
The final portion of Section 10 deals with Commission review. [Currently], it is 90 days. It is an extremely expedited review. We have done all we can to get everything done in those 90 days and in many cases, the Commission doesn't have enough information and has asked that the applicant withdraw their application. They have done that, and in some cases we are on the second or third go around. It is mainly because the information just isn't there for the Commission to make a determination. We ask that we be given 150 days to do that. We anticipate, as these become more common and everybody is familiar with the process, that we can probably do this in a short amount of time, but we would like to have that 150 days in case there are abnormalities, especially right when we have been settling cases through stipulations. If we weren't doing it through stipulations, we would be very hard-pressed to make the 90 days.
Chairman Goldwater:
Did you testify to that in the hearings on A.B. 661 of the 71st Legislative Session?
David Noble:
No, I did not.
Chairman Goldwater:
How was the 90 days determined then, arbitrarily?
David Noble:
I don't recall.
Don Soderberg:
Perhaps I would be better to respond to that question. David was not involved in A.B. 661 of the 71st Legislative Session. The 90-day requirement was arrived at arbitrarily. When we testified to it, we essentially said we'll give it a try. Various customer groups who had intended to utilize the whole repower in Nevada section [have been made] aware that there may be times when we need to dismiss without prejudice solely for time reasons. Typically in a regulatory process, if there is a deficiency in an application, you let the applicant know and it gives them the opportunity to work things out. But when you have 90 days, the time to work things out goes away. We have had to do that sparingly, but we have had to do that. We were willing to try it and, I think in the long run, it probably was too short a period of time and something a little longer would be more appropriate.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I am always hesitant to do cleanup language of such a hotly contested bill, because if you change one word you will have five years of litigation. I would like to talk about page 8, which is Section 10, paragraph 7, that the eligible customer shall not begin purchasing energy unless the Commission allows an earlier begin date. I hate to say this, but all I know about the cases, about the [customers] who were allowed to leave, is what I read in the newspapers. There seems to be some controversy about whether they had to pay an exit fee or not. I don't know how that is working. We always thought they would have to pay an exit fee based on the impact to the system, and now, if we are letting them leave earlier . . . could you address both of those issues, even though one is really only presented in the bill?
Don Soderberg:
Assemblywoman Buckley, I am going to take a moment to think of my comments, because the last time I answered a question like that, I had to recuse myself from a great number of dockets that were before the Commission.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I don't want you to do that and I can always have our staff communicate with your staff on the first issue. I don't want to . . .
Don Soderberg:
I appreciate that. I could answer the question, but I think, in an abundance of caution, I would not want to create something . . .
Assemblywoman Buckley:
All right, I'll have staff call your staff and ask for information. Could you address the part that is in the bill?
Don Soderberg:
Yes. The 180-day requirement is something that we could not identify that was the subject of much hearing time when A.B. 661 of the 71st Legislative Session was passed. It has been expressed to us by some of the customers who have received approvals that once the approval is granted and once they have gone through the compliances in the list, it may be difficult for them and may actually cause problems with the deal that they had made with the supplier to wait that amount of time, if they could go through the compliances. We asked what their solution would be. They said, “If we go through the compliances, if no one has appealed this or nobody has asked for reconsideration, what would be the harm in us going before 180 days?” Quite frankly, we couldn't find substantive reasons for there being harm, unless somebody appealed something or if there was a matter of controversy. I see Mr. Boss has come to the table. This really came from his clients and he would probably be in a better position to explain its genesis to you.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I am satisfied with the answer, unless you would like more on it, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Goldwater:
I am satisfied. We do this all the time in the Legislature, saying 90 days, 60 days, they are sort of arbitrary, and sometimes it doesn't work.
Steven Boss, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Energy Buyers Group:
In southern Nevada, it has taken us awhile, but with the diligent work of all the parties involved, including the Utility and Commission staff, we have worked out most of the details on these transactions. They are getting much simpler to stipulate and all the issues are now pretty well defined. That may not be as true in the north where none of the customers has gotten as far as the customers and staff in the south. The Commission may need that 150 days in the north but in the south we think we can do it and save time and effort on all parties concerned.
Chairman Goldwater:
Thank you, Mr. Boss. Further questions or testimony?
Assemblyman Knecht:
One question concerning the deferred accounting issue for [any] witness [that] would like to answer. Right now, the Commission operates with deferred accounts for, at least, electric utilities and perhaps others. My question is, do the electrical deferred accounts have the same range of application that is proposed in S.B. 125? Or are they more limited as the gas-deferred accounts are now?
Debra Jacobson:
The deferred accounting statutes are separate for natural gas and electric. That happened a couple of years ago when the electric statute was repealed and then put back in. I do believe that their statute only allows a deferred accounting for electric purchases, but I am not sure about that. This language only deals with natural gas utilities.
Assemblyman Beers:
What is it that you are seeking to defer?
Debra Jacobson:
We are not sure if we are going to actually ask to defer anything at this time. [For] example, we are going to be incurring some costs that are at this point indeterminate for the Federal Pipeline Safety Act of 2002. We thought that was something that we may apply to the Commission for; something we would have to apply for, probably in a rate case, and they would have to review, as part of it, and then approve or deny our request. Several years ago, we had applied in a rate case for two different tariff programs, and we applied for deferred accounting treatment. They were denied because they did not have the authority to approve deferred accounting treatment for those programs. I believe one was a low-income rate and the other was a weather normalization rate.
Assemblyman Beers:
Do other states restrict deferred accounting to just the commodity?
Debra Jacobson:
No, that is one of the reasons why we asked for it. Deferred accounting in the other states is dealt with pretty generally, and we also serve in California and Arizona. It really is just an accounting treatment. It is pretty wide open and you can apply. The Commission has the authority to approve or reject whatever they want to. Specifically, they review it on a case-by-case basis. You can't do it without their approval.
Chairman Goldwater:
Further questions? I don't see any. Is there further testimony on S.B. 125? Is there anybody here who would like to oppose this bill? I will close the hearing on S.B. 125.
I will open the hearing on S.B. 426.
Senate Bill 426 (2nd Reprint): Establishes statewide procedures for approval of applications for construction of facilities for personal wireless communications. (BDR 58-1286)
Helen Foley, Legislative Advocate, T-Mobile:
[Introduced herself] The wireless industry has come forward with this legislation that we have in S.B. 426. I am having amendments distributed (Exhibit E) that we worked on since the time of the Senate Committee, some at the urging of the Senate Committee but also concerns that local governments have come up with. We have worked with Washoe County, Clark County, the city of Las Vegas, and also the city of Henderson. We believe that we have come up with a good piece of legislation.
When we started looking at wireless service, it was almost magical that you could call someone and not have it connected to a line. It was a novelty in those days, in the late [19]80s, but now it has become a necessity. Many of the things that we do, either by phone discussions or wireless use of major telecommunication systems, we demand at this point, quality service. In the old days you would have a lot of interference and a lot of disconnects. We don't want to tolerate that in this day and age. We have come up with a piece of legislation that will help enforce on a local level the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 that was passed by Congress to provide for the development of a seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable personal wireless service network.
[Ms. Foley continued] I have to congratulate Clark County. About six years ago, they came up with some standards. When we apply for a cell site location, we have to go before the planning commission. [Since] it is normally on private property, we get a special-use permit. Clark County decided through administrative design review to steer us to locations where they wanted to see cell sites located. Certainly, their preference was in industrial and commercial areas outside of residential areas. If they had to be in locations where it was deemed to be unsightly to have a cell site, they would ask us to "stealth" that site, making it appear to be something other than a wireless communication service. Sometimes [this] made it more expensive for us to locate our antennas at those sites, but, because we didn't have to go through the process of the local government application, it really streamlined things, and [Clark County has] had tremendous success with their program.
One concern we have is that sometimes in residential areas we have a lot of complaints. There are many suburban neighborhoods that don't want cell sites there. We believe that by utilizing the right of way and attaching some of our antennas onto telephone poles or light poles, we can obtain quality service in residential areas without negatively impacting those areas. Those kinds of things are addressed in this bill. The cities wanted to make sure that there wasn't carte blanche, that we would come in and locate unsightly towers wherever we wanted. That was certainly not our intention and is addressed in the amendment that we distributed.
Section 8, which is really the meat of the bill, starts out by stating that "they shall approve by administrative staff review the application if" the facility for the wireless service is to be (and this is the definition that Legislative Counsel Bureau came up with for what we referred to as "stealth sites") architecturally integrated with its surroundings so that it appears to be an architectural feature of a building or other structure and its nature as a facility for personal wireless service is not readily apparent. That might be a ball field light in a park . . .
Chairman Goldwater:
Ms. Foley, can I stop you for one second? I appreciate all of that and I don't want to start getting into that area, because we don't do land use. Why is it important that we, at the state level, now are stepping on local government's toes concerning land use?
Helen Foley:
Mr. Chairman, I think one of the most important reasons . . .
Chairman Goldwater:
Oh, I should probably disclose, granted, I am a critic of this bill, but my wife works for Sprint PCS.
Helen Foley:
Thank you. I am glad that you asked. It is certainly an obvious question. It is important the same way as with utilities. You must have reliable, seamless service. People don't accept the fact that in one part of town they can't get service and in another area of the county they can get service. So, the whole intent is to have that seamless service.
Chairman Goldwater:
They don't accept that?
Helen Foley:
People get very upset.
Chairman Goldwater:
Yes, I know.
Helen Foley:
I am sure you get very upset when you can't receive service. What we have done is attempt to have a consistent, uniform policy statewide so it doesn't matter whether you are in a small rural area or in Clark County in a very metropolitan location, you will have the same type of service.
Chairman Goldwater:
Wait. I don't understand how that works. Is one local government more permissive than another local government regarding location of cell sites?
Helen Foley:
Many times we have seen situations where . . .
Chairman Goldwater:
Isn't it mostly private property rights?
Helen Foley:
Mr. Chairman, planning commissions have impeded this to a great extent just by saying no. That seems to be the problem. If we could find ways to put antennas up somewhere where you couldn't even see them, and yet it would provide service to an area, we want to do that. Some planning commissions, not all of them, have just said no.
Chairman Goldwater:
Planning commissions are saying no, so we'll bring a bill to the Legislature that says now you have to say yes?
Helen Foley:
In a way, yes, but I want to describe to you some of the amendments that we have made to this bill. We would have done it before the bill was first introduced and we have no problems with any of the amendments that the local governments have proposed; we think they are very good. We have added an amendment that states, specifically, that certain subsections of that Section 8 do not apply to residentially zoned property. We do not want, in any way, someone having the ability to build a big tower in the middle of a neighborhood. That is not the intention at all. We also are not interested in having someone have a cell site on top of a home. That is not our intention. But, if we can streamline the process and have good quality service throughout the entire valley of Las Vegas and everywhere else in this state, we think it would be a strong benefit not only to the residents but also to the state for emergency operating systems and everything else.
Chairman Goldwater:
I appreciate that testimony, Ms. Foley. As Mr. Musgrove and the rest of the local governments will tell you, they don't like what I do in the state Legislature, but one area where I think the local governments clearly have jurisdiction is land use and I hate stepping on their toes for land use. I think Ms. Buckley has a question.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I have similar concerns about us getting involved in land use issues. How many denials have there been by planning commissions in the last two years?
Helen Foley:
There have been quite a few denials. I don't know how many.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
In what counties?
Helen Foley:
In Clark County.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
Just Clark County?
Helen Foley:
I only work in Clark County with wireless.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
It is a statewide bill, right? Have there been problems in other counties, does anyone know? Are the denials in Clark County, because homeowners or neighbors have complained to the planning commission? What has been the basis for the denial? I know [from] watching Channel 4, most of the planning commissions seem to react just like the county commissions do when people protest. That is when they deny. Is that similar in the wireless arena?
Helen Foley:
It has been both. I have to say that most of the complaints have come when [there is] a freestanding tower with antennas on it, and it is not a collocation issue, you have to go through the land use planning process. That has not changed at all. What Clark County discovered, and has had a fantastic experience with, is if they said to the wireless industry, “we prefer for you to locate in these types of facilities, either on top of a building, so that we don't see it in a ball park where you change out the lights; [in a church] steeple and have a cell site in there; have a flag pole that is truly a stealth site.” Although it cost us more money to make ours cosmetically pleasing, it saved us a lot of time in potential denials.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
That makes complete sense and that is smart business and government working together. If they are using this approach, then why do we need the bill? If you have come up with a good paradigm to make these things less contentious, what do we need the bill for?
Helen Foley:
Because that has not happened everywhere in Clark County or in the state. We want to encourage that type of activity. Mr. Musgrove may have some statistics. I know when we first worked on the legislation, the County said they have not had any complaints from residents on cell sites that have been created through the administrative design review process. They have to if they don’t meet that criteria, then they have to go to the planning commission and request a hearing. Once they go to the planning commission, the planning commission is stricter in approving cell sites. They have said, "Why don't you go back and try to do it the way that the county has preferred you to do it."
Assemblywoman Buckley:
Couldn't the county develop this kind of procedure? You can create better and quicker ways to get through the process, can't you?
Helen Foley:
Clark County has done that. The other municipalities have not. I met with Ms. Shipman of Washoe County on this, and she is supportive of the legislation, as is each of the different municipalities that we worked with. They feel that the consistency is proper.
Chairman Goldwater:
Lastly, and I am certainly not going to drag this out any longer, but this [bill] says if you are licensed by the FCC you "have to" approve this, if it meets this litany of conditions. Now, this could open the floodgates, potentially, to almost every provider putting these cell sites up. I am not sure what "architecturally integrated with its surroundings" means. I own a building, and now you have to approve putting it in this building? Is this really what the state needs to be doing? Shouldn't we leave this at the local level?
James Jackson, Legislative Advocate, Cingular Wireless:
What we attempted to do by including all of the governments that wanted to participate in this discussion was reach a bill that would establish one statewide standard, so that wherever we want to create a facility or apply to create a facility, we would know what that standard would be, whether we were in Jarbidge or in South Henderson. It still requires that the vendor who seeks to build that facility, comply with these things. Once they comply, the local entity either has to approve it or they have to give specific written reasons why they didn't. Then that vendor can decide whether or not it wants to challenge the process any further. With all due respect, I don't think it mandates in every single instance that they have to approve it. It does require that the vendor comply and once they comply with it, then there has to be specific reasons why it wouldn't be approved after that.
Chairman Goldwater:
And, with all due respect to you, Mr. Jackson, I appreciate it. That is a good point, but these are very subjective terms, in my humble opinion.
James Jackson:
Which gives more control to the local governments to be sure that the vendor is complying, which is what we tried to do.
Chairman Goldwater:
Which then gives discretion, I guess, to the judge to say it is architecturally integrated.
James Jackson:
If it goes that far. Hopefully, it wouldn't. Which is why we tried to streamline the process.
Chairman Goldwater:
Well, let's hear from Mr. Musgrove.
Dan Musgrove, Legislative Advocate, Clark County:
[Introduced himself] We are in a unique position on this bill. I am speaking only on behalf of Clark County and unincorporated Clark County because that is the only area in which we actually have jurisdiction in this. I understand their point of view; perhaps they have had disparate treatment with other local governments, and I can’t attest to that. That is up to them. All I can say is, when this bill originally came out, we fought very, very hard to make sure that the language in it did not change what Clark County was already doing. We made sure that there were those safeguards in place that allowed us to have the flexibility and the control that we believe we should have at the local level. I am in support of the bill, as it is amended, but philosophically, I think we are neutral on whether or not the Legislature decides this is something to impose statewide. But, in terms of unincorporated Clark County, we don’t have a problem with the bill because it allows us to do what we do on the local level.
Chairman Goldwater:
Thank you.
Helen Foley:
There is one other important part of the bill that we have not discussed. The wireless industry has never utilized the right-of-way, although we do pay the business license tax in most of the municipalities and counties that used to be the franchise tax for use of right-of-way. Now that technology has changed and antennas have become much smaller, we do have the ability to locate within the right-of-way on telephone poles and other things that I discussed earlier. We have never been able to penetrate the state Department of Transportation's system until just recently. We see that there might be a door opening. It would be very convenient for everyone if we were able to locate along the beltway, along freeways, where people are utilizing their phones, and if we could attach to some of the equipment in those areas. This bill would also require local governments and state government to begin working with us on it. We would be able to utilize the right-of-way, as long as we were in compliance with all of their laws and regulations on the use of right-of-way.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
An example, Helen, would be [that], down the middle of the Strip, [was said to be] NDOT's (Nevada Department of Transportation) property, but it went to the local governments. It is still sort of NDOT's [property] by statute. How would that fit into this? I would think there was dead space all along there, as well.
Helen Foley:
I think we would try to identify as many locations as we could. The engineering departments of these wireless companies do graphs. They can show where there are dead zones. They go out and look for locations and identify who owns them. If we can find government-owned property, it is always advisable for us to try to work out some type of contract with them and have a cell site. Unlike a power company, or fiber optics, we don't have to have a straight line; we just have to have one site and then maybe 50 or 100 yards away another site. We think this could also be a moneymaker for those governments that would allow us the opportunity to locate there.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Okay, so would they receive some kind of reimbursement for the actual cost of putting up the tower and renting the space, similar to what they do with billboards?
Helen Foley:
We currently rent or lease space from private owners of property. We do that now with governments when we locate in their property. If it is on top of a fire station, many times we build a tower with antennas and then allow the fire station to put all their major equipment on that tower, too. So it has been a friendly situation when we can do it with local governments, and we would certainly like to do that with the state.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Our Highway Patrol has a problem with their current band system, and we are looking at maybe moving more towards what we have done with NDOT. How would that be impacted? Would there be any assistance?
Chairman Goldwater:
That is totally different.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Totally different? Okay.
Helen Foley:
Many can be on the same tower without being incompatible.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Because they have dead zones in southern Nevada that they never even thought they would have? Okay.
Chairman Goldwater:
Ms. Foley, don't get me wrong. If it were up to me, I would have a cell site on every single street corner. I would carry one in my backpack if I could. However, I don't think it is fair to say to local government or the people of Boulder City that, because you have a state building that already has a state tower, you could put up anything there and they have nothing to say about it. I will give you a good example, Mr. Jackson. In Section 8, paragraph 1 (b), subsections (1) through (4). All of those things are "or." So if you are located someplace in an existing building or structure owned by a public utility or on property owned by the state, you could put up the state "puff marshmallow man" as a cell site and the local government would have to approve it. That is not fair.
Helen Foley:
Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. Your statement is true; it is not fair. We modeled this more or less after the county. When we have a contract to utilize property owned by a local government, they have strict criteria where we need to locate it, what it needs to look like, and they put that in their lease with us. If they choose not to lease with us, they don't have to. The administrative staff review at the planning commission level only approves it once we have something that is agreed to by the local government, so they can have very stringent criteria for us at the local government level.
Chairman Goldwater:
If this were to pass into law, then they would have to approve.
Helen Foley:
That was not our intention. It certainly is up to that local government to contract with us for their property. If there was any language that we needed to change that, we are all for it.
Chairman Goldwater:
This says they would "have" to. Let me get a question from Mr. Beers.
Assemblyman Beers:
I had some legislation last session, which ended up passing, that codified the Federal Communications Commission's PRB-1 regulation.
I have been a ham radio operator since I was 14 years old. I have some familiarity with this and I wanted to point out that state "puff marshmallow men" would not radiate cell frequencies. In fact, this is science and technology that we are talking about here, and I think the policy decision needs to be whether or not we, the citizens, consider 100 percent strong, wireless coverage, a benefit to our citizenry and to our society. These phones are becoming ubiquitous. I think that, as a matter of policy, we should be encouraging as strong a cell network as we possibly can. I think what has happened is, for reasons that do not properly respect the underlying science, local governments without a background in this have been impeding the creation of that dense coverage network. I guess that would be the other side of the argument, that this [bill] should be a local land use issue. To one extent it is a land use issue, but to another extent, if a strong wireless network is something that we want to promote as a matter of policy, we can't have people rejecting these because they are the wrong color or the wrong size. The size is dictated by the technology.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
I'll save the debate for work session or later. One thing I would like to get is information for the past two years on all of the requests, statewide, if possible, or at least Washoe and Clark and maybe one rural county. How many requests [were made], how many approvals [were received], how many denials [were received]. If denials [were received], for what reasons [were the denials made]. With that information we would have a good record as to what we are doing and why. Thank you.
Chairman Goldwater:
Further questions from the Committee?
Fred Hillerby, Legislative Advocate, Verizon Wireless:
For the reasons of consistency in terms of application of standards, we support this bill. Section 8 does say that you "shall approve it" if you meet the standards, but it goes on to say, if you don't approve it, then you have to have a record that says so. What we are looking for is an opportunity for an administrative review under these conditions and the same standards. Remember, this is the planning authority; it isn't making any political body agreements to lease the space. The planning authority just has to approve it. They all will use these standards when making those decisions, unless I am reading it wrong, Mr. Chairman. I certainly stand to be corrected.
Chairman Goldwater:
All those are "ors," Fred. Every single one of them. So wherever the condition on any one of those paragraphs is met, you are forced to take it.
James Jackson:
It does not force the local government entity to enter into the contractual agreement with the wireless provider. It only gets the application process approved if they meet those standards.
Chairman Goldwater:
Okay.
James Jackson:
I certainly would agree that neither this legislative body nor any legislative body could make any entity forcibly enter into a contract.
Wil Keane:
I believe what the Chairman was saying was not that this bill would force the property owner to enter into a contract with anyone, but rather that the bill would prevent the planning commission from objecting to an unsightly antenna, whether or not the community was upset by the antenna or anything like that, if any of those conditions are met and the underlying property owner agreed to the antenna. So an antenna would not necessarily have to be architecturally integrated if the underlying property owner didn't care what the antenna looked like. In these circumstances, the planning commission would not be able to step in and say that was not acceptable.
Helen Foley:
It would be difficult to put "and" on all of these because not every cell site needs to be stealthed. Some of them that are in industrial areas and are very consistent with what else is going on in that area. It would get an administrative review if it was stealthed and you couldn't even tell it was a cell site, anywhere that it wanted to be located, under this law. One of the things that Clark County [as well as] many of the other communities has done very successfully is, if there is already a cell site in an area and your company comes in and wants to build a cell site, they say that just two blocks away there is another one, collocate on that site. In the old days, when there was only an "A" and "B" cellular company, we didn't want to collocate because it was a competitive advantage. Now, all of the wireless companies are very cooperative and you will see cell sites with several different antennas on them. They are forcing them to collocate if they want to have a streamlined process. It doesn't mean that it is "stealthed," it is just collocated.
If there is a utility substation or a park in a neighborhood, go there. If you go there, you only have to have administrative design review; you don't have to go through this long process with planning commissions. It is steering people in directions. Finally, if you are on top of a building, and you don't protrude any higher than ten feet above the building, no one notices it, so, that is where we want you to go. That would not even have a tower. It wouldn't need to be "stealthed," because it is just an antenna, so each of these issues is different from the other.
[Ms. Foley, continued] All of the contracts that I have seen with local governments give very strict criteria about what they want [the antenna] to look like. If they have property, for instance BLM property, that is far away, or even if it is in the center of town, they will have different standards for the lease of their property than a city-owned park. If you are in a ball field, they will want you to trade out the lights. They may want you to do it entirely different if it is [another] type of property. If it is school-owned property, or a fire station, they will want you to do something very different from a park. They will put that into their contract with the wireless company as a requirement of the contract.
Chairman Goldwater:
I listen to Channel 4 once in a while too, and these are complicated issues and the contracts are important; I just don't know why the state needs to be involved. This is the reason I don't run for the county commission. I hate this stuff. Land use is good.
Helen Foley:
I think we have come to you because of a sense of frustration and to add to what Mr. Beers said, I believe the state of Nevada recognizes the role that wireless plays and the unfettered ability for people to have quality service, and it is very frustrating when we can't get it just because some people say no. There are legitimate reasons why you should say no, and no one should have to have a tower in their neighborhood; that should not happen. We have guarded against that with this legislation, specifically with the amendment that two of those sections, the collocation and also on top of buildings, do not apply to residentially zoned property. But we think that the other will go a long way in removing it from that contentious area. Some people just oppose cell sites because they don't want to put one up, and it doesn’t make any difference at all if they have ever even recognized what a cell site looks like. They just want to say no. We have taken those areas that are best for cities and county governments to make these as invisible as possible and let those move through so that somebody can get a stamp of approval, a building permit, and get those sites up. We believe it is the role of state government to say we want quality service and we want it to be a statewide policy that we have it.
Chairman Goldwater:
Well stated. That is the policy question. Mr. Beers, please.
Assemblyman Beers:
This isn't the only land use issue we are going to be facing. We have another bill that is going to be heard next week that deals very directly with land use planning by local governments on the Red Rock Canyon issue. So it is not entirely unheard of for us to be involved in land use. In my mind, what we are saying is, here is an acceptable criterion for the placement of these devices, and that is the criterion that should be used. The local government is still going to be making the decision. They're still going to be going through the permitting process. It is just that we are laying out for them a criteria because some of them have gone astray and applied inappropriate criteria. I don't think I have a philosophic issue about dabbling in land use planning with this legislation.
Chairman Goldwater:
Further questions? I don't see any. Is there anybody else who would like to testify on this issue? I will close the hearing on S.B. 426.
I will open the work session on S.B. 13, requiring a landlord to disclose emergency telephone numbers to a tenant before commencement of tenancy.
Senate Bill 13: Revises provision requiring landlord to disclose emergency telephone number to tenant at or before commencement of tenancy. (BDR 10-662)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 13.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Goldwater:
Have an excellent weekend; the agendas are starting to get long. [The meeting was adjourned at 1:04 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patricia Blackburn
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman David Goldwater, Chairman
DATE: