Letter: PUC’s dismissal of Nevada Power case unfair to seniors

Friday, Feb. 18, 2000 | 9:18 a.m.

On behalf of our thousands of primarily retired members, we respectfully disagree with your recent editorial about the Public Utilities Commission dismissing the Nevada Power case.

These expenses are for power already consumed by customers. The company earns no profit on them, but when recovery is denied, shareholders pay the cost. While many of Nevada Power's customers are residents, many of its customers are very large, profitable companies. Dismissing the case means those customers have consumed free power, paid for by the utility's shareholders.

We always understood that the Legislature permitted Nevada Power to file one last case up until Oct. 1, prior to imposition of the rate cap in Senate Bill 438.

Not everyone agreed with the Public Utilities Commission that the cutoff date for filing was July. Douglas Burton, testifying under oath on behalf of large casinos, was asked if the company could file up until Oct. 1. He said "... it seems clear to me that the company does have a right to file the case ..."

Commissioner Joann Kelly said it clearly: "I don't think consumers benefit from an underrecovery ... there has maybe been a mistaken belief that consumers would benefit if the company is underrecovering."

We can debate both the facts and legal issues, but the bottom line is one of fairness and equity. Is it fair that customers not pay for power they've already consumed? Is it fair that competition to benefit large customers occur at the expense of those seniors who've invested in Nevada Power? We think the answer to both questions is "no."

JOYCE NEWMAN President, Utility Shareholders Association of Nevada