Energy bill fails to advance

Erin Neff

Wednesday, May 16, 2001 | 11:05 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- An omnibus energy bill, stalled by proposed amendments, failed three times Tuesday and again this morning to get past an Assembly panel.

Last night and again this morning, amendments were added and dropped in Assembly Bill 661, which is before the Select Energy Committee, in an effort to appease members to move the legislation to the Assembly floor.

The panel recessed at 8 this morning to allow lawmakers to meet with representatives of Sierra Pacific Resources and the Public Utilities Commission to clarify the intent of one amendment.

The committee was expected to reconvene this afternoon after the Assembly's floor session.

The bill was stuck on two amendments -- one to add an energy assistance measure, the other to recoup "over-earning" by the state's only utility company from recently approved rate hikes.

An amendment once deemed controversial -- allowing large power users such as mines and casinos to buy power on the open market -- is now supported by almost all committee members.

The over-earning provision is the new wrinkle.

"I guess we're at loggerheads now," Committee Chairman Doug Bache, D-Las Vegas, said as he recessed the session Tuesday evening after three failed votes.

This morning, David Goldwater, D-Las Vegas, asked the committee to amend out his energy-assistance program, which already passed the panel's muster and is awaiting Senate action.

But a vote on the bill without his provision still failed in committee, 6-4.

Majority Leader Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, spent this morning trying to clarify an amendment made Tuesday to prevent "over-earning."

Buckley said her motion dealt only with future accounting by Sierra Pacific Resources, parent company of Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific Power. But committee member Kathy Von Tobel, R-Las Vegas, and others said they feared the passing of such a measure would further harm the company's shareholders while offering only limited relief to ratepayers.

Discord on the panel capped more than five hours of work Tuesday to attach various amendments to the omnibus plan.

One amendment, proposed by the casino and mining industries, included a new provision that allowed smaller Southern Nevada customers a potential rate savings based on surplus power purchased by those who use 1 megawatt of energy or more.

That amendment -- Repower Nevada -- requires large Nevada Power customers that use more than 1 megawatt of energy to purchase 10 percent more power on the open market than they will need.

The balance of the energy would be transferred to Nevada Power for potential use by smaller customers in what lobbyist Harvey Whittemore dubbed a "share the power" program.

Large Northern Nevada customers of Sierra Pacific Power would not have to participate in small customer sharing if they leave the grid and purchase power on the open market.

Buckley worried Tuesday that allowing anyone off the grid could place Nevada in a California-like energy crisis.

"To me, there's no greater issue facing us than the energy crisis," Buckley said. "If deregulation works, it should work for everyone."

She had proposed a limited pilot program to allow some customers to leave the grid to determine how it would affect the state's overall power environment.

Minority Leader Lynn Hettrick disputed Buckley's claim that allowing large users to leave the grid was an experiment in deregulation.

"What we're doing here is reducing the load," Hettrick, R-Gardnerville, said. "I don't think that falls into the deregulation category."

On Tuesday Buckley proposed an amendment to the Repower Nevada plan that would have allowed the Colorado River Commission to purchase power for municipal entities. That attempt failed.

Because only large customers were allowed off the grid according to the amendment, Buckley on Tuesday said she could not support the overall bill.

Another proposed amendment, sponsored by Roy Neighbors, D-Tonopah, would have allowed blocks of businesses and residents to combine and leave the grid. That proposed amendment failed.

Hettrick opposed that measure, dubbed Community Choice. He said it required a deregulated structure. Deregulation is on hold in Nevada, and the Legislature and governor have passed a measure that prohibits Sierra Pacific Resources from selling its plants until after July 2003.

This morning's debate centered on the over-earning amendment. State consumer advocate Timothy Hay had proposed reducing general electric rates 10 percent for all customers in an effort to guard against "future rate shock" caused by costs associated with increased fuel and purchased power.

"I don't think it helps the company to say they're over-earning at a time when they're losing 81, 90 million and being devalued on the stock market," Hettrick said Tuesday night.

Hay said the amendment would not impair the company's financial health due to previous legislation already signed into law allowing the company to conduct deferred energy billing.

Buckley was to meet later this morning with Hay, Sierra Pacific Resources lobbyist Doug Ponn and PUC Chairman Don Soderberg.