Power company workers writing ballot arguments

Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2002 | 8:52 a.m.

Two of three members of a committee selected Tuesday to write arguments opposing a government-run electric utility work for the private power company serving Southern Nevada.

Jack Leone, vice president of Sierra Pacific Resources, said the company has concerns about the public power advisory question on the November ballot, but did not try to stack the opposition committee.

Leone was named to the committee along with Robert Tucci, a civil engineer who works for Nevada Power. Tucci said he will not represent the company on the committee. Sierra Pacific is Nevada Power's parent company.

Tucci and Leone said they had not talked to each other about the ballot question and did not know the other man was applying to write the argument.

The vote on the advisory question carries no legal weight on its own but could help or hinder a proposal floated by the Southern Nevada Water Authority to buy Nevada Power. The Water Authority board last month approved consulting contracts to explore the feasibility of a buyout of the privately held, but publicly regulated, power company.

Also on the committee to write the argument against the power company going public is Carole Vilardo, president of the Nevada Taxpayers Association.

The Clark County Commission also approved three people to write arguments for the public power question: Eric Witkoski, an attorney with the attorney general's Consumer Advocate's office; Gary Kellogg, a small-business operator; and Michael Lavine, president of Consumers for the Protection of the People, a group that opposed Nevada Power requests for rate increases over the last year.

The arguments advanced by those both for and against turning Nevada Power into a municipal utility are familiar.

Vilardo, as she has in the past, warned about the impact that turning the company public would have on tax revenue to local, state and federal governments.

While the advisory question itself would not have an impact, the public takeover of Nevada Power would have "a huge fiscal impact if it goes forward," she said.

Leone said he is concerned that the ballot question does not fully inform the voters that a "nonprofit" electric utility means a government-run utility.

And Tucci, who also has worked for the public Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, said he believes that the company he works for is more responsive to consumer concerns than a government agency would be.

He also argues that a profit-driven company will be more efficient than a government agency. Tucci said he does not believe the Water Authority or other government agency understands the complexities involved in running an electric utility.

"There are difficulties and headaches involved," he said. "They don't know what they're getting into. I want the public to be aware of all the difficulties involved."

But those who support the question believe that a publicly owned utility would provide lower electric rates and would be more responsive to the public's needs.

"As long as Nevada Power controls the issue, our rates are never coming down," Lavine said. Taking the utility public "is the only way out for the consumer."

Witkoski, whose office has fought Nevada Power rate increases, agrees. Witkoski's boss, Consumer Advocate Tim Hay, has spoken favorably of the Water Authority's proposal.

Witkoski said taking the profit motive out of the utility's pricing would lead to lower rates, and a publicly owned company would be more focused on the needs of Las Vegas' energy consumers.

Kellogg was not immediately available for comment Tuesday, but on his application to serve on the committee he indicated that he believed public control of the utility would lead to lower rates.