Sprint sends clear signal opposing public power

Friday, Sept. 27, 2002 | 11:17 a.m.

Sprint Corp., the region's largest telephone service provider, has signed on to the effort to fight the public takeover of the privately owned electricity company.

Sprint joins Nevada Power Co., its parent company Sierra Pacific Resources and the Nevada Taxpayers Association as the members of the embryonic Citizens Against 14 political action committee.

The committee is focused on defeating November's non-binding ballot question asking Clark County voters if public agencies should be permitted to take over privately owned utilities such as Nevada Power -- even when the company opposes the move.

While focused on the ballot question, the committee also has staked out a position against public ownership of the electric utility, a hot issue now that the Southern Nevada Water Authority has offered to buy Nevada Power from Sierra Pacific for $3.2 billion. A hostile takeover is banned by state law, but the law, according to water authority advisers, does not forbid a willing sell.

So far, Sierra Pacific executives have rejected the water authority's bid, which the agency and its consultants promise would cut power bills by at least 20 percent and forestall future rate increases.

Sprint, a company that provides local and long-distance telephone service throughout most of the United States and in 70 countries worldwide, mailed letters to its Southern Nevada business customers last week arguing against any public ownership of the electric company.

"We believe government purchase and operation of Nevada Power would be in direct conflict with Nevada's proud heritage of entrepreneurialism and deeply held principle of limited government," Sprint Vice President Lou Emmert wrote. "No matter how well meaning, a government agency can never match the speed, flexibility and efficiency of a market driven economy."

Emmert wrote that government plays "an appropriate role" in regulatory oversight, but questioned "whether government agencies should embark on projects that compete directly with private enterprise."

"Efforts regarding this ballot question are just one example of Sprint's civic and community involvement," Emmert told the company's business customers.

Advocates for the public ownership of Southern Nevada's power company said the letter falsely portrayed the takeover.

"Lou's letter raised some basically fallacious issues," said Tim Hay, consumer advocate in the Nevada Attorney General's office. Hay's boss, Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa, was one of the customers that received the Sprint letter -- although Emmert's letter misspelled the attorney general's name with an extra "p."

Hay, representing Del Papa, wrote back to Sprint on Thursday.

"I'm sorry Lou, but do you honestly believe you have provided the Attorney General with a fair and honest portrayal of the facts?" he asked in his response. "Nevada Power certainly does not operate in a free market, nor is it subject to competitive forces, nor do consumers of this company enjoy the fundamental attribute of consumers in a free market, that is, consumer sovereignty ...

"Quite simply, Nevada Power operates in a monopoly market and has captive customers who have no choice but to consume the products of this company. And as recent experience has shown, the company is operating rather poorly in this market," Hay said.

He pointed out that the company is able to pass on, with Nevada Public Utilities Commission approval, the cost of power purchased off the grid -- and if they pay too much, as the commission ruled happened last year, "ratepayers (are) forced to bear a substantial portion of the burden of the company's mismanagement."

"Consumers bear the burden of company mismanagement; it is only simple courtesy to give them the choice of the form of oversight they prefer," Hay wrote.

Hay and Liz Moore, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada Southern Nevada coordinator, said Sprint's letter to the business community should be considered an in-kind contribution to the Citizens Against 14 political action committee.

But the company appeared to anticipate the question.

Sprint spokeswoman Detra Page said the letter is just one of regular mailings that Emmert sends to the company's business and organizational customers.

"This was not a special effort," Page said. She noted that the Sprint letter includes more than just the argument against Question 14.

Six of the letter's seven paragraphs are devoted to the ballot question and to Sprint's "civic and community involvement," but the final paragraph spotlights "an exciting new Sprint product -- Sprint PCS Vision."

"The launch of our next generation of wireless phone is truly remarkable and represents a tremendous success for our company," the letter says. "This new technology allows you to enjoy rich multi-media color visuals and amazing applications on your wireless phone."

Hay, however, does not buy the argument that the letter is not politically motivated.

"Since the bulk of the letter is devoted to Question 14, that's a pretty specious argument," he said. "It looks like the last paragraph was thrown in as an afterthought."

Carole Vilardo, president of the nonprofit Nevada Taxpayers Association, is playing a key role in developing the Citizens Against 14 committee, but said she is not sure whether the letter could be characterized as a contribution.

"We'll have to ask the accountants on this one," she joked. "I truthfully don't know."

A full list of the participants in the political action committee -- and how they will spend their money -- is still in development, Vilardo and Nevada Power representatives said. They have promised to release the details of the committee next week.

"There's an awful lot of stuff that has to be done mechanically before you get off the ground," Vilardo said.