2018 Ballot Question 3 - Energy Deregulation

Dennis

Administrator
Staff member
Support/opposition doesn't seem to follow the usual political lines (Laxalt is for and so is Harry Reid). I'm all for ending monopolies, but I also don't want to pay higher rates as the opposing side seems to suggest will happen if this passes. School me on this issue
 

ManNamedJed

Well-known member
All I know is there are the big casinos pushing one side, and the big energy monopoly pushing the other side. Its hard to sort through both their obviously BS positions and find real facts.

I suspect if you dig, we'd find CA blackouts and higher rates are due to other factors besides deregulation.
 

GloNDark

Active member
All I know is that we have 3 locations at work.

2 in Nevada, and one in Pleasanton CA. Between our 2 manufacturing sites, we use the same amount of electricity but the bill at the Pleastanton office is usually 3.5 times higher than the Nevada plant. (14k per month, vs 4k).

I talked with a guy in truckee a couple of weeks ago that had the best explanation i have ever heard. NV Energy owns all the infrastructure, so no matter what they get the wet their beak on ever single transmission over their lines. Add their fees on top of "Cheapo new electric company" fees, and all the other associated taxes and fees, and you will end up paying more. ALOT more in the end.

I don't like the idea of a monopoly but I do like the idea of it being regulated so that I don't end up with an $800 electric bill in the summer months like some friends of ours that live in San Diego.
 

ManNamedJed

Well-known member
AT&T also owned all the phone lines and infrastructure. Breaking them up and opening it up for competition sure improved landline phone service and cost.

Anyone remember when a 30 min long distance call would cost you $15? Remember when you had to 'rent' your phone from the phone company?
 

wrenchjunkie

New member
NV Energy owns all the infrastructure, so no matter what they get the wet their beak on ever single transmission over their lines. Add their fees on top of "Cheapo new electric company" fees, and all the other associated taxes and fees, and you will end up paying more. ALOT more in the end.

I don't like the idea of a monopoly but I do like the idea of it being regulated so that I don't end up with an $800 electric bill in the summer months like some friends of ours that live in San Diego.


This.

I can't imagine it making it enough better to justify reading the entire bill and finding out the specifics and whether they are even legal or not and how much legal fees will hike the rate anyways. Plus why put it into the state constitution?
 
You have to realize the sun does not shine at night and the wind here is not good for wind power. This means that we still have to have the power plants like today to meet customers needs. Big wind and solar is really just a way to launder tax payers money right into the democrat coffers . I did a lot of research on big wind when they were pushing it in Illinois, poor wind resources and now they are pushing big solar there as well. Lots of cloudy days there. Big federal and state subsidies push these projects and they need laws like question 3 on the books to force people to buy a bad product. Like said above the power companies own the lines, they really don't care who's power runs down the lines as long as they get paid for the transfer. For those that don't like monopoly power companies I suggest you cut the cord and get a generator and a solar system and see how long it is before you go back to the reliability of the grid. And don't ask your neighbors to pay it for you.

NO! ON QUESTION 3 AND ON QUESTION 6
 

Brizzman

Active member
Premium Member
I remember 20 years ago when the last places did it. Their rates went way up very quickly. The ads aren't lying when they say the rates will go up. They ALWAYS have EVERYWHERE that deregulated.

DON'T FOLLOW CALIFORNIA! If you want California, move there. Don't bring their shit here!
 

FeCamel

New member
I am not for Question 3, but there is a lot of bad information here.

The infrastructure is a moot point. The PUC and FERC will still regulate the transmission rates, as they always have. NV Energy can't just charge whatever they want to stick it to you. NV Energy has never had to be a very forward thinking or dynamic company because they are a monopoly, and we pay the price for that in many areas.

It is not a fair point to say that rates went up in deregulated states across the board because ALL rates went up over time, even in regulated states. Saying otherwise is an intentionally misleading lie or sheer ignorance. Here is the breakdown:

States whose costs rose at LESS than the national average post deregulation (saved money): Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Texas
States whose cost rose at the same rate as the national average (within 0.1 cents per kWH) (no change post deregulation): New York, Montana
States whose costs rose MORE than the national average post deregulation (lost money): Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, California

So of the 16 states who deregulated, 6 saw cheaper prices, 2 didn't change, and 8 saw increased prices when compared to the national average. The Governor's energy committee report indicated that NV would save about $1.1 billion per year with deregulation. I'm not encouraging a vote one way or another, but please have the proper information in front of you before making your decision.
 

LEKCAH38

New member
It is not a fair point to say that rates went up in deregulated states across the board because ALL rates went up over time, even in regulated states. Saying otherwise is an intentionally misleading lie or sheer ignorance.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a

Kansas’ actually dropped .02¢ per kW/h (not $2) over the last year, so not ALL states rates go up over time.

While I completely agree with most of what you said, I’d like to know where you got your breakdown info from. The link above will show info all the way back to “issues prior to 2011,” and there are discrepancies with between the gov reports and the info you’ve shared.
 
Last edited:

grumpyoldretiredcop

Member
Premium Member
I had first hand experience with California's version of deregulation. Our utility bills went up... and up. No thanks. From the article quoted earlier, this statement is quite telling:

Nevada probably isn’t large enough to form its own wholesale market, and could either start a new market with other southwestern states or join up with California’s Independent System Operator Corporation, or California ISO.

Chaset said he believed Nevada could be comfortably nestled into California ISO, with the close proximity of Las Vegas to the state and the physics and infrastructure of a merger matching up. He said the biggest potential hurdle was the likely political and governance issues that would come from latching Nevada onto a much larger state’s wholesale energy market.

Several committee members expressed concern that Nevada could become a “blip” on the radar to the market, given the vast difference in size between the two states. Chaset said he was confident some sort of shared governance structure could be found.

“I don’t think anyone would want to join us if it’s just ‘We’re going to be along for the ride with California’,” he said.

I've already been "along for the ride" with California. My wallet and I will pass this time, thanks.
 

wrenchjunkie

New member
The misunderstanding and wanton relaying of misunderstood information is what makes the internet a information cesspool. That coupled with very little practical reasoning. You oughta be able to look at your own electric bill, be freaked the hell out by the thought of paying near a dollar per KWH, and think "how the hell could it go down 2 dollars?", and then realize the info says "cents per KWH" right in the header , before relaying false info.


Or it was a typo and I had a shitty day at work and just wasn't up to choking down another shit sandwich without bitching about it and I apologize.
 

tahoe1028

Active member
for me its a no. they are trying to force us to buy a product that isn't viable on its own so they try and regulate us into buying it. no thanks.

if it was such a great thing then NVE would have got into the business on its own
 
All this question 3 does is force the Nevada government to write a law. The wording is vague in the ballot measure and who knows what would be in the final bill but depending on who is in power they can force what you end up buying by putting high regulations on power generators they don't like and subsidies for those they want to push on the final consumer. This effectively puts the government in control of the power company which is much worse then a well regulated monopoly.
 

FeCamel

New member
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a

Kansas’ actually dropped .02¢ per kW/h (not $2) over the last year, so not ALL states rates go up over time.

While I completely agree with most of what you said, I’d like to know where you got your breakdown info from. The link above will show info all the way back to “issues prior to 2011,” and there are discrepancies with between the gov reports and the info you’ve shared.

It looks like Kansas actually had an increase over the time frame I was referencing (1997-2017, sorry I don't think I declared a date range originally). There are many sources of electrical rates if you Google it. I found this format easy to chew through:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...28003%29.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1yeBVq5BpPxM7V9xgKl150

All these CA comparisons are a bit narrow sighted. Why not compare to other deregulated states? There are 15 others! I get it, you don't like CA, but that doesn't mean we'll turn into CA overnight by having some things in common. The better way to compare results is against the average. CA had the second highest increase over years 1997-2017, so you are using the worst case scenario as your only comparison. The worst case absolutely must be included and considered, but using it as your only frame of reference is not good science or sound statistical analysis. CA also had some HUGE issues with PG&E going bankrupt and the energy shortage that affected electrical rates, but were not necessarily due to the deregulation.

Nevada always seems to write things into law, it's how the state operates for some reason. I run across this all the time in my line of work (analytical chemistry) because the state has actually written old analytical methods into the law that must be used long after other improved methods have taken their place. The Feds and other states have moved on to better technology and we're stuck using decades-old methodologies because it literally takes an act of the Nevada legislature to write a new law. I agree it is not the best way to do things, but it doesn't necessarily mean the state government is controlling everything, it just takes longer for things to change and it's a bit more hassle for those following the requirements, but it's not a total loss of control.
 
Top