2018 Ballot Question 3 - Energy Deregulation

jfrey123

Well-known member
I’m normally a strict libertarian on political issues, and I would like to see competition in the market. But going from full regulation to no regulation overnight using an amendment to the Nevada constitution gives me severe pause. Big casinos in Vegas are pushing for this bill, namely so they can generate/purchase their own power and leave us to fend for ourselves.

I’d be thrilled to see a competitive market permitted in Nevada, but I want to see it rolled out in a controlled manner versus a smash change beyond our control.
 

slopoke

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.

I don't understand why you think the puc will still be around. I could be wrong, but I've never seen anything that says we will keep the puc. As for ferc, they don't regulate the price of your power bill. They only care about the structure and reliability of the grid. They would never get involved if your bill doubled. As for comparison to California, I think we definitely have to compare this to California because we are right next to them. If we lived in Maine, I could see not worrying about what California prices are, but the fact is that we border them and the same things can happen here. I've noticed that some people who I have talked to about this issue, keep saying we "could" get a cent or two in savings, but never think about the worst case scenario. My parents live here and are on fixed incomes, I would hate to see their bill double. I hope my daughter lives her whole life here in northern Nevada and I don't want to screw this place up for her future. I'm am voting no on 3.
 

FeCamel

New member
I don't understand why you think the puc will still be around. I could be wrong, but I've never seen anything that says we will keep the puc. As for ferc, they don't regulate the price of your power bill. They only care about the structure and reliability of the grid. They would never get involved if your bill doubled. As for comparison to California, I think we definitely have to compare this to California because we are right next to them. If we lived in Maine, I could see not worrying about what California prices are, but the fact is that we border them and the same things can happen here. I've noticed that some people who I have talked to about this issue, keep saying we "could" get a cent or two in savings, but never think about the worst case scenario. My parents live here and are on fixed incomes, I would hate to see their bill double. I hope my daughter lives her whole life here in northern Nevada and I don't want to screw this place up for her future. I'm am voting no on 3.

First of all, the FERC regulates the rates of bulk transmission of electricity. They control the rates so NV Energy could not wantonly raise the bulk transmission prices for using their infrastructure. This is a concern several people have listed, so I addressed it:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct.../ferc101.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2mjwieq70y4xFS7jTHf9a5

Secondly, why would the PUC go anywhere? While it would have diminished responsibilities, the power to regulate transmission rates is still squarely in their court. Please point out in Question 3 where the PUC is eliminated. All of the articles I've read specifically speak about the PUC still existing. That is also how all of the deregulated states operate when I was researching the issue. There is a ton of misunderstanding about this topic. Really, the only change is that consumers will be able to choose their provider. That's it. The infrastructure remains the same. Transmission rates remain the same. NV Energy doesn't get to double dip. NV Energy doesn't get to tack on any extra fees or costs for using "their" infrastructure. Furthermore, the gas market in NV is still regulated, do you think the PUC is going to pack up and ignore all of their other responsibilities because the consumers will pick their electrical providers instead of the PUC? So we won't have any more water or sewage because the PUC is going away? No more telephone service in NV? Of course the PUC is not going anywhere!

I am also voting no because I think our rates are currently pretty good and I don't think the unknown of going unregulated is worth the risk of POSSIBLE increases. But holy hell, it seems everyone is buying into propaganda and not doing ANY research. What happens if things start to change and the monopoly stops working in our favor?

I understand we must CONSIDER what happened in CA, but it is not responsible to use it as the ONLY point of reference. Why not look at Oregon? It is also right next door, and their rates are LOWER than Nevada's. Oregon is technically deregulated but they called it something else so it is not always listed as a deregulated state (https://quickelectricity.com/average-electricity-prices-and-deregulation/). Montana is pretty close to us and deregulated and their rates are also lower than Nevada's. It seems the "No on 3" crowd continually cherry picks data and the confirmation bias is off the charts. Even though I agree with the no vote, the reasoning is extremely alarming.
 
Last edited:

Dennis

Administrator
Staff member
All I need to know????

 
You have to look at more then just question 3 because it just tells the government to come up with the laws of deregulation so we don't even know the fine details. Question 6 is tied to what we will see in end rates as well. 6 should be a now as well as most of these ballot measures should be a no that tie them into the constitutions and are almost impossible to change or get rid of. Question 6 is worse then 3 as it will force the power companies to buy renewable energy no matter what the cost is. Its basically government welfare to these green companies so they can stay profitable since renewable energy affordability is still a lie even though were are going on 50 years of subsidizing the industry.
 

DJRENO

Active member
Premium Member
You have to look at more then just question 3 because it just tells the government to come up with the laws of deregulation so we don't even know the fine details. Question 6 is tied to what we will see in end rates as well. 6 should be a now as well as most of these ballot measures should be a no that tie them into the constitutions and are almost impossible to change or get rid of. Question 6 is worse then 3 as it will force the power companies to buy renewable energy no matter what the cost is. Its basically government welfare to these green companies so they can stay profitable since renewable energy affordability is still a lie even though were are going on 50 years of subsidizing the industry.

Correct. The ads against 3 cite California as an example of why deregulation is bad. Complete distortion. California is about as far from deregulated ans anything could get. Instead it is hyper-regulated, including mandated procurement of expensive renewable energy, mandated procurement of small biomass (which makes no economic sense what so ever), mandated procurement of solar, and like Nevada, massive subsidies for those wealthy enough to put solar panels on their roofs at the expense of everyone else.

Question 6 is a disaster.
 

BobF

Member
Premium Member
CA fucked up Gas Cans. They’re definitely not the example to look to.

CA didn't fuck up gas cans, morons using the gas cans did. But back to the topic. It sure is confusing with all the data, and I love progress. However, with the status quo, I know what my bill will be tomorrow. I'm going to vote no.
 

DJRENO

Active member
Premium Member
CA didn't fuck up gas cans, morons using the gas cans did. But back to the topic. It sure is confusing with all the data, and I love progress. However, with the status quo, I know what my bill will be tomorrow. I'm going to vote no.

You will know what your bill will be in either event. All this proposition does is allow you to choose who supplies the actual energy, and energy is only part of what you pay for now. Right now your monthly bill is the product of how much energy you consume times a bundled electric rate. That rate includes energy, the cost of building and maintaining the transmission and distribution system, NV Energy administrative costs NV profit and taxes and a few other things. You will still pay NV for "wires" services, including a "reliability" component. None of that will change. All that will change is that you can choose to get the energy piece from somebody besides NV energy.

The success of this whole thing rests with the PUCN because they have to figure out how to properly unbundle the existing rolled in rates.

The question that should definately get a NO vote is Question 6. Forcing artificial renewable procurement targets on the utility will definitely lead to higher rates.
 
Top