Claim that Sandoval didn’t understand energy bill insulting

At first, it was merely implied by NV Energy CEO Michael Yackira that Gov. Brian Sandoval didn’t understand the energy bill he vetoed. That’s the impression I had from a letter to the editor Yackira wrote, then reprinted in a full page ad in Sunday’s Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Yackira’s letter, paid for by shareholders, not ratepayers, disagreed with many of the conclusions Sandoval reached when he vetoed Assembly Bill 416, the seemingly innocuous solar energy bill that sailed through the Legislature in the final hour, burdened by a lengthy new amendment sought by NV Energy.

Yackira wrote that state regulators would not have automatically approved the cost of the transmission lines to provide power to California customers. (True, there was some oversight, but Sandoval said the bill weakened consumer protections.)

Yackira wrote that the company would have been required to obtain the approval of the Public Utilities Commission “for every mile of transmission built.” (Partly true, but Sandoval noted some of the approval could have come after the fact.)

Then, Yackira wrote that the bill did not place the cost of building these transmission lines on Nevada ratepayers.

Excuse me? Sandoval vetoed the bill precisely because he said it exposed Nevada customers to costs of building transmission lines.

The Bureau of Consumer Protection couldn’t let that Yackira claim go unchallenged and wrote its own response, insisting that under the vetoed bill, Nevada ratepayers could have ended up paying for some portion of the transmission lines, which cost $2 million a mile.

The bureau pointed out the power company’s general rate that pays for NV Energy’s expenses and profits is proposed to triple over what it was in 2005 and double the rate level of 2007 because the company has requested a
$245 million rate increase.

“The Company appears to be more interested in expanding its investments and in protecting its market position than with the burdens these enormous investments are placing on customers,” Consumer Advocate Eric Witkoski wrote.

Witkoski added that NV Energy already has asked for an additional $24 million in financial return in order to make the investments needed to take renewable energy resources to market.

Interviewed Tuesday on “Face to Face with Jon Ralston,” Yackira said Sandoval relied on information provided to him by the Consumer Protection Bureau, once again implying the bureau didn’t understand the bill, nor did Sandoval.

Although he was smiling and polite, Yackira obviously didn’t realize how insulting it was to suggest that Sandoval, a former federal judge and a former utility attorney who once represented NV Energy shareholders, didn’t understand a bill dealing with approving, building and paying for transmission lines for California customers.

At one point, Sandoval read different versions of the bill side by side, making comparisons. I’m confident he understood the bill.

“If we failed to do something, we failed to explain to the governor there was a nexus between what he wants to accomplish —- and what we fully support —- in terms of building renewable energy,” Yackira said on the television show.

He blamed a “miscommunication on what the bill was trying to accomplish,” explaining that his company “failed to explain why this was beneficial to the customers of Nevada.”

Apparently, NV Energy, which has close professional and personal relationships with the Republican governor, didn’t explain the benefits to Sandoval either. That’s amazing, considering NV Energy’s excellent access to the Sandoval.

Just like Cool Hand Luke said, “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”

Anything nebulous in this Sandoval sentence? “This process would mean rate increases for the people of the state to finance the construction of facilities to service out of state consumers.”

Contrast that with Yackira’s: “This bill did not place the cost of building these transmission lines on NV Energy customers.”

Tell me, which statement is believable and which is laughable?

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Email her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 702-383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison.