Pahrnmp Valley Gazette, Thursday, May 29, 1997 11
,[00lectric restructuring issues in Nevada
by Galen D. Denio, Commissioner
Nevada Public Service Commission
Residential and small commercial customers, hospitals,
educational institutions, government facilities, manufactur-
ing, large commercial and industrial business concerns and
every utility may soon feel the effects of a precipitous change
in the electric industry.
AB 366, which is now being discussed in the Nevada
Legislature, would reform Nevada's electric utility industry
and bring drastic reforms to a utility environment and regula-
tory structure that has been relatively unchanged for well over
80 years.
Customers may experience not only an increase in rates,
but a decrease in the reliability and quality of service. Utility
shareholders will most surely feel the pinch of decreased
earnings from long-held utility investments. Negative tax
consequences are likely to he felt from the offices of local
government to the halls of state government.
Restructuring the electric industry is not only a Nevada
issue, it is also an issue that consumes much attention on the
regional and national levels. Several proposals have been
introduced in Congress to mandate electric industry restruc-
turing and several states have initiated their own restructuring
proposals.
This debate focuses on replacing the current regulated
monopoly structure of the electric industry with a competitive
market structure. Proponents predict that this change would,
allow competitive market forces to replace the "heavy hand of
regulation" and stimulate innovation of services and products
while lowering costs to customers. Others fear the fallout of
unintended consequences. The viewpoints of several differ-
ent groups of stakeholders are important to consider.
Assaulting the current structure of the electric industry
is a collection of entities that intends to provide genera-
tion, marketing and aggregated electric utility services to
customers in a competitive environment. This group in-
cludes large interstate, and even international energy mar-
keting companies and utilities, service companies and a
number of other entities who, under the aegis of a competi-
tive market, seek to sell electric energy and capacity and
other ancillary services. This group generally claims that
compared to the current regulated monopoly environment,
such a competitive environment will produce lower prices
and better services to consumers. For the most part, these
entities are not now, and do not expect to be in the future,
regulated at local, state or federal levels.
A customer group which has been generally supportive
of etectric restructuring efforts includes large commercial,
manufacturing and industrial customers who are major
consumers of electrical energy. Their primary justification
for opening retail access to electric suppliers is that, unless
they have access to lower-priced power, they will lose
their business "competitiveness" for products and ser-
vices.
Another customer group includes small commercial
and residential customers who individually consume rela-
tively small amounts of electric energy compared to large
commercial, manufacturing or industrial customers.
Letters to the Editor
a guest editorial
The viewpoint of one other group of stakeholders must
be also considered. That group includes investor-owned
utilities such as Sierra Pacific Power Co., and Nevada
Power Co., member-owned cooperatives and associations
such as Valley Electric Association and Harney Electric
Cooperative; and publicly-owned utility districts, such as
Mt. Wheeler Power Inc. and Wells Rural Power District.
Does retail access to, or customer choice of, electric
supplies make sense? In order to evaluate this question,
one must consider whether expected benefits of a restruc-
tured utility industry outweigh the transactional and envi-
ronmental costs of implementation and the possible expo-
sure of customers to unintended consequences, such as
outages and security of supply.
Restructuring Nevada's electric utility industry under
proposals like AB 366 is one of the most important issues
to be considered by the 1997 Nevada Legislature. Pew
other issues have the potential to affect nearly every single
Nevadan in one way or another. Whatever the outcome,
Nevadans must be very careful that the promise of some-
thing for all doesn't end up acquiring benefits for a privi-
leged few.
Commissioner Denlo is a registered professional
engineer in Nevada and California and has worked at
the Public Service Commission for 13 years, the last 5
of which have been as a commissioner. His prior work
experience includes 14 years of engineering and
operations work in the gas utility industry in the western
states.
I I I
"Taking responsibility"
I am a concerned parent, who has in the past had several
encounters with our principal at Rosemary Clark Middle
School, Mr. Herb Gailey.
In my opinion, Mr. Herb Gailey, I think you should get a
reality check, when it comes to, as "he" put it, "the student is
best served when the school and the family work together."
I ask you HOW is it working together, when you bring up
to the attention of the principal, and have several meetings
about a particular teacher that teaches band, in Rosemary
Clark Middle School, and the teacher is present at these
meetings, who continuously is slandering a student (my
daughter) long after this student was forced out of band,
which again is my opinion, all because this teacher had a
personality conflict with this student, and could not rise above
it and carry on, so the answer from the teacher and the school
was for the student to pick another elective!
Now, months after this, and this student had no further
contact with this teacher, this student is still presently being
slandered, in this band teacher's class, as students from this
class have come forward and stated.
These students have brought this up to our attention, and
I had two talks with Mr. Galley about this. His reply was, "I
will get bacl to you in a couple of days!"
Well, Mr. Herb Gailey, that was six weeks ago! What is a
couple of days to you? If indeed you are not obviously
enforcing the school policies and state regulations for me, all
these other folks who are writing letters to the papers must
have something to what they are writing about.
I have left lots and lots of messages with the school for you
to get in contact with me, and that's why I am trying this route.
I saw you took the time to sit down and write some question-
able lines in the paper, so in my way of thinking, maybe you
will see my letter and get in touch with me.
In my opinion also, it seems that anything you bring up to
the administration or school faculty, it seems as though there
is alot of selective enforcement is in the picture. How, and
What do you mean, again as you put it, "The student is best
served when the school and the family work together?"
I really do not understand. My daughter likes to play her
instrument and I feel she, as a student was hurt academically
by having to drop band and lose out on nearly half a school
year.
I, as a parent, dislike airing this out publicly, however the
fact remains, as many times that we have come to you about
this, and nothing at all has changed or that I can see "BEEN
ENFORCED," and this band teacher is allowed to continue
keeping this situation very active, while she is supposed to be
teaching, just really confuses me and my wife, not to mention
the student.
Further action is being taken and hopefully other students,
and parents, will not have to go through this in the future.
A Questionable, and Hopeful, Parent
Larry Beckner
Pahrnmp
To Secretary of State Heller:
I have in my possession your letter to me dated April 30,
1997. Upon review of your conclusion contained therein, I
have detected a substantial error explained as follows:
You have made reference to Article 5, Section 8 of the
Constitution of the State of Nevada from which you evidently
conclude that the governor was and is correct in appointing
replacements to fill vacancies in various elected offices in
Nevada. While this is often true, it is not always true, as per
Section 8 itself. Supposedly, you intended to address the
specific points which I had made in my earlier letter to Gov.
Miller dated 6 April 1997, a copy of same I forwarded to you.
Said letter was accompanied by the enclosure of a then-recent
newspaper clipping containing much pertinent information
which should have been sufficient to make this matter clear.
I refer you to the Nevada State Constitution and specifi-
cally Section 8 of Article 5; which I herein reproduce in its
entirety:
Sec:8 Vacancies f01ed by governor. When any Office
shall, from any cause become vacant and no mode is provided
by the constitution and laws for filling such vacancy, the
governor shall have the power to fill such vacancy by granting
a commission which shall expire at the next election and
qualification of the person elected to such office.
Contained in Section 8 above is the phrase "...and no mode
is provided by the constitution and laws for filling such
vacancy,..." which is of the essence. As a matter of fact, there
is a Nevada Revised Statute which does provide for filling a
vacancy on a Town Board. Please observe the following:
NRS 245.170 County commissioners to fill certain
vacancies. When a vacancy exists or occurs in any county or
township office, except the offices of district judge and
county commissioner, the board of county commissioners
shall appoint a suitable person who is an elector of the county
to fill the vacancy until the fast Monday of January after the
next ensuing biennial election.
So you see, it was and continues to be unlawful for the
governor to appoint replacements on the Town Board of
Pahrump.
In light of this clear error in your capacity as Secretary of
State, I request that you direct that correction be made in this
situation. Obviously, Bob Little, who was most recently
unlawfully appointed by the governor, must immediately be
removed from the Office of Town Board member and the Nye
County Commissioners must be directed to do their duty by
naming a new Pahrump Town Board member to fill the
vacancy as provided by law. This appointment was especially
egregious because Mr. Little had previously been rejected by
the voters of Pahrump.
Furthermore, the pretender, Little, has voted without law-
fill authority on many issues and his votes on these issues are
void and must be expunged. Please, quickly take action to see
that all of the unlawful votes cast by Little are expunged and
the results of his unlawful actions are negated. Where his
vote, in each issue addressed, carded the issue or denied it,
each such result must be negated.
Thank you, sir, for your kind attention in this serious
matter.
Paul J. Miller
Pahrnmp
SWISS BANKEgI00 KNIFE
