Nevada Legislature to Minimize Regulations on the Energy Market and Eliminate Legal Energy Monopolies, Question 3 (2016)

Nevada Question 3
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Energy
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
November 8
Question 1 a
Question 2 a
Question 3 a
Question 4 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Nevada Legislature to Minimize Regulations on the Energy Market and Eliminate Legal Energy Monopolies Amendment, also known as Question 3, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Nevada as an initiated constitutional amendment. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to require the Nevada Legislature to establish "an open, competitive retail electric energy market," reduce energy market regulations, and prohibit energy monopolies.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment to require the legislature to establish an "open and competitive" retail energy market.

In Nevada, initiated constitutional amendments need to be approved in two even-numbered election years, meaning that Question 3 needed to be approved in 2016 and again in 2018 to amend the Nevada Constitution. Voters rejected Question 3 in 2018, meaning the measure was not added to the constitution.

Election results

Question 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		783,185	72.36%
No		299,183	27.64%

Election results from Nevada Secretary of State

Overview

Energy in Nevada

In 2016, utility companies in Nevada were permitted to establish monopolies in their geographic service areas. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission, whose members are appointed by the Nevada Governor, regulates utility prices and other energy policies. This model of regulated and state-imposed monopolies originally was established to incentivize electrical infrastructure development. In 2016, NV Energy controlled 90 percent of the state's energy market.

Initiative design

The measure was designed to prohibit electricity monopolies, thus ending the monopoly that NV Energy has in the state. The measure would have placed a guarantee in the Nevada Constitution that energy customers have the right to choose their energy provider and generate their own for resale. If Question 3 was approved again, the Nevada Legislature would have been required to pass laws by July 1, 2023, establishing an "open, competitive retail electric energy market" and entitling customers to "safe, reliable, and competitively priced electricity." The measure would have allowed the legislature to permit NV Energy or another firm to maintain a monopoly on the electricity distribution grid, such as transmission lines.

State of the ballot measure campaigns

Nevadans for Affordable Clean, Energy Choices, the support campaign, raised $3,435,000. The Las Vegas Sands Corporation was the top donor, contributing $1,925,000. Opponents organized as the No Handouts to Billionaires Committee, which received $910,000.00 from IBEW 1245 and the Nevada AFL-CIO. Other supporters of Question 3 included Tesla Motors and U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D). Polls indicated that around 68 percent of likely voters supported Question 3 prior to the election.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The question on the ballot was as follows:

“

Shall Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require the Legislature to provide by law for the establishment of an open, competitive retail electric energy market that prohibits the granting of monopolies and exclusive franchises for the generation of electricity? Yes  No 

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“ EXPLANATION—This ballot measure proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to require the Legislature to provide by law for an open, competitive retail electric energy market by July 1, 2023. The law passed by the legislature must include, but is not limited to, provisions that reduce costs to customers, protect against service disconnections and unfair practices, and prohibit the granting of monopolies and exclusive franchises for the generation of electricity. The law would not have to provide for the deregulation of the transmission or distribution of electricity. Approval of this ballot measure would add a new section to the Nevada Constitution establishing that every person, business, association of persons or businesses, state agency, political subdivision of the State of Nevada, or any other entity in Nevada has the right to choose the provider of its electric utility service, including but not limited to, selecting providers from a competitive retail electric market, or by producing electricity for themselves or in association with others, and shall not be forced to purchase energy from one provider. The proposed amendment does not create an open and competitive retail electric market, but rather requires the Legislature to provide by law for such a market by July 1, 2023. The law passed by the Legislature cannot limit a person’s or entity’s right to sell, trade, or otherwise dispose of electricity. Pursuant to Article 19, Section 2, of the Nevada Constitution, approval of this question is required at two consecutive general elections before taking effect. A “Yes” vote would amend Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution so that the Legislature would be required to pass a law by July 1, 2023, that creates an open and competitive retail electric market and that includes provisions to reduce costs to customers, protect against service disconnections and unfair practices, and prohibit the granting of monopolies and exclusive franchises for the generation of electricity. A “No” vote would retain the provisions of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution in their current form. These current provisions do not require the Legislature to pass a law that creates an open and competitive retail electric market and that includes provisions to reduce costs to customers, protect against service disconnections and unfair practices, and prohibit the granting of monopolies and exclusive franchises for the generation of electricity. DIGEST—Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution contains various rights granted to the people of Nevada. Approval of this ballot measure would add a new section to Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution that would require the Legislature to provide by law, no later than July 1, 2023, for an open, competitive retail electric energy market with protections that entitle customers to safe, reliable, and competitively priced electricity. The law passed by the legislature must include, but is not limited to, provisions that reduce costs to customers, protect against service disconnections and unfair practices, and prohibit the granting of monopolies and exclusive franchises for the generation of electricity. This constitutional amendment would have an impact on public revenue; however, the amount of the impact cannot be determined. Existing law, found in Title 58 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, generally authorizes a single utility to provide electric service to customers in each electric service territory in the state. This means that most Nevadans are required to purchase electricity from a single provider. Utility providers are regulated by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which is charged with providing for the safe, economic, efficient, prudent, and reliable operation and service of public utilities, as well as balancing the interests of customers and shareholders of public utilities by providing public utilities with the opportunity to earn a fair return on their investments while providing customers with just and reasonable rates. ”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, Nevada Constitution

Question 3 would add a new section to Article I of the Nevada Constitution. The following text would be added:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

1. Declaration of Policy:

The people of the State of Nevada declare that it is the policy of this State that electricity markets be open and competitive so that all electricity customers are afforded meaningful choices among different providers, and that economic and regulatory burdens be minimized in order to promote competition and choices in the electric energy market. This Act shall be liberally construed to achieve this purpose.

2. Rights of Electric Energy

Effective upon the dates set forth in subsection 3, every person, business, association of persons or businesses, state agency, political subdivision of the State of Nevada, or any other entity in Nevada has the right to choose the provider of its electric utility service, including hut not limited to, selecting providers from a competitive retail electric market, or by producing electricity for themselves or in association with others, and shall not be forced to purchase energy from one provider. Nothing herein shall be construed as limiting such persons' or entities' rights to sell, trade or otherwise dispose of electricity.

3. Implementation

(a) Not later than July 1, 2023, the Legislature shall provide by law for provisions consistent with this Act to establish an open, competitive retail electric energy market, to ensure that protections are established that entitle customers to safe, reliable, and competitively priced electricity, including, but nor limited to, provisions that reduce costs to customers, protect against service disconnections and unfair practices, and prohibit the grant of monopolies and exclusive franchises for the generation of electricity. The Legislature need not provide for the deregulation of or distribution of electricity in Order to establish a competitive market consistent with this Act.

(b) Upon enactment of any law by the Legislature pursuant to this Act before July 1, 2023, and not later than that date, any laws, regulations, regulatory orders or other provisions which conflict with this Act will be void. However, the Legislature may enact legislation consistent with this act that provides for an open electric energy market in part or in whole before July I, 2023.

(c) Nothing herein shall be construed to invalidate Nevada 's public policies on renewable energy, energy efficiency and environmental protection or limit the Legislature's ability to impose such policies on participants in a competitive electricity market.

4. Severability

Should any part of this Act he declared invalid, or the application thereof to any person, thing or is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions or application of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable. This subsection shall be construed broadly to preserve and effectuate the declared purpose of this Act.

Fiscal notes

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal note was as follows:

“ FINANCIAL IMPACT – CANNOT BE DETERMINED OVERVIEW Question 3 proposes to amend Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution by adding a new section requiring the Nevada Legislature to provide by law for an open, competitive retail electric energy market no later than July 1, 2023. To ensure that protections are established that entitle customers to safe, reliable, and competitively priced electricity, the law must also include, but is not limited to, provisions that reduce costs to customers, protect against service disconnections and unfair practices, and prohibit the grant of monopolies and exclusive franchises for the generation of electricity. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF QUESTION 3 If approved by the voters at the 2016 and 2018 General Elections, Question 3 will require the Legislature and Governor to approve legislation creating an open, competitive retail electric energy market between the effective date (November 27, 2018) and July 1, 2023. The Fiscal Analysis Division cannot predict when the Legislature and Governor will enact legislation that complies with the Initiative, nor can it predict how the constitutional provisions proposed within the Initiative will be implemented or which state or local government agencies will be tasked with implementing and administering any laws relating to an open, competitive retail electric energy market. Thus, the financial impact relating to the administration of the Initiative by potentially affected state and local government entities cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty. Under current law, state and local governments, including school districts, may receive revenue from taxes and fees imposed upon certain public utilities operating within the jurisdiction of that government entity, based on the gross revenue or net profits received by the public utility within that jurisdiction. The Fiscal Analysis Division cannot determine what effect, if any, the open, competitive retail electric energy market created by the Legislature and Governor may have on the consumption of electricity in Nevada, the price of electricity that is sold by these public utilities, or the gross revenue or net profits received by these public utilities. Thus, the potential effect, if any, upon revenue received by those government entities cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty. Additionally, because the Fiscal Analysis Division cannot predict whether enactment of Question 3 will result in any specific changes in the price of electricity or the consumption of electricity by state and local government entities, the potential expenditure effects on those government entities cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty. Prepared by the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau – August 12, 2016 ”

Support

Nevadans for Affordable Clean, Energy Choices led the campaign in support of Question 3.

Contributors: Switch LTD, Las Vegas Sands Corporation, and MGM Resorts International

Arguments:

• Question 3 would lower electricity prices by making them subject to market competition, rather than a government agency. States with deregulated markets save consumers, on average, nearly 20 percent.
• Question 3 would allow the state and consumers to take advantage of new energy technologies.
• Question 3 would provide more access to renewable energy.

Supporters

Officials

• Sen. Harry Reid (D)

Organizations

• Carson Valley Chamber of Commerce
• Clean Energy Project
• Nevada Conservation League

Businesses

• Faiss Foley Warren
• Go Solar Electrical & LED Services
• The Griffin Company
• Las Vegas Sands Corporation
• Message Global
• MGM Resorts
• Nevada Data Mining
• Patagonia
• SolarCity
• Sun Solar Electric
• Switch
• Tesla Motors
• TriPower Media
• Walmart
• Winnemucca Farms
• Wolfgang Puck Dining

Individuals

• John Hanger, former head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
• Jon Wellinghoff, former Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and chief policy officer at SolarCity
• Andy Wirth, President and CEO of Squaw Valley Ski Holdings, LLC

Arguments

Nevadans for Affordable Clean, Energy Choices answered the question "Why is energy choice good for Nevada?" with the following:

“

While energy technology has vastly improved in recent years, Nevada laws have not kept pace with innovation. The absence of a competitive energy market in the Silver State has denied Nevadans the freedom to lower their electricity costs, adopt clean energy, and even threatens the pursuit of innovation. Nearly one-third of Americans already have the ability to choose their electricity suppliers and several states have successfully transitioned to open energy markets. Data from states with energy choice shows lower electricity costs across all sectors – residential, commercial, and industrial – with a nearly 20 percent cost savings for consumers. Nevada law currently authorizes a single utility to provide electric service to customers. The utility is owned by investors and provides service to Nevadans under a legal monopoly.

”

John Hanger, former head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, provided Pennsylvania's market deregulation as an example of deregulation's benefits. He said:

“

After 20 years of allowing customers to choose their generation supplier and competitive power markets with appropriate oversight, customers in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh regions are paying much less for power generation than they were in 1996. In real or inflation-adjusted dollars, those residential customers are paying about 50 percent less. And Pennsylvania’s statewide average electricity price is at the national average as opposed to well above it.

”

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D), a supporter of Question 3, argued:

“

... Nevadans are poised to gut energy monopolies’ rigid power grabs and directly participate in the clean energy economy. Voting “yes” on energy choice will represent a seismic shift for America and the world — a momentous example of how the people can take down an outdated, special interest monopoly and choose the future they want for their state and their country.

”

Jon Wellinghoff, chief policy officer at SolarCity and former chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, responded to criticism of the measure, saying:

“

Fearmongering surrounding the potential for market manipulation should also be put to bed. In the wake of the Western energy crisis of the 1990s, Congress voted to give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) far-reaching power to better oversee the energy market, protect consumers from fraud and other misconduct, and deliver stiff fines for wrongdoing. The agency’s budget has also been expanded to provide for teams of lawyers, economists and investigators that monitor our power markets on a daily basis. As a result, manipulative market behavior of the type seen during the crisis is no longer a legitimate threat. ... If passed by Nevada voters, Question 3 will set the state on a trajectory to be an example for the 21st century energy grid. Question 3 provides for the possibility of a neutral grid operator and fair and well-regulated competition that produces lower prices, more green energy options and advances in energy technology with the power to change the way we live. The measure is an important step forward that creates a foundation for Nevada’s green grid of the 21st century. I urge you to look into the facts and vote yes on Question 3.

”

Official arguments

Matt Griffin and Lucas Foletta of Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices wrote the official argument in support of Question 3 found in the Nevada voter guide:

“ Vote YES on Question 3, the Energy Choice Initiative. Nevada has some of the highest electricity rates in the West. In addition, as ratepayers, we are limited in the types of renewable energy we can purchase because most of us are forced to buy energy from a monopoly. Many businesses, including those who would relocate here and create new jobs, want more renewable energy. The problems with the current energy policy are: The electricity rates we pay are largely dictated by the Public Utilities Commission, not the free market. And those rates provide for a guaranteed return (profit) for the utility company. There is a legal monopoly in most of Nevada’s electricity market and the rates charged to customers are not subject to pressure from competition. Without an open market, it is difficult for Nevadans to take advantage of new technologies in energy generation. Nevada residents and businesses often cannot choose the specific type of electricity they want—that fueled by renewable resources. Question 3 is a constitutional amendment that would create a right for Nevadans to purchase energy from an open electricity market. Residents and businesses will be allowed to purchase electricity from a provider of their choice. A YES vote on Question 3 means you support: Eliminating the monopoly on retail power sales. Creating a new marketplace where customers and energy providers come together. Preserving the utility, whether it’s NV Energy or another utility, as the operator of the electric distribution grid. Protecting consumers by requiring the Nevada Legislature to enact laws that entitle Nevadans to safe, reliable, and competitively priced electricity that protects against service disconnections and unfair practices. Paying rates for electricity that are set by an open and competitive market, not an appointed government agency. Allowing energy providers to offer electricity from any source – including renewable sources– without needing the approval of the Commission. Keeping Nevada’s renewable energy portfolio standard in place, along with Nevada’s other renewable policies. Allowing the Commission to continue to regulate Nevada’s electricity market, but instead of regulating a single provider, they regulate the competitive market. Many people believe that competition in the electricity market drives prices down and provides more resource options for residents and businesses. To date, 24 states have passed legislation or regulatory orders that will allow some level of retail competition. It’s time for Nevadans to have a choice. Vote YES on Question 3. ”

Opposition

No Handouts to Billionaires led the campaign in opposition to Question 3.

Contributors: IBEW 1245 and Nevada AFL-CIO

Arguments:

• Question 3 would benefit billionaires who do not want to pay their share to maintain electricity production.
• Question 3 would increase energy prices for consumers and make rates unpredictable in the long-term. Deregulation increased prices in California.
• Question 3 would cost jobs at NV Energy.
• Question 3 does not belong in the Nevada Constitution.

IBEW 1245, the largest donor to the opposition campaign, represents about 600 workers at NV Energy.

Opponents

• Controller Ron Knecht (R)
• Nevada State AFL-CIO
• Culinary Local 226

Arguments

No Handouts to Billionaires, the campaign opposing Question 3, argued:

“

Question 3 would deregulate Nevada’s electric utility system, removing all limits on what providers could charge. Customers would have to buy their power on the open market and energy prices could go sky high. 1. Question 3 is just another handout to billionaires at our expense. Q3 is backed almost entirely by billionaires who would rather change the state Constitution than pay their fair share for electricity. It’s time to stop handing out funds to the people who need it least, and start investing in middle class kids and families. 2. Texas, New York, California and other states have tried similar plans with disastrous results. In California, market manipulation led to an 800 percent increase in electricity prices in just eight months – and to skyrocketing utility bills, rolling blackouts, and the Enron scandal. It cost ratepayers 45 billion dollars to fix. Prices have gone up in every state that tried deregulating, and Question 3 would create the same mess in Nevada. 3. Question 3 could lead to an immediate and severe increase in electrical rates for residential customers. It hurts everyone – but especially poor Nevadans and rural families by doing away with protections that currently guarantee their service.

”

No Handouts to Billionaires’ advertisement, titled “Dark.”

Tom Dalzell, IBEW 1245 business manager, argued:

“

The secretive backers of this measure want voters to believe it’s about ‘energy choices,’ but in reality, it would help a handful of ultra-wealthy casino moguls get even richer, at the expense of Nevada’s working families. If enacted, this sort of policy would inevitably result in significant layoffs at NV Energy, and could open the door to large-scale Enron-style deregulation of the energy industry in Nevada.

”

State Controller Ron Knecht (R) said that while he agreed with the amendment's intentions to deregulate the energy market, the amendment did "not belong in the state constitution." He elaborated:

“

Constitutions should be limited to fundamental matters of government organization, the rights of citizens, and specifying and limiting the powers of government, etc. Under Nevada’s constitution, the legislature already has the power to do all the good things this measure would require. However, particular provisions of this measure may be found defective or in need of change. As long as such reforms are done legislatively, they can be remedied timely by the legislature. That’s not the case if they are enshrined in the constitution.

”

Official arguments

Bradley Schrager wrote the official argument against Question 3 found in the Nevada voter guide. Schrager's argument was as follows:

“ Deregulation of the energy market means a loss of control by Nevada’s citizens. We allowed the airlines to be deregulated, and today air travel is a nightmare. We allowed the banking system to be deregulated, and the housing and financial crisis followed. It was deregulation of energy markets in California that allowed the Enron disaster. In fact, Nevadans considered deregulating the energy market in the 1990s, but the rolling blackouts and power shortages of the Enron crisis taught us that deregulation was too risky. We should not forget those lessons now, and this initiative should be defeated. In state after state over the last three decades, proponents of deregulation across the country have promised that “energy choice” would mean lower costs, but the results have been ever higher prices for energy, charged by private companies outside the control of state agencies. In deregulated New York, residential customers wound up paying energy costs 70% above the national average. In Texas, retail consumers pay fifteen percent higher electricity bills after deregulation than before it. And in Connecticut, customers of deregulated energy providers saw uncontrollable price jumps with little or no warning, increases the state was unable to stop or limit. Even this initiative’s proponents agree that Nevada will no longer be able to set or secure any certain price or rate structure, and therefore will not be able guard against the same thing happening here. Deregulation of the energy market was supposed to offer consumer choice and better pricing and services, but it did not, and there is no way to guarantee it will provide any benefit at all to Nevadans. Currently, Nevada’s utility companies are regulated by the state, which approves or rejects any changes to rates and ensures that utilities cannot gouge Nevada customers. Recent studies show that Nevada consumers enjoyed the second-lowest rates of energy price increase in the country, largely due to the prudent management of the market by public agencies. By contrast, U.S. Department of Energy data shows that electricity prices have risen more steeply in states with energy deregulation programs similar to that proposed by this initiative than in those without. Nevada’s energy is too important of a public resource to permit the unpredictable and uncontrollable cost increases that this market deregulation initiative would threaten. We should vote “No” on this very flawed ballot measure, and ensure Nevadans can maintain control over the state’s energy market. ”

Neutral

NV Energy, the public utilities firm controlling 90 percent of the state's energy market in 2016, remained neutral on Question 3. However, NV Energy did issue a document, titled "Nevada’s Energy Future: Key Principles," to foster discussion about Question 3 and Nevada's energy future. Paul Caudill, President and CEO of NV Energy, stated, "We hope this document can be used as a guide as we continue to work directly with a number of key stakeholders and leaders on this issue." The document is as follows:

“ Principles 1. Customers across all segments want and value choice. Energy choice can take many forms: choice of service provider, choice in energy supply, and choice in energy programs. In the near future, choice could be improved through the development of a smarter grid that provides customers more control and greater flexibility. To the extent possible, Nevada’s energy policies should encourage and promote customer choice. 2. Customers want a cleaner energy mix. There appears to be a push across several segments of Nevada’s service population to transition away from carbon-based fuel used for generating energy to cleaner technologies. The price of universal scale solar energy has declined rapidly in the past five years. Moreover, Nevada has exceptional geothermal and solar resources. Nevada’s energy policy should encourage the development of a diverse and cost-effective supply of clean energy that draws on domestic resources when appropriate. 3. Customers want low cost reliable energy. A reliable supply of reasonably priced energy is essential to the health, welfare and economic well-being of Nevadans. Energy is a critical input to the State’s economy. Nevada’s energy policy should foster an environment that consistently and reliably provides energy to all Nevadans at reasonable prices. The move to energy choice, however defined in the future, should not result in customer price increases, when compared to the current regulated model. 4. Market restructuring must not shift costs to vulnerable populations. Energy is an essential service and more so than in other areas of the country, monthly bills in Nevada can vary dramatically with usage, leaving economically disadvantaged or vulnerable segments of Nevada’s population particularly exposed. Changes in the regulatory environment should not harm these segments of the population. 5. Market restructuring must not result in unrealized investment or stranded assets. Under the existing regulatory regime, NV Energy and its contracted suppliers have invested significant sums in Nevada and dedicated their assets to serving the public. These investments have benefitted local communities, bringing short- and longterm jobs and a solid tax base. The contracts with NV Energy’s suppliers, approved through the regulatory process, have been instrumental in the state moving to a cleaner generation portfolio, while meeting Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) legislative mandates. Investment decisions have been made by NV Energy and its suppliers based on the regulatory compact. The key tenets of the regulatory compact must be honored, and investment-backed expectations must be recognized and respected. 6. Market restructuring should seek to protect the employment of Nevadans. NV Energy and its contracted suppliers employ a significant number of Nevadans. These employees have dedicated their careers to meeting Nevada’s energy needs. More specifically, the employees are committed to providing energy safely, reliably and efficiently while delivering best-in-class service to customers. Changes in Nevada’s regulatory regime need to ensure these employees continue to be employed in the service of providing Nevada with its energy. 7. Market participants should compete on a level playing field and be subjected to the same requirements. Opening up Nevada’s energy market to competitive choice, in whatever form it takes, will make it critical to ensure that rules are in place to treat all providers equitably. To further this discussion, examples are provided below: a. If one company, provider or supplier is asked to comply with consumer protection standards in serving Nevadans, then all companies should be asked to do so. b. If one company, provider, or supplier is asked to manage a customer complaint resolution process, then all companies should have a similar process. c. If one company is asked to meet renewable portfolio or energy efficiency standards, or charge customers directly for social or public policy program costs, then all companies should do the same. 8. Broad based stakeholder involvement in any restructuring of Nevada’s energy market is fundamental to ensuring alignment around policy objectives; sufficient planning, education and execution; and to reducing uncertainty that could impact future investment of capital in the state. ”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Nevada ballot measures

As of January 16, 2017, the support campaign for Question 3 featured one ballot question committee, Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices, that received a total of $3,435,000 in cash contributions. The support campaign had spent $2,074,801.

As of January 16, 2017, one ballot question committee, No Handouts to Billionaires Committee, registered to oppose Question 3. The committee had received $910,000 and spent $897,521.

According to reports through January 16, 2017, the top donor in support of Question 3, Las Vegas Sands Corporation, provided approximately 56 percent of the campaign's total funds. The casino firm contributed $1,925,000. The top donor in opposition was IBEW 1245, which provided $800,000 or 88 percent of the campaign's total funds.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$3,435,000.00	$0.00	$3,435,000.00	$2,074,800.54	$2,074,800.54
Oppose	$910,000.00	$0.00	$910,000.00	$897,520.58	$897,520.58
Total	$4,345,000.00	$0.00	$4,345,000.00	$2,972,321.12	$2,972,321.12

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Question 3
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices	$3,435,000.00	$0.00	$3,435,000.00	$2,074,800.54	$2,074,800.54
Total	$3,435,000.00	$0.00	$3,435,000.00	$2,074,800.54	$2,074,800.54

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Las Vegas Sands Corp	$1,925,000.00	$0.00	$1,925,000.00
Switch LTD	$1,500,000.00	$0.00	$1,500,000.00
MGM Resorts International	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to Question 3
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No Handouts to Billionaires Committee	$910,000.00	$0.00	$910,000.00	$897,520.58	$897,520.58
Total	$910,000.00	$0.00	$910,000.00	$897,520.58	$897,520.58

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
IBEW 1245	$800,000.00	$0.00	$800,000.00
Nevada State AFL-CIO	$60,000.00	$0.00	$60,000.00
IBEW Political/Legislative Affairs	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Reporting dates

Nevada ballot measure committees filed a total of five campaign finance reports in 2016. The filing dates for reports were as follows:

2016 campaign finance reporting dates
Date	Report	Period
1/15/2016	Annual Report for 2015	1/1/2015 - 12/31/2015
5/24/2016	Report #1	1/1/2016 - 5/20/2016
6/10/2016	Report #2	5/21/2016 - 6/9/2016
10/18/2016	Report #3	6/10/2016 - 10/14/2016
11/04/2016	Report #4	10/15/2016 - 11/3/2016
1/15/2017	Annual Report for 2016	1/1/2016 - 12/31/2016

Media editorials

Support

• Lahontan Valley News said: "The LVN favors passage of Question 3 because we would like to see more information on both sides disseminated to the public. Compared to Questions 1 and 2, which has received the bulk of attention, many Nevadans are not as familiar with this question, and since voters have another opportunity to cast ballots in two years, we say, “Why the rush?”

• Las Vegas Review-Journal said: "While the details would depend upon legislation that has yet to be written, the concept is sound. Choice and competition in any economic arena ultimately benefit consumers."

• Las Vegas Sun said: "The Energy Choice Initiative makes all the sense in the world and has proven to work well elsewhere. It provides Nevadans the opportunity to shop around and buy electricity on the competitive open market and to decide whether they want their electricity to be generate by the sun, wind or hot groundwater, or by natural gas or (we dread the thought) coal. The Sun endorses Question 3, the Energy Choice Initiative."

• Mesquite Local News said: "Yes, Question 3 is supported by the large corporations and casinos who would benefit from buying cheaper electricity on the open market instead of from the monopoly NV Energy owned by billionaire Warrant Buffet, but residential customers also should benefit in the long run. Data from states that have adopted energy choice reveal a nearly 20 percent cost savings for consumers."

• The Nevada Sagebrush said: "In 2015, Nevada had the fastest growing market in the nation for rooftop solar panels. According to the public radio show Marketplace, there was a new customer every 40 minutes. Business was booming and business was good. Now, though? The market is dead. Hundreds of solar company employees lost their jobs as every major solar company in the state fled to do business in our neighboring states. This is what happens when an energy utility decides to protect its monopoly."

• Reno Gazette-Journal said: "The RGJ Editorial Board supports voting yes on state ballot Question 3 to deregulate Nevada’s energy market. ... If done right, deregulation will bring generally lower rates and more choice among providers for those who want it, as well as opportunities for innovation."

Polls

See also: 2016 ballot measure polls

• In July 2016, KTNV-TV 13 Action News and Rasmussen Reports surveyed 750 likely voters. Of those surveyed, 69 percent supported Question 3.
• In August 2016, the Suffolk University Poll found support for the initiative amongst likely voters to be 70 percent.
• Suffolk University Poll surveyed 500 likely voters in late September 2016. Of the respondents surveyed, 72 percent supported the measure.
• In late September 2016, Bendixen & Amandi International found 68 percent of likely voters in support of Question 3. Of the demographic groups surveyed, 18-34 year olds and Hispanics had the most favorable view of the measure.
• In late October 2016, Bendixen & Amandi International surveyed 800 likely voters on Question 4 and found support for the measure at 61 percent. Respondents who had a positive view of Hillary Clinton (D) favored the initiative 65 to 16 percent. Respondents who had a positive view of Donald Trump (R) favored the initiative 56 to 30 percent.

Nevada Question 3 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Bendixen & Amandi International 10/20/2016 - 10/23/2016	61.0%	22.0%	16.0%	+/-3.5	800
Bendixen & Amandi International 9/27/2016 - 9/29/2016	68.0%	14.0%	18.0%	+/-3.5	800
Suffolk University Poll 9/27/2016 - 9/29/2016	72.0%	12.0%	16.0%	+/-4.4	500
Suffolk University Poll 8/15/2016 - 8/17/2016	70.0%	12.0%	18.0%	+/-4.4	500
KTNV-TV 13 Action News/Rasmussen 7/29/2016 - 7/31/2016	69.0%	11.0%	20.0%	+/-4.0	750
AVERAGES	68%	14.2%	17.6%	+/-3.96	670
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

History of NV Energy

A map NV Energy's service areas. Click on the map to enlarge.

In 2016, NV Energy provided 90 percent of the state with electrical power. The utility was estimated to serve 1.3 million customers. Some rural customers are served by electrical cooperatives and power districts instead.

Formation of NV Energy

NV Energy acquired a large share of the energy market in 1999, when Nevada Power Company merged with Sierra Pacific Power Company to form NV Energy in a $1.3 billion deal. Warren Buffett's multinational firm, Berkshire Hathaway, purchased NV Energy in 2013 for $5.6 billion. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) oversees the regulation of electrical utilities, including NV Energy, and sets retail rates in Nevada.

Senate Bill 123

In 2013, Senate Bill 123 (SB 123) was passed, requiring NV Energy to retire 800 megawatts (MW) of coal-fired electric generating plants by December 2019. SB 123 also required NV Energy to purchase, construct, or acquire 900 MW worth of production capacity, and 350 MW of the total needed to come from renewable energy siyrces. In March 2015, NV Energy started constructing a 15 MW photovoltaic solar generating facility at Nellis Air Force Base.

Value of net metering

Nevada authorized the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to allow for net metering in 1997. Net metering is a billing system in which customers who generate their own electricity, typically using solar panels, are able to sell their excess electricity back to the grid, which is an interconnected network that is used to deliver electricity. In December 2015, PUC decreased the rate at which NV Energy paid solar producers by 75 percent. NV Energy stated the old net-metering rules were harming non-solar users, and that electricity would be cheaper for all customers if it built its own solar plants. Warren Buffet said, "We do not want our million-plus customers that do not have solar to be buying solar at 10.5 cents when we could turn it out for them for 4.5 cents."

Companies leave NV Energy

On October 1, 2016, MGM Resorts International and Wynn Resorts left NV Energy to purchase electricity from private utility firms. PUC authorized the departures in exchange for $86.9 million from MGM Resorts and $15.7 million from Wynn Resorts. The Las Vegas Sands Corporation was also authorized to leave, but ultimately opted against doing so. PUC approved a request from Switch, a data-storage firm, to leave NV Energy in exchange for $27 million on December 22, 2016. The Peppermill Resort Casino in Reno, Nevada, paid PUC $3.3 million to leave NV Energy and join Western Electricity Coordinating Council on January 1, 2018.

Energy prices in Nevada

See also: Energy policy in Nevada and Electricity prices in the United States

Electricity is generated in power plants as energy sources (such as coal, petroleum and sunlight) are used to heat water. This heated water becomes steam and rotates a turbine, which creates electricity. This electricity is then transmitted to consumers via transmission lines.

The price of electricity is impacted by supply and demand. The supply of electricity is affected by fuel prices, environmental and energy regulations, power plant capacity, weather, and other factors. Demand for electricity also affects the price. Because electricity cannot be stored for very long, it must be produced and used exactly when it is needed. Thus, as demand for electricity increases, the price also increases.

Nevada paid less for electricity than Hawaii and California, but more than Oregon and Washington. Nevada ranked 17th in the nation for its electricity price of 12.46 cents per kilowatt hour. Nevada paid less for natural gas than Hawaii, California, Oregon and Washington.

Residential energy prices, January 2014
State	Electricity price (cents per kWh)	Electricity price rank	Natural gas price (dollar per cubic foot)	Natural gas price rank
Nevada	12.46	17	$9.13	25
Hawaii	37.4	1	$45.67	1
California	16.62	8	$10.7	16
Oregon	10.08	33	$10.72	15
Washington	8.58	46	$10.91	14
United States	12.35	--	$9.26	--
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration "State Profile and Energy Estimates"

Energy on the ballot

See also: Energy on the ballot

Question 3 was the first ballot measure addressing energy in Nevada state history.

Other states featured energy-related ballot measures on the 2016 ballot. Florida Amendment 1 was designed to add a section in the state constitution giving residents of Florida the right to own or lease solar energy equipment for personal use while also enacting constitutional protection for any state or local law ensuring that residents who do not produce solar energy can abstain from subsidizing its production. Florida Amendment 4 was designed to provide tax exemptions for solar power and other renewable energy equipment included in home values, commercial properties, and industrial properties for property taxes. Washington Initiative 732 was designed to impose a carbon emission tax on the sale or use of certain fossil fuels and fossil-fuel-generated electricity.

Reports and analyses

RCG Economics

RCG Economics and Dr. Alan Schlottmann, Professor of Economics at UNLV, were commissioned to “provide insights on the potential job impacts of Nevada Ballot Question 3.” The authors concluded Question 3 would create a significant number of jobs in the renewable energy sector. Without Question 3, renewable energy sector jobs would increase at a two-percent rate between 2023 and 2033. With Question 3, renewable energy sector jobs would increase at a rate between five and eight percent.

John Restrepo of RCG Economics said, "Question 3 is a tremendous way for thousands of Nevadans from a wide variety of backgrounds to better their lives. The Governor’s Office of Economic Development forecasted a loss of jobs in the clean energy sector in a 2015 report. Our analysis indicates Question 3 could not only help Nevada regain these lost jobs, but add thousands more."

The full report is available here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Nevada

Supporters needed to turn in at least 55,234 valid signatures by June 21, 2016. Supporters submitted over 100,000 signatures on June 21, 2016, to the secretary of state's office.

On July 12, 2016, the Nevada secretary of state's office qualified the measure for the ballot.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired FieldWorks, LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $405,259.96 was spent to collect the 55,234 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $7.34.

Lawsuit

Bird and Tuzzolo v. Cegavske and NACEC

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether voters can command legislative actions.
Court: Nevada First Judicial District Court
Ruling: This case was dismissed on December 29, 2016.
Plaintiff(s): Jacqueline Sue Bird and Gail Tuzzolo	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske and Nevadans for Affordable Clean Energy Choices
Plaintiff argument: Initiatives cannot command the Nevada Legislature to take specific legislative actions.	Defendant argument: The plaintiff's argument is without merit.

  Source: Nevada First Judicial District Court

Plaintiffs Jacqueline Sue Bird and Gail Tuzzolo filed litigation against Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske (R) and Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices on October 6, 2016. Tuzzolo had been associated with the Nevada AFL-CIO, an opponent of Question 3, in the past. Plaintiffs argued that Question 3 commanding the Nevada Legislature to "enact legislation providing for the establishment of an open, competitive electricity market..." is unlawful. According to plaintiffs, initiatives cannot bind the legislature's actions. Bird and Tuzzolo asked the court to strike Question 3 from the ballot.

Karen Griffin, a spokesperson for Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices, called the case "a desperate, political stunt to block the right of Nevadans to vote on their own economic freedom." She added, "This lawsuit is without merit, filed months past the statutory deadline, and an obvious attempt to distract from the fact that Question 3 will provide Nevadans with expanded electricity choice, lower prices, thousands of new green technology jobs, and technology innovation."

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Nevada 2016 Energy Question 3. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Nevada Legislature to Minimize Regulations on the Energy Market and Eliminate Legal Energy Monopolies, Question 3 (2016) - Google News

Related measures

Energy measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Washington	Washington Modifying Tax Exemption Criteria for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Advisory Vote 15 d
Florida	Florida Property Tax Exemptions for Renewable Energy Equipment, Amendment 4 a

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• Nevada 2016 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Nevada
• Energy policy in Nevada

External links

Basic information

• Nevada Question 3
• Nevada 2016 Ballot Questions Voter Guide

Support

• Nevadans for Affordable Clean Energy Choices
• Nevadans for Affordable Clean Energy Choices Facebook
• Nevadans for Affordable Clean Energy Choices Twitter

Opposition

• No Handouts to Billionaires
• No Handouts to Billionaires Facebook
• No Handouts to Billionaires Twitter

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox