Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Nevada Question 3, Changes to Energy Market and Prohibit State-Sanctioned Electric-Generation Monopolies Amendment (2018)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nevada Question 3
Flag of Nevada.png
Election date
November 6, 2018
Topic
Energy
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
Constitutional amendment		Origin
Citizens

Nevada Question 3, the Changes to Energy Market and Prohibit State-Sanctioned Electric-Generation Monopolies Amendment, was on the ballot in Nevada as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. Sponsors of Question 3 called the measure the Energy Choice Initiative.[1] The measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to:
  • require the state legislature to pass laws to establish “an open, competitive retail electric energy market,” prohibit the state from granting electrical-generation monopolies, and protect “against service disconnections and unfair practices" and
  • declare that persons, businesses, and political subdivisions have a “right to choose the provider of its electric utility service” and cannot be forced to purchase electricity from one provider.
A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment to:
  • require the state legislature to pass laws to establish “an open, competitive retail electric energy market,” prohibit the state from granting electrical-generation monopolies, and protect “against service disconnections and unfair practices" and
  • declare that persons, businesses, and political subdivisions have a “right to choose the provider of its electric utility service” and cannot be forced to purchase electricity from one provider.

In Nevada, initiated constitutional amendments need to be approved at two successive general elections. Question 3 was on the ballot in 2016, when voters approved the ballot initiative. Question 3 needed to be approved again on November 6, 2018, to become part of the Nevada Constitution. As Question 3 was approved in 2016, but rejected in 2018, the measure did not become part of the Nevada Constitution.

Election results

Nevada Question 3

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 316,951 32.95%

Defeated No

644,843 67.05%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Overview

What would Question 3 have changed?

Question 3 was an initiated constitutional amendment that would have declared that Nevada’s “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.”[2]

The ballot initiative itself would not have changed the structure of the state’s electric-power retail market. Rather, Question 3 would have declared that the state’s policy is to establish an open and competitive market for electric-power; provide persons, businesses, and political subdivisions with the rights to choose providers on a competitive retail electric market and to produce electricity for themselves; and require the Nevada State Legislature to pass laws to implement Question 3, including the elimination of state-sanctioned electric-generation monopolies.[2]

Question 3 would have required the Nevada State Legislature to pass laws no later than July 1, 2023, that do the following:[2]

(a) “establish an open, competitive retail electric energy market;”
(b) “ensure that protections are established that entitle customers to safe, reliable, and competitively priced electricity;”
(c) “protect against service disconnections and unfair practices;” and
(d) “prohibit the grant of monopolies and exclusive franchises for the generation of electricity.”

The ballot measure would have allowed for the state government to continue giving companies control of service areas for the distribution of electric power (via transmission lines), but not the generation of electric power.[2]

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Question 3?

Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices led the campaign in support of Question 3. The committee had raised $33.43 million. The largest contributors to the support committee were the data-storage firm Switch and the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, which Sheldon Adelson founded and chaired. Switch provided $10.90 million and Las Vegas Sands provided $21.87 million to the campaign. In 2016, when Question 3 was first on the ballot, Switch and Las Vegas Sands were also the campaign’s top-two funders.

The Coalition to Defeat Question 3 organized as a PAC to oppose the ballot initiative in 2018. The PAC was not active in 2016. The Coalition to Defeat Question 3 had raised $63.96 million, with 98.7 percent of the campaign's funds coming from NV Energy. As of 2018, Berkshire Hathaway, which Warren Buffett chaired, was the parent firm of NV Energy. In 2016, the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers (IBEW) provided 93 percent of a different opposition PAC’s $910,000 in funds. IBEW, in the form of two locals, was a labor union that represented NV Energy’s physical and clerical workers.

What other ballot measures were related to energy policies in 2018?

In 2018, voters in Arizona, Nevada, and Washington decided ballot initiatives designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable resources. In Arizona and Nevada, the environmental organization NextGen Climate Action was financing ballot initiatives, Arizona Proposition 127 and Nevada Question 6, to require electric utilities to acquire 50 percent of their power from renewable sources. Arizona Proposition 127 was defeated, and Nevada Question 6 was approved, which means it goes on to the 2020 ballot where it must be approved again. In Washington, electors rejected Initiative 1631, which would have enacted a fee on carbon emissions from power plants, refineries, and other specified emitters.[3]

Voters in Nevada considered a ballot initiative, Question 3, to eliminate electricity monopolies and require a competitive energy market. Question 3 was rejected. Although Question 3 would not have directly affected the use of renewable resources in Nevada, supporters and opponents of the initiative campaigned on the issue of Question 3's effect on the use of renewable resources, contending that deregulation would either increase or decrease the use of renewable resources.[4]

Below are the most notable energy-related measures of 2018. For a full list, click here.

Measure Description Status
Arizona Proposition 127 Requiring electric utilities in Arizona to acquire 50 percent of electricity from renewable resources by 2020
Defeatedd
Nevada Question 3 Requiring “an open, competitive retail electric energy market” and prohibiting state-sanctioned electrical-generation monopolies
Defeatedd
Nevada Question 6 Requiring electric utilities to acquire 50 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2030.
Approveda
Washington Initiative 1631 Enacting a carbon emissions fee with revenue going to fund environmental programs and projects
Defeatedd


Text of measure

Ballot title

The question on the ballot was as follows:[5]

“ 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?[6] ”

Ballot summary

The ballot explanation was as follows:[5]

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.

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, Nevada Constitution

The measure would have added a new section to Article I of the Nevada Constitution. The following text would have been added:[2]

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

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 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. 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.[6]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The secretary of state[7] wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 25, and the FRE is -10. The word count for the ballot title is 41, and the estimated reading time is 10 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 21, and the FRE is 9. The word count for the ballot summary is 372, and the estimated reading time is 1 minute and 39 seconds.

In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Nevada Yes on 3 2018 logo.png

Nevadans for Affordable Clean, Energy Choices, also known as Yes on 3, led the campaign in support of Question 3.[8] Matt Griffin, a lobbyist for The Griffin Company, was the author of Question 3 and chairperson of Yes on 3.[9]

Supporters

Officials

Former officials

Organizations

  • Clean Energy Project[12]
  • Las Vegas Urban League[13]
  • Nevada Resort Association[14]
  • Retail Energy Supply Association[15]

Businesses

Labor organizations

  • Clark County Education Association[17]

Individuals

  • John Hanger, former head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection[18]
  • Jon Wellinghoff, former Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and chief policy officer at SolarCity [19]

Arguments

Official arguments

Nevadans for Affordable Clean, Energy Choices submitted the following argument with the state for inclusion in the official voter guide:[5]

“

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.[6]

”

Additional arguments

  • Former U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D) said, "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."[20]
  • Scot Rutledge, former Executive Director of the Nevada Conservation League, said, "If you’re talking about corporatization, that exists today. It’s NV Energy, a billionaire monopoly. We’re saying, allow competition. Let’s not forget it was NV Energy that killed rooftop solar. That affected small businesses. ... NV Energy only like renewable if they control it. The option of 100 percent renewable is possible in a competitive market."[21]
  • Jon Wellinghoff, chief policy officer at SolarCity and former chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, responded to criticism of Question 3, 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."[22]

Opposition

No on 3 Nevada 2018 logo.png

The Coalition to Defeat Question 3 led the campaign in oppposition to Question 3.[23] No Handouts to Billionaires, a political action committee, led the campaign in opposition to the measure in 2016.

Opponents

Officials

Former officials

  • Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa (D)[23]
  • Commissioner Bruce Woodbury (R), Clark County[23]

Municipalities

Organizations

  • AARP Nevada[27]
  • Fernley Chamber of Commerce[27]
  • Carson City Chamber of Commerce[30]
  • Geothermal Resources Council[27]
  • Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce[27]
  • Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce[27]
  • Latin Chamber of Commerce - Nevada[27]
  • Mi Familia Vota[27]
  • Natural Resources Defense Council[27]
  • Nevada Alliance for Retired Americans[27]
  • Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers[27]
  • Nevada Cattlemen's Association[27]
  • Nevada Farm Bureau[27]
  • Nevada Mining Association[31]
  • Nevada Veterans Association[27]
  • Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada[27]
  • Reno Sparks Chamber of Commerce[32]
  • Sierra Club, Nevada Chapter[33]
  • Southwest Energy Efficiency Project[27]
  • Urban Chamber of Commerce - Nevada[27]
  • Western Resource Advocates[27]
  • White Pine Chamber of Commerce[27]

Businesses

  • Harney Electric Cooperative, Inc.[27]
  • Mt. Wheeler Power, Inc.[27]
  • NV Energy[23]
  • Raft River Rural Electric Co-op[27]
  • Wells Rural Electric Company[27]

Labor organizations

  • AFSCME Local 4041[27]
  • Culinary Workers Union Local 226[34]
  • Education Support Employees Association[27]
  • International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 720[27]
  • International Association of Fire Fighters Local 731[27]
  • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 357[27]
  • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 396[27]
  • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 401[27]
  • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245[35][36]
  • National Education Association – Southern Nevada[27]
  • Nevada State AFL-CIO[37]
  • Nevada State Association of Electrical Workers[27]
  • Nevada State Education Association[38]
  • Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada[27]
  • Reno Firefighters Association[27]
  • SEIU Nevada Local 1107[27]
  • Southern Nevada Central Labor Council[27]
  • Teamsters Local 631[27]
  • Washoe Education Association[27]
  • Washoe Education Support Professionals[27]

Arguments

Official arguments

The Coalition to Defeat Question 3 submitted the following argument with the state for inclusion in the official voter guide:[5]

“

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 to 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.[6]

”

Additional arguments

  • Tom Dalzell, IBEW 1245 business manager, stated, "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."[39]
  • Anne Macquarie, chairperson of the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter, said, "If Question 3 passes, it will upend the clean energy progress we’re making here in Nevada. Right now, NV Energy has big plans for new solar infrastructure, and the rooftop solar market is quickly recovering, but that may all change. The uncertainty of a deregulated market threatens all of Nevada’s clean energy momentum, and that’s bad for jobs, it’s bad for public health, and it’s bad for clean air and water."[33]
  • Nevada Controller Ron Knecht (R) said he agreed with the initiative's policies, but that such policies did not belong in the state constitution. He said, "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."[25]


Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Nevada ballot measures
Total campaign contributions:
Support: $33,432,598.21
Opposition: $63,960,356.43

One political action committee, Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices, registered in support of Question 3. The committee had raised $33.43 million and expended $21.89 million. The top contributor to the committee was the Las Vegas Sands Corpation, which donated $21.87 million.[40]

One political action committee registered to oppose the ballot measure—the Coalition to Defeat Question 3. The committee had raised $63.69 million and expended $63.77 million. The top contributor to the committee was NV Energy, which provided 98.7 percent of the committee's total funds.[41][42]

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of Question 3.[43]

Committees in support of Question 3
Supporting committeesCash contributionsIn-kind servicesCash expenditures
Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices$33,132,177.58$300,420.63$21,592,820.13
Total$33,132,177.58$300,420.63$21,592,820.13
Totals in support
Total raised:$33,432,598.21
Total spent:$21,893,240.76
Donors

The following were the top six donors who contributed to the support committee:[43]

Donor Cash In-kind Total
Las Vegas Sands Corporation $21,872,077.58 $2,100.00 $21,874,177.58
Switch $10,900,000.00 $0.00 $10,900,000.00
NRG Energy Inc. $0.00 $298,320.63 $298,320.63
Energy Choice Nevada $235,100.00 $0.00 $235,100.00
Valley Electric Association, Inc. $50,000.00 $0.00 $50,000.00
Valley Electric Transmission Association, LLC $50,000.00 $0.00 $50,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to Question 3.[43]

Committees in opposition to Question 3
Opposing committeesCash contributionsIn-kind servicesCash expenditures
Coalition to Defeat Question 3$62,745,988.00$1,214,368.43$62,553,359.01
Total$62,745,988.00$1,214,368.43$62,553,359.01
Totals in opposition
Total raised:$63,960,356.43
Total spent:$63,767,727.44
Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the opposition committee:[43]

Donor Cash In-kind Total
NV Energy $62,283,988.00 $833,967.21 $63,117,955.21
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 $300,000.00 $0.00 $300,000.00
Nevadans for Reliable, Renewable and Affordable Energy $150,000.00 $0.00 $150,000.00
Working People Rising $0.00 $44,585.93 $44,585.93
IBEW PAC $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00

2016 campaign finance

See also: Nevada Question 3 (2016) campaign finance

Question 3 was also on the ballot in 2016. For Question 3 of 2016, a combined total of $4.35 million was raised between supporters and opponents. The support committee, Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices, raised $3.44 million. The opposition committee, No Handouts to Billionaires Committee, received $910,000. The top contributor to the support committee was the Las Vegas Sands Corporation. The top contributor to the opposition committee was the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245.

Reporting dates

In Nevada, ballot measure committees filed a total of five campaign finance reports in 2018. The filing dates for reports were as follows:[44]

Methodology

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

Polls

See also: 2018 ballot measure polls
Nevada Question 3 (2018)
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of errorSample size
Suffolk University
July 24, 2018 - July 29, 2018		 31.0%46.0%22.0%+/-4.4600
The Mellman Group
April 12, 2018 - April 19, 2018		 54.0%16.0%30.0%+/-4.0600
AVERAGES 42.5% 31% 26% +/-4.2 600
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

Nevada Question 3 (2016)

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

In Nevada, an initiated constitutional amendment, such as Question 3, needs to be approved at two successive general elections. Question 3 was on the general election ballot in 2016. The ballot initiative was approved, with 72.36 percent voting to pass Question 3.

Nevada Question 3 (2016)
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 783,185 72.36%
No299,18327.64%

A total of $4.35 million was raised for or against Proposition 3. The PAC in support of Question 3, Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices, raised $3.44 million and spent $2.07 in 2016. A PAC called No Handouts to Billionaires Committee formed to oppose Question 3, raising $910,000 and spending $897,521. NV Energy was neutral on Question 3 in 2016.

Governor’s Committee on Energy Choice

On February 9, 2017, Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) issued an executive order to establish the Governor’s Committee on Energy Choice (GCEC). Gov. Sandoval said, "This Committee will help prepare us for the complicated changes that lay ahead if Nevadans approve energy choice. It will include members of the Legislature, major customers, organized labor, renewable energy experts, senior citizens representatives, and others. I will ask that they prepare a transition plan enabling us to enter the new markets by 2023." The GCEC was tasked with identifying "legal, policy, and procedural issues that need to be resolved, and to offer suggestions and proposals for legislative, regulatory, and executive actions that need to be taken for the effective and efficient implementation of [Question 3]." The GCEC, per the original executive order, dissolved on July 1, 2018.[45][46]

Members

The membership of the 25-seat committee was announced on April 3, 2017 (membership decreased to 24, however, after one member resigned). Lt. Gov. Mark Hutchison (R) served as chairperson of the GCEC. Dana Bennett, president of the Nevada Mining Association, served as vice-chairperson. Gov. Sandoval named the following individuals to the GCEC:[47]

Click [show] on the right-hand side of the table below for a list of members and their affiliations.

Report

The GCEC released findings and recommendations to the governor's office on July 1, 2018.[48]

Market structures by state

As of 2018, 18 states and D.C. had electric-power retail markets that permitted at least some consumers to purchase electricity from competitive retail suppliers. Most of the states (11 of 18) that allowed competitive retail markets were located in the Mid-Atlantic and New England. West of the Mississippi River, California, Oregon, and Texas allowed competitive retail markets for at least some consumers.[49][50]

NV Energy

A map NV Energy's service areas as of 2017. Click on the map to enlarge.

As of 2018, NV Energy was the largest supplier of electricity in Nevada. NV Energy had 1.25 million electric customers and provided about 90 percent of the state's population with electric power. The firm's workforce was 2,461 employees in May 2017.[51][52][53]

In 1999, NV Energy resulted from the merger of two utilities in Nevada—the Nevada Power Company and the Sierra Pacific Power Company.[54] In 2013, Berkshire Hathaway, chaired by Warren Buffett, purchased NV Energy.[55]

Exiting utility service areas

In 2001, the Nevada State Legislature passed AB 661, which Gov. Kenny Guinn (R) signed, that made multiple changes to the state's energy policies, including adding a provision that allowed companies with 1 megawatt of average load to file an application to exit from the utility responsible for their service area and procure power from a different source. AB 661 required companies that wanted to exit to pay an impact fee to offset rate increases for other customers and the compensate the utility for changes that needed to be made.[56][57]

Between 2015 and 2018, 10 companies filed applications to leave the service area of NV Energy. Seven were firms that operated casinos, including Las Vegas-based MGM Resorts International, Las Vegas Sands Corporation, and Wynn Resorts. Las Vegas Sands Corporation opted against leaving due to the $23.8 million exit fee, with a lawyer for the firm calling the fee amount exorbitant and unjustified.[58]

Companies that filed to leave NV Energy, 2015 - 2018
Firm Application date Impact (exit) fee
Las Vegas Sands Corporation[59] May 8, 2015 $23.8 million
Wynn Resorts[59] May 8, 2015 $15.7 million
MGM Resorts International[59] May 12, 2015 $86.9 million
Switch[59] September 30, 2016 $27.0 million
Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC[59] November 23, 2016 $47.5 million
Peppermill Resort Spa Casino[59] May 15, 2017 $3.3 million
Fulcrum Sierra BioFuels[59] June 6, 2018 $0.0 million[60]
Station Casinos[59] June 6, 2018 $14.9 million[60]
Atlantis Casino Resort Spa[59] August 13, 2018 (determination in progress)
LV Stadium Events Company, LLC[59] September 7, 2018 (determination in progress)

Reports and analyses

To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please review the reports and analyses editorial.

Click on the arrows (▼) below for the executive summaries or findings sections of analyses of Question 3.

RCG Economics

RCG Economics

Released October 2016

Nevadans for Affordable Clean, Energy Choices commissioned RCG Economics and Dr. Alan Schlottmann to “provide insights on the potential job impacts of Nevada Ballot Question 3.” The authors concluded the measure would increase the rate of job creation in the renewable energy sector. The report said that Question 3 would increase the number of renewable energy jobs between five and eight percent, whereas the rate would increase by two percent without Question 3, between 2023 and 2033. The following is a list of findings from the report's conclusion:[61]

“
  • The impetus for [Question 3] is related to the national movement on electrical sector restructuring with an emphasis on the clean energy sector. Historically, an open market approach that reduces barriers to entry in heavily regulated sectors does appear to increase investment across a variety of measures.
  • It needs to be recognized that [Question 3], while it does not remove uncertainty that Nevada is committed to an open market structure, is consistent with existing Nevada initiatives in economic development and workforce investments. This includes both the selection of clean energy as a key industry for Nevada and its workforce development sector councils.
  • As late as 2015, given the uncertainties over clean energy, such as solar, forecasts for Nevada’s clean energy sector were unfortunately negative. If [Question 3] settles the uncertainty over public policy, then it is reasonable to expect that Nevada, with its well-recognized advantages in clean energy, will, at minimum, track national growth trend forecasts for the industry.
  • Even using conservative national forecasts, the major finding of this report is that the direct and indirect effects of [Question 3] would create significant future job growth for both the clean energy sector and Nevada. Jobs in the clean energy sector could basically double over the forecast period with additional significant increases in other new Nevada jobs. In addition, the construction models for solar presented in the report provide evidence of truly significant employment during the construction phase.[6]
 ”

The full report is available here.

Guinn Center

Guinn Center

Released July 2018

The The Kenny Guinn Center for Policy Priorities, also known as the Guinn Center, is a Nevada-based political research nonprofit. The following text is the findings section of the report:[62]

“

The combination of technological advances (e.g., demand side management, distributed generation), policy and regulatory actions, and the belief that choice would lead to lower electricity costs, led several states to consider restructuring their electricity markets in the mid-1990s and through the early 2000s. To date, 22 states restructured their markets (i.e., energy choice for residential, commercial, and industrial customers), and two states are considering it. Seven states later repealed it (at least, in part), and two to four are currently considering ways to repeal it. We reviewed the experiences of other states, and our conclusions are presented below.

Rate Behavior

  • Most studies that evaluate rate behavior use data from the U.S. Energy information Agency (EIA) data. However, electricity rates reflect different inputs including fuel prices, weather, and regulatory costs, among others. As such, comparisons of energy prices over time and across states are challenging, if not impossible. In fact, EIA stated explicitly that its data should not be used for these purposes, describing it as a “proxy” that “does not capture the statewide variation in price determinants” and that any such methodology would result in an “apples-to-oranges” comparison, leading to biased results. Accordingly, we cannot make a conclusive determination as to whether restructuring, all else equal, contributes to rate increases or rate decreases.
  • Research suggests that a restructured electricity market may lead to either increases or decreases in electric rates. Evidence reveals the experiences of other restructured states have been uneven; some customers benefit from energy choice, while others encounter adverse effects.
  • In a restructured market with energy choice, the wholesale price of natural gas is the most important determinant of customer electricity rates. While wholesale electric costs influence electric rates in both traditionally regulated markets and restructured markets, consumers are exposed more directly to changes and volatility in commodity pricing under restructured markets. When natural gas prices are low, consumers in restructured states—by virtue of their increased exposure to the wholesale market—realize benefits from lower fuel costs. But when they rise, consumers may pay higher electricity bills. Other issues that could influence rates include stranded costs and participation in an organized wholesale market.
  • Under current Nevada law, the monopoly utility (NV Energy) cannot profit from fuel and purchased power costs. However, in energy choice states, the state utility regulatory body does not retain its authority over pricing, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) does not have authority over sales at retail. Under energy choice, the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada likely would no longer be able to able to intervene to protect consumers against higher rates, as that likely would undermine the intent of the initiative petition, which requires that the Nevada Legislature establish “an open, competitive retail electric energy market.”
  • With the exception of Maine, all states that pursued restructuring (energy choice) implemented some form of rate caps, rate freezes, and/or rate reductions to stabilize markets, protect consumers, and smooth the transition to a fully competitive market.
  • Market design efforts used by states to stabilize markets also complicates efforts to evaluate rate behavior after states adopted energy choice: (1) most of the research that showed a link between restructuring and decreased electric rates was published prior to the expiration of rate caps, and to the extent that prices were found to be lower in restructured areas, these results may be skewed by the depressive effects of rate caps, freezes, and reductions; and (2) many states confronted simultaneous expirations in rate caps, freezes, and reductions—when prices became aligned more closely with wholesale costs—and volatility in those very same wholesale electric costs in electricity markets, which either exacerbated the problem or helped mitigate it.
  • In short, wholesale electric prices and market design (i.e., rate caps, freezes, and reductions) influence rate behavior, and the effects are amplified in restructured (“energy choice”) markets. In some restructured states, competition has not flourished for residential customers as originally intended, and/or many residential customers have experienced electric rate price spikes resulting from the expiration of rate caps and fluctuations in wholesale market energy prices.

Renewable Energy

  • Question 3 does not explicitly require that Nevada integrate more renewables onto the grid. Research indicates there is no correlation between restructuring (“energy choice”) electricity markets and increased renewables. The type of retail market model in a given state matters less than policy choices, such as a state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). (Note that voters will consider Question 6 in the 2018 General Election, which seeks to increase the state’s RPS from 25 percent by 2025 to 50 percent by 2030.)
  • Under a restructured market, the independent system operator (ISO) manages the organized wholesale markets and the auction process. If Question 3 passes, the choice of organized wholesale market/ISO Nevada joins could influence whether Nevada consumes more renewable energy, as the fuel portfolios differ considerably across the proposed markets.
  • A related point addresses the issue of net metering, which credits solar energy system owners for the electricity they add to the grid. At present, it is not clear what will happen to net metering customers in Nevada if Question 3 passes. Central to this issue are questions of existing law, the obligations of the incumbent utility (e.g., NV Energy), and the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada’s (PUCN) authority under energy or retail electric choice. In 2017, Assembly Bill (AB) 405 was enacted, which established a rate structure for net metering customers. It is not clear that approval of Question 3 would invalidate this preexisting statutory authority. But, if Question 3 passes, NV Energy likely would no longer be involved in the generation of electricity and would not provide retail rates. However, if the measure passes, the Legislature or PUCN, in theory, could enforce net metering rules on a new competitive supplier that wants to participate in the market.
  • Increased renewable energy (solar) generation assets may come online regardless of whether Question 3 passes in November 2018.

Consumer Impact

  • Irrespective of market structure, the procurement of electricity has different impacts across ratepayer classes. Large commercial and industrial (C&I) customers tend to enjoy lower rates, relative to their residential and small commercial counterparts, under both vertically integrated utilities and energy (retail electric) choice.
  • Consumers in states with restructured markets have experienced mixed results. Residential and small commercial consumers, who typically are unfamiliar with the energy choice structure, may be disadvantaged under restructured markets in the absence of strong consumer protection regulations. Across multiple states, many consumers have been enticed by low teaser rates offered by electric suppliers to sign up for variable-rate electricity contracts, but were unaware that their bills could increase at any time, and often did, as market conditions changed.
  • The most common consumer complaints are: (1) unknown fees; (2) poor customer service; (3) meter reading; (4) slamming and cramming ("Cramming is the illegal act of placing misleading charges on your bill that you did not agree to. Slamming is the process of switching your energy service to another provider without your permission[.]”); (5) switch hold rules, or the inability to switch retail providers until a back bill is paid in full; and (6) fluctuating prices.

Implementation

  • Experience suggests that implementation of a restructured market has not followed a simple, straightforward path (e.g., restructuring the Pennsylvania market was a “16-year process”).
  • Many states that restructured had to enact multiple pieces of legislation and/or issue regulatory orders to address the unanticipated outcomes and unintended consequences of restructuring; in 2006, Michigan’s Public Service Commission, for example, had to issue 40 regulatory orders to “further establish and implement the framework” for its energy choice program. Many implementation hurdles required an expanded role for the government.
  • Question 3: The Energy Choice Initiative seeks to restructure Nevada’s electricity market through an amendment to the Nevada Constitution. In contrast, all other states, with the exception of one, did so through legislation; New York restructured its electricity market through a regulatory order issued by its Public Service Commission.
  • The Nevada Legislature allows investor-owned utilities in Nevada to be monopolies, granting the utility exclusive franchise over a designated service territory. This suggests that, historically, electric utility service has been understood as a policy/regulatory issue, not a constitutional one.
  • Using the Nevada Constitution as a regulatory tool forces the Nevada Legislature to proceed with restructuring. Even if legislators find that restructuring is infeasible, the constitutional imperative takes precedence. Should Nevadans become concerned about the prospects of restructuring, they would have to repeal the constitutional amendment with another constitutional amendment. This would entail circulation of a new petition to obtain the requisite number of signatures to appear on the ballot and then passage in two successive elections.

Conclusion

  • In other states that adopted energy choice and restructured their electricity markets, decisionmakers subsequently had to intervene to stabilize markets and protect consumers, facilitate competition, and establish new or revise existing regulatory frameworks.
  • The experiences of other states suggest that restructuring is a complex and prolonged process that will take time, and only after retail electric choice is realized fully would Nevadans be able to determine if restructuring was the “right" path.[6]
 ”

The full report is available here.

Public Utilities Commission of Nevada

Public Utilities Commission of Nevada

Released April 2018

The Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUC) issued a report on Question 3. The following text is from the report's central findings section:[63]

“
  • Nevadans currently enjoy some of the lowest average electricity rates in the country, and Nevada is a leader in solar and renewable energy development, as well as job and business growth.
  • The Energy Choice Initiative is reasonably likely to increase the average monthly electric bills of Nevadans, at least the in the short term, i.e., the first 10 years. These cost increases will potentially diminish over the years as Nevada's new open-market paradigm becomes established, Nevada's economy and population grows, and the transition costs are paid off.
  • Large commercial customers will likely see more immediate benefits from the Energy Choice Initiative due to the elimination of an alleged residential subsidy and reduced impact fees relating to NRS Chapter 704B.
  • Ambiguous language within the Energy Choice Initiative makes it difficult to discern its full legal meaning and scope, and purported objectives of the measure appear to be in conflict with each other.
  • No state has ever deregulated its energy market or made energy policy by amending its state constitution, which make the implications of the Energy Choice Initiative relatively permanent and unique to Nevada.
  • Plain language of the Energy Choice Initiative removes the authority of the PUCN and, subsequently, the Nevada State Legislature to control the generation component of a bundled electricity rate. This will cause new exposure for Nevada ratepayers to market volatility and profit-driven ratemaking practices. It may also bring theoretical benefits of open market competition to Nevada.
  • The Energy Choice Initiative will likely require in excess of 100 million dollars in new startup costs and, thereafter, over 45 million dollars in new annual operation and maintenance costs.
  • NV Energy will likely be forced to divest its generating assets and assign its long-term power purchase contracts to new owners. Nevada ratepayers will remain liable for any financial losses incurred by NV Energy from these stranded costs, which could foreseeably exceed several billion dollars. While these stranded costs will not be new to Nevada ratepayers, they will offset any possible benefits from an open and competitive market created by the Energy Choice Initiative.
  • At least 400 union electrical employees are likely to lose their jobs, and hundreds more may be negatively affected by the Energy Choice Initiative. The Energy Choice Initiative will also likely create new jobs for Nevadans, but what those jobs will be remains speculative and unestablished.
  • Net Energy Metering (NEM)/rooftop solar laws and policies recently enacted through Assembly Bill 405, as well as other energy programs, will likely be negatively affected by the Energy Choice Initiative.
  • The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) appears the most viable option for Nevada to participate in an organized wholesale market. Yet, this option has challenges, due to the need for bi-state legislation and changes to CAISO' s governance structure to ensure Nevada's interests are represented.
  • It remains an open question as to who will serve as a provider of last resort (POLR) for NV Energy's former Nevada customers in a retail market. This remains an area of concern given Nevada's diverse geography and population demographics.
  • The Energy Choice Initiative can be implemented by July 1, 2023. But it will require an immediate and unprecedented commitment by Nevadans of financial, legislative, and legal resources.[6]
 ”

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.[64][65]

On July 12, 2016, the Nevada secretary of state's office qualified the measure for the ballot.[66]

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.

Related measures

Energy measures on the ballot in 2018
StateMeasures
WashingtonWashington Advisory Vote 19, Non-Binding Question on Oil Spill Tax Repeal Defeatedd
ArizonaArizona Proposition 127: Renewable Energy Standards Initiative Defeatedd
NevadaNevada Question 6: Renewable Energy Standards Initiative Approveda
WashingtonWashington Initiative 1631, Carbon Emissions Fee Measure Defeatedd
CaliforniaCalifornia Proposition 70: Vote Requirement to Use Cap-and-Trade Revenue Amendment Defeatedd

See also

External links

Information

Support

Opposition

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Nevada 2018 Energy Market Initiative. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Nevada Question 3, Changes to Energy Market and Prohibit State-Sanctioned Electric-Generation Monopolies Amendment (2018) - Google News

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Nevada Secretary of State, "Initiative Petition," accessed February 5, 2016
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Nevada Secretary of State, "The Energy Choice Initiative," accessed September 8, 2016
  3. ↑ The Atlantic, "Will Washington State Voters Make History on Climate Change?" August 15, 2018
  4. ↑ Nevada Current, "What Question 3 and Question 6 say about renewable energy," August 23, 2018
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 State of Nevada, "2018 Ballot Questions," accessed September 21, 2018
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  7. ↑ The secretary of state writes the ballot language in consultation with the attorney general.
  8. ↑ Nevadans for Affordable Clean Energy Choices, "Homepage," accessed October 9, 2016
  9. ↑ The Nevada Independent, "In fight over renewable energy standards, some lobbyists represent both sides," May 21, 2018
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 The Nevada Independent, "Top Republican candidates line up behind Question 3, extol Nevada's low-tax 'exceptionalism' at forum," August 29, 2018
  11. ↑ KUNR, "Reid backs proposed measure to diversify power delivery," February 18, 2016
  12. ↑ 12.00 12.01 12.02 12.03 12.04 12.05 12.06 12.07 12.08 12.09 12.10 12.11 12.12 12.13 12.14 Nevadans for Affordable Clean Energy Choices, "About," accessed September 20, 2018
  13. ↑ Nevada Current, "Environmental groups praise NV Energy but are mixed on Question 3," September 20, 2018
  14. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Nevada Resort Association backs Energy Choice Initiative, Question 3," August 24, 2018
  15. ↑ The Virginian-Pilot, "Retail Energy Supply Association (RESA) Calls on Nevadans to Vote YES on 3," September 24, 2018
  16. ↑ VegasINC, "Tesla, Switch backing effort to end NV Energy monopoly," March 25, 2016
  17. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Teachers union embraces Question 3 to give consumers choices regarding energy providers," September 1, 2018
  18. ↑ Las Vegas Sun, "Electricity competition worked for them," October 26, 2016
  19. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Ballot measure would free energy consumers," October 22, 2016
  20. ↑ Think Progress, "Nevada voters can choose a clean energy revolution," November 4, 2016
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Nevada Current, "What Question 3 and Question 6 say about renewable energy," August 23, 2018
  22. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Ballot measure would free energy consumers," October 22, 2016
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 The Nevada Independent, "New group could spend unprecedented $30 million against energy deregulation ballot question," February 5, 2018
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 The Nevada Independent, "Sisolak, Giunchigliani both say they'll oppose retail choice ballot question after voting for it in 2016," April 17, 2018
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Elko Daily Free Press, "Commentary: Three state ballot measures we oppose," October 27, 2016
  26. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Campaign 2018: Nevada Rep. Titus against energy choice measure," July 23, 2018
  27. ↑ 27.00 27.01 27.02 27.03 27.04 27.05 27.06 27.07 27.08 27.09 27.10 27.11 27.12 27.13 27.14 27.15 27.16 27.17 27.18 27.19 27.20 27.21 27.22 27.23 27.24 27.25 27.26 27.27 27.28 27.29 27.30 27.31 27.32 27.33 27.34 27.35 27.36 27.37 27.38 27.39 27.40 Coalition to Defeat Question 3, "About Us," accessed September 21, 2018
  28. ↑ Lincoln County Record, "Commissioners Support ‘No’ on Measure 3," August 22, 2018
  29. ↑ Carson Now, "Lyon County Commissioners vote unanimously to support no vote on Question 3," September 7, 2018
  30. ↑ Nevada Appeal, "Carson City Chamber urges ‘no’ vote on Question 3," September 29, 2018
  31. ↑ Elko Daily Free Press, "NvMA opposes Ballot Question 3," August 21, 2018
  32. ↑ Elko Daily Free Press, "Reno chamber comes out against Question 3, for flood control tax increase," October 4, 2018
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Sierra Club, other groups oppose Nevada energy measure," July 26, 2018
  34. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Culinary union urging members to vote against Question 3," October 12, 2016
  35. ↑ IBEW 1245, "IBEW 1245 at NV Energy," accessed October 27, 2016
  36. ↑ IBEW 1245, "No Handouts to Billionaires — Vote NO on Question 3," October 4, 2016
  37. ↑ Las Vegas Sun, "Union opposes NV Energy breakup, Reid backs it, and utility claims to be neutral," August 17, 2016
  38. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Nevada teachers union opposes energy choice measure," September 6, 2018
  39. ↑ IBEW 1245, "Proposed Ballot Measure Could Open the Door to Energy Deregulation & Job Loss in Nevada," February 6, 2016
  40. ↑ Nevada Secretary of State, "Nevadans for Affordable, Clean Energy Choices," accessed February 6, 2018
  41. ↑ Nevada Secretary of State, "Coalition to Defeat Question 3," accessed February 6, 2018
  42. ↑ Nevada Secretary of State, "No Handouts to Billionaires Committee," accessed February 6, 2018
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 43.2 43.3 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named supportfin
  44. ↑ Nevada Secretary of State, "2018 Reporting Dates," accessed September 20, 2018
  45. ↑ Nevada Governor, "Executive Order 2017-03," accessed February 20, 2017
  46. ↑ Energy Manager Today, "Nevada Governor Forms Committee on Energy Choice," February 20, 2017
  47. ↑ Nevada Governor, "Governor Sandoval Announces Committee on Energy Choice Membership," April 3, 2017
  48. ↑ Nevada Governor, "Report of Findings and Recommendations to the Governor," July 1, 2018
  49. ↑ American Coalition of Competitive Energy Suppliers, "State-by-State Information," accessed September 24, 2018
  50. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "State electric retail choice programs are popular with commercial and industrial customers," May 14, 2012
  51. ↑ Wall Street Journal, “Nevada Voters Weigh Deregulation of Electricity Market,” October 18, 2016
  52. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Initiative proposes breaking up NV Energy monopoly," February 4, 2016
  53. ↑ Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, "Public Utilities and Energy," April 2016
  54. ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Nevada Power, Sierra Pacific Plan Merger Deal of at Least $1 Billion," May 1, 1998
  55. ↑ Power Magazine, "NV Energy: Warren Buffett’s Plan for a Structural Power Shift," September 1, 2015
  56. ↑ Nevada State Legislature, "AB661 (2001)," accessed September 22, 2018
  57. ↑ Vox, "This Nevada company wanted to break up with its electric utility. The government said no," June 12, 2015
  58. ↑ Las Vegas Sun, "MGM Resorts, Wynn planning to leave NV Energy," May 20, 2018
  59. ↑ 59.0 59.1 59.2 59.3 59.4 59.5 59.6 59.7 59.8 59.9 Nevada Public Utilities Commission, "Docket," accessed September 21, 2018
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 The Nevada Independent, "PUC offers split decision: Station Casinos must pay $15 million to escape NV Energy, new biofuels company off the hook," November 1, 2018
  61. ↑ RCG Economics, "Job Analysis & Forecast: Yes on Question 3," October 20, 2016
  62. ↑ Guinn Center, "Restructuring the Electricity Market in Nevada?" accessed October 8, 2018
  63. ↑ Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, "Energy Choice Initiative Final Report," accessed October 8, 2018
  64. ↑ Daily Journal, "Three groups proposing Nevada ballot measures have submitted signatures that could qualify them for the November election," June 21, 2016
  65. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Solar coalition submits double the number of signatures needed to get referendum on ballot," June 21, 2016
  66. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "3 new petitions approved for Nov. 8 ballot in Nevada," July 12, 2016
v • e
2016 ballot measures
I&R States
Non I&R States
Political topics
Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay
Other
Flag of Nevada
v • e
State of Nevada
Carson City (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nevada_Question_3,_Changes_to_Energy_Market_and_Prohibit_State-Sanctioned_Electric-Generation_Monopolies_Amendment_(2018)&oldid=10223414"