Nevada Solar Rate Restoration Veto Referendum, Question 5 (2016)
| Nevada Solar Rate Restoration Veto Referendum, Question 5 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Energy | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Referendum | Origin Citizens |
| Not on Ballot |
|---|
 |
| This measure was not put on an election ballot |
The Nevada Solar Rate Restoration Veto Referendum, Question 5 was not on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Nevada as a veto referendum. After the Nevada secretary of state's office certified the measure on July 12, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court removed it from the ballot on August 4, 2016, citing biased language in the signature petition's description.[1]
| A "yes" vote would have been a vote in favor of retaining the section of Senate Bill 374 that established a fixed fee for solar customers that differed from the fixed fee for other ratepayers. |
| A "no" vote would have been a vote in favor of repealing the section of Senate Bill 374 that established a fixed fee for solar customers that differed from the fixed fee for other ratepayers. |
The measure would have been on the ballot as Question 5.
In December 2015, state utility regulators raised a fixed fee for solar customers over the following four years. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission also reduced the value of solar credits that could be earned by producing excess solar electricity. The process by which this is measured is known as net metering.[2]
Overview
In December 2015, the Nevada legislature decided to move away from net metering, which is an energy subsidy for individuals who create private solar energy.[3] If individuals create more energy than is consumed, these users are compensated for the net positive energy on the grid.
Nevada was one of the first states to offer incentives to individuals to purchase solar panels, and, in 1998, the state began planning for a "renewable portfolio standard," which mandated that by 2025 the state must get 25 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources.[3]
Increasingly, Nevadans bought and installed solar panels, taking advantage of the net metering subsidy. A Public Utilities Commission study reported that energy rates for non-solar customers were allegedly inflated, because they were bearing the costs for solar incentives.[3]
The commission's report led to the state beginning to phase out net metering: first by raising rates for solar customers and reducing the value of solar credits earned by creating excess energy.[3]
Text of measure
Full text
The full text of the measure can be found here.
Fiscal impact
The fiscal impact statement of the measure, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau's Fiscal Analysis Division on February 9, 2016, was as follows:[4]
| “ | The Referendum on Certain Provisions Related to Net Metering Set Forth in 2015 Statutes of Nevada, Chapter 379 petition (Referendum) proposes to seek voter approval or disapproval of the provisions related to net metering in Senate Bill 374 of the 2015 Legislative Session, which was approved by the Legislature on June 1, 2015, and signed by the Governor on June 5, 2015.
Pursuant to Article 19, Section 1 of the Nevada Constitution, a referendum proposing to approve or disapprove any statute or resolution, or part thereof, enacted by the Legislature is to be submitted to the voters at the next succeeding election at which the question may be voted on by the registered voters of the entire state. If the majority of the voters approve the statute or resolution, it shall stand as the law of the state and may not be amended, annulled, repealed, set aside, suspended, or in any way made inoperative without a direct vote of the people. If the majority of the voters reject the statute or resolution, it becomes void and has no effect, effective upon the canvass of the votes by the Nevada Supreme Court. Pursuant to NRS 295.045, the question that would be placed on the ballot regarding approval or disapproval of the provisions related to net metering in Senate Bill 374 of the 2015 Legislative Session would require the voter to decide whether he or she approves of the provisions related to net metering. The Referendum would appear on the 2016 General Election ballot on November 8, 2016, if it qualifies for submission, and the result of the ballot question would become effective on November 22, 2016, pursuant to NRS 293.395, upon the canvass of the votes by the Nevada Supreme Court. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE INITIATIVE If a majority of the voters approve the provisions of the Referendum, the provisions relating to net metering as approved in Senate Bill 374 would remain in effect, and the Referendum would result in no financial impact upon state or local government. If a majority of the voters disapprove of the provisions of the Referendum, the provisions relating to net metering as approved in Senate Bill 374 would be repealed, effective November 22, 2016. The Governor’s Office of Energy and the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada have indicated that the repeal of these provisions would result in no financial impact relating to the administration of the provisions of the Referendum. 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 approval or disapproval of the Referendum 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 the Referendum would 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.[5] |
” |
Support
The campaign in support of the measure was a political action committee called No Solar Tax PAC.[6]
Supporters
- SolarCity[2]
- Great Basin Solar Coalition[2]
- former Nevada Gov. Bob List (R)[2]
- Bring Back Solar Alliance[7]
- Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)[8]
Arguments in favor
Gov. List said in a statement:[2]
| “ | This referendum is about jobs, consumer choice and Nevada's future. This alliance represents the people of Nevada, who overwhelmingly support bringing our rooftop solar back to the state ... The Public Utilities Commission's rules have been taxing on the rooftop solar industry and have already cost the state nearly 1,000 jobs in less than a month, with more job losses likely on the way.[5] | ” |
Battle Born Progress, a nonprofit progress group, said in a statement:[9]
| “ | NV Energy is using bad math and scare tactics to try to keep customers from going solar, all in the interest to maintain its monopoly hold on power. ... You can bet it’s only accounting for the costs and none of the benefits of more homegrown solar energy in Nevada.[5] | ” |
Opposition
Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness television ad in opposition. |
Opponents
Arguments against
The Public Utilities Commission argued that solar users do not pay their fair share for the grid and avoid paying the fixed costs of electricity provision.
Nicole Willis-Grimes, spokeswoman for Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness, said,[9]
| “ | If the big rooftop solar companies get what they want, it would really hurt low income families and punish those Nevadans who do not have solar panels. ... It’s patently unfair to require people to pay for something they don’t get a direct benefit from.[5] | ” |
Legal challenge
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the use of a veto referendum; veto referendums are only allowed to be used to reject whole pieces of legislation | |
| Court: Filed in Carson City District Court, appealed to Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Both courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness | Defendant(s): No Solar Tax PAC |
| Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs argued that the referendum sought only to reject portions of a bill and that the Nevada Constitution requires veto referendums to only be used to reject entire pieces of legislation. They also argued that the language used to describe the measure during signature collection was misleading. | Defendant argument: Defendants contested the court's interpretation of the initiative and referendum provisions of the Nevada Constitution. |
Source: Nevada Supreme Court
James Cavilia, a Carson City attorney, filed a legal challenge on behalf of Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness on February 15, 2016, asking the Carson City District Court to reject the referendum petition on grounds that the petition seeks to reject only certain sections of a bill rather than its entirety. The challenge makes two arguments. First, because Section 1, Article 19 of the Nevada constitution gives voters the power to approve or disapprove whole pieces of legislation through veto referendum, the petition thus must go through the initiative process, which would have to go through the 2017 legislature and potentially appear on the 2018 ballot. Second, the description of effect, a summary that tells potential signers the possible effect of the measure, is ambiguous and misleading.[7]
A Carson City judge ruled on March 28, 2016, that this referendum was actually an initiative and therefore did not appear on the ballot in November. District Judge James Russell said that the proposed measure sought to delete only parts of a bill and amend it. The No Solar Tax political action committee appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court and continued to collect signatures in the hopes that the ruling would be overturned by the June deadline.[10]
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled on August 4, 2016, that the description on the signature petition was "inaccurate," "misleading," and "argumentative," misleading signers.[11] The court therefore struck Question 5 from the November 8, 2016, ballot.[11]
Path to the ballot
Supporters needed to collect 55,234 valid signatures by June 21, 2016 to qualify the measure for the ballot. Supporters submitted over 115,000 signatures on June 21, 2016, to the secretary of state's office.[12][13] A district judge ruled, however, that the proposed referendum actually acts as an initiative and will need to resolve the legal challenge to appear on the ballot, regardless of the validity of the signatures.
After the Nevada secretary of state's office certified the measure on July 12, 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court removed it from the ballot, citing biased language in the petition's description.[1][11]
State profile
| Demographic data for Nevada | ||
|---|---|---|
| Nevada | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 2,883,758 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 109,781 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 69% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 8.4% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 7.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 1.1% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.6% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.4% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 27.5% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 85.1% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 23% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $51,847 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 17.8% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Nevada. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in Nevada
Nevada voted for the Democratic candidate in four out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
More Nevada coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Nevada
- United States congressional delegations from Nevada
- Public policy in Nevada
- Endorsers in Nevada
- Nevada fact checks
- More...
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Review Journal, "3 new petitions approved for Nov. 8 ballot in Nevada," July 12, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Las Vegas Sun, "Ballot measure would restore old rooftop solar rates," January 25, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Fortune, "The other side of the firestorm in Nevada," April 12, 2016
- ↑ Nevada Secretary of State, "Financial Impact Statement," accessed February 17, 2016
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Nevada Secretary of State, "State of Nevada Committee for Political Action (PAC) Registration Form," accessed February 17, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Attorney argues referendum petition on net metering should be rejected," February 17, 2016
- ↑ KUNR, "Reid backs proposed measure to diversify power delivery," February 18, 2016
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Nevada’s rooftop solar battle heats up with referendum," April 18, 2016
- ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Judge rules rooftop solar measure doesn’t qualify as referendum," March 28, 2016
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 The Gazette, "Nevada court rejects rooftop solar power rate ballot measure," August 4, 2016
- ↑ Daily Journal, "Three groups proposing Nevada ballot measures have submitted signatures that could qualify them for the November election," June 21, 2016
- ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Solar coalition submits double the number of signatures needed to get referendum on ballot," June 21, 2016
 |
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 |
