The PUC’S antichoice manifesto
Governor’s panel should reject report
Imagine if the Clark County School District launched a campaign to promote a tax-hike initiative intended to raise money for education. Or if the Las Vegas Valley Water District sent out mailers urging voters to support a ballot question seeking to bump the sales tax to pay for additional infrastructure.
Either instance would be wholly inappropriate. Government entities have no business using tax money for political advocacy. Unfortunately, that principle is clearly lost on members of the Public Utilities Commission.
On Monday, the PUC voted to adopt a draft report that purports to examine the ramifications of the Energy Choice Initiative, a referendum known as Question 3 that passed with 72 percent of the vote in 2016. The 109-page document, put together by PUC Chairman Joe Reynolds, is a thinly veiled campaign manifesto that predicts all manner of disaster if Nevadans are one day free to choose their own electricity provider.
Question 3 would amend the state constitution, so voters must sanction it again this November for the proposal to become law. Faced with having to turn a large portion of the electorate, proponents of preserving the current monopoly system have found an ally in Mr. Reynolds and the PUC, whose authority would almost certainly be diminished under a reconfigured energy landscape.
Mr. Reynolds compiled his report at the behest of the Governor’s Committee on Energy Choice, a 25-member board empanelled to formulate recommendations for implementing Question 3. But rather than produce an even-handed examination of the issues inherent in making a transition to a competitive marketplace, the PUC chair assembled a policy paper that runs interference for the entrenched status quo.
As the three-member PUC discussed the issue this week, Commissioner Bruce Breslow asked the board’s general counsel if voting to adopt the report would violate any ethics laws. He got the response he was looking for. But here’s a good rule of thumb: If you have to ask whether something is ethical, it most likely isn’t.
Robust debate over public policy greases the engine of democracy. Supporters and opponents of Question 3 will no doubt aggressively make their points to voters as November nears. But it’s patently improper for a public regulatory body — under its official imprimatur — to attempt to sway the discussion.
The governor’s committee will take up the report at its May 9 meeting. Members should vote to reject the document and its severely slanted conclusions.
The views expressed above are those of the Las Vegas Review-journal. All other opinions expressed on the Opinion and Commentary pages are those of the individual artist or author indicated.
The Review-journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 275 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-journal.
Email letters@reviewjournal.com Mail Letters to the Editor
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125
Fax 702-383-4676 union?
Don’t give people automatic raises just for showing up. I have seen the detrimental effects of this. The public has no idea how civil servants play the system.
And then you have civil servants who don’t work on the jobs they were hired for, but instead get paid by the public entity while working for the union. Anyone have a problem with that? You should.
Do we really want Democrats to control the Nevada Legislature and Governor’s Mansion? That would surely turn us into exactly that.
We do not want to be California. California residents come to Nevada to get away from all that, and yet they continue to vote Democrat. Let’s make Nevada a red state.