►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
E
F
G
A
A
A
H
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
to
the
committee.
As
for
hearing
the
bill,
especially
the
members
who
have
just
come
over
from
another
hearing,
I
appreciate
your
hard
work
once
again.
Thank
you,
sharon
and
committee
members.
This
is
leslie
cohen,
representing
assembly
district
29,
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
present
as
assembly
bill
380,
which
is
creating
responsible
energy
planning
process
with
me.
Today
are
kyle
davis,
with
the
nevada
conservation
league
and
dylan
sullivan
from
the
natural
resources
defense
council.
H
Nevada's,
clean
energy
transformation
has
already
begun
during
the
80th
session,
this
body
unanimously
passed
the
50
renewable
portfolio
standard
and
the
and
governor
sisalak
released
a
bold
state
climate
strategy
just
a
few
months
ago,
but
this
transition
is
not
limited
to
our
government.
We
also
see
it
in
our
economy,
where
more
than
33
000
nevadans
work
in
clean
energy,
a
sector
that
has
seen
a
40
employment
growth
since
2017.
H
In
short,
this
bill
would
require
nevada
and
nevada's
gas
utilities
to
demonstrate
that
future
spending
on
the
gas
system
makes
economic
and
environmental
sense.
That's
it,
contrary
to
what
some
have
said
about
this
bill,
it's
never
been
about
banning
gas
or
forcing
anybody
to
replace
their
appliances.
It's
about
making
sure
we're
planning
ahead
for
the
future.
We
want.
This
planning
process
is
important
for
all
nevadans,
all
of
us
paying
utility
bills
every
month,
all
of
us
worried
about
dirty
air
and
rising
temperatures,
and
it's
especially
high
stakes
for
low-income
families.
H
If
there's
one
thing
I've
heard
from
constituents
over
the
last
year,
it's
a
sense
of
uncertainty
about
the
future.
Can
they
keep
up
with
rent
and
car
payments
after
getting
furloughed?
What
about
new
job
opportunities
coming
their
way
if
utility
bills
spike
following
a
heat
wave?
What
are
they
going
to
sacrifice
to
afford
it,
and
just
how
hot
is
it
going
to
get
this
bill?
Is
a
response
to
these
concerns?
Concerns
that
I
share.
H
We
must
find
a
way
to
keep
energy
bills
low,
while
transitioning
to
renewable
resources
that
are
better
for
our
health
and
climate.
That's
why
ab380
is
designed
to
prevent
wasteful
or
unnecessary
gas
spending
that
could
lead
to
rate
increases.
The
bill
also
includes
specific
provisions
to
protect
low-income
nevadans,
whose
choices
are
often
limited
by
their
economic
situation,
including
exploring
barriers.
These
households
face
and
upgrading
to
more
energy
efficient
appliances
that
could
significantly
reduce
their
bills.
H
After
extensive
conversations
with
the
utilities
that
would
be
involved
in
new
planning
process,
state
officials
who
would
assess
those
plans,
industry
experts
with
expertise
in
these
topics
and
clean
energy
advocates
committing
to
meeting
our
climate
goals.
We
proposed
an
amendment
to
the
bill
to
address
the
varying
perspectives
and
feedbacks
of
feedback.
Sorry,
these
conversations
are
an
essential
part
of
the
policy
making
process,
but
they're,
also
central
to
how
this
bill
works.
H
I
feel
confident
that
we
have
made
adjustments
that
maintain
the
key
purpose
of
the
goal
of
the
bill
to
set
nevada
up
for
an
affordable,
clean
energy
future,
while
creating
opportunities
for
all
stakeholders
to
weigh
in
both
in
the
policy
drafting
process
this
year
and
in
the
responsible
energy
planning
process,
we're
hoping
to
put
in
place
for
years
to
come
now.
I'll
turn
it
over
to
mr
davis
and
mr
sullivan
to
walk
you
through
the
bill
and
the
conceptual
amendment.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
For
the
record.
My
name
is
kyle
davis,
and
I
appear
today
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
conservation
league.
The
nevada
conservation
league
convenes,
a
coalition
of
over
20
environmental
organizations
from
across
the
state,
and
this
bill
is
a
top
priority
for
this
session.
D
D
I
would
now
like
to
turn
the
presentation
over
to
mr
sullivan,
a
senior
scientist
and
technical
expert
with
the
natural
resources
defense
council.
Dylan
has
worked
on
a
utility
regulation
for
more
than
a
decade
and
has
a
master's
in
civil
and
environmental
engineering
from
stanford
and
a
master
in
public
policy
from
princeton
university.
A
Thank
you,
mr
davis,
mr
sullivan,
before
you
start,
I
just
have
one
question.
This
is
assemblywoman
monroe
moreno.
There
are
two
amendments
on
nellis,
one
is
11
pages
and
the
other
is
seven
seven
pages,
which
one
will
you
be
working
off
of
or
will
you
be
utilizing
both.
I
I
I
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
providing
us
the
time
to
present
ab
380
and
the
proposed
amendment
for
consideration
today,
especially
given
all
the
other
bills
on
on
on
the
committee's
plate
this
week,
and
I
would
also
like
to
thank
the
various
stakeholders
whose
engagement
and
feedback
helped
us
develop
the
amendment
in
search
of
a
common-sense
solution
to
the
issues
that
have
been
laid
out
by
assemblywoman
cohen.
I
I
will
walk
the
committee
through
the
amendment
section
by
section
working
from
the
clean
version,
the
seven
page
version
which
was
sent
to
committee
members
and
is
available
as
an
exhibit
online,
so
I
will
start
with
sections
three
five
and
five
point
one.
These
sections
of
the
bill
establish
definitions
for
beneficial
electrification,
end-use
equipment
and
energy
efficiency.
I
I
Second,
when
gas
utilities
and
the
public
utilities
commission
of
nevada,
the
pcn
are
evaluating
a
big
new
gas
project
and
comparing
it
to
alternatives,
and
then
third,
when
the
pucn
is
considering
how
to
protect
low-income
customers
and
historically
underserved
communities
from
impacts
on
gas
bills
of
any
decline
in
gas
sales,
so
to
be
clear,
there's
no
electrification
goal
or
mandate
in
this
bill.
I
The
intent
in
this
bill
is
that
beneficial
electrification
and
energy
efficiency
are
analyzed
as
alternatives
to
a
big
gas
project,
sections
six
and
eight
of
the
bill
defined
gas
and
greenhouse
gas
as
they
are
used
throughout
the
bill.
Sections
11
and
12
define
historically
underserved
community
and
low-income
household.
I
We
worked
on
the
definition
of
historically
underserved
community
with
feedback
from
other
advocates,
and
the
committee
will
likely
be
seeing
other
legislation
this
session,
using
the
same
or
very
similar
definitions.
I
The
definition
of
historical
underserved,
community
and
and
low-income
household
is
it's
based
on
existing
federal
and
state
definitions
and
data
to
allow
for
easier
identification
of
these
communities,
and
it's
included
here
to
assist
the
utility
and
pucn
and
ensuring
that
their
decisions
are
equitable.
I
Section
15
establishes
the
policy
goals
of
the
state
which
are
referred
to
again
in
the
investigatory
docket
that
is
articulated
in
section
17
of
the
bill
in
the
introduced
version
of
the
bill.
I
This
section
section
15,
generated
significant
concern
and
differing
interpretations,
so
we
have
taken
a
different
approach
in
the
conceptual
amendment,
an
approach
that
gives
the
pucn
and
the
state
a
general
policy
direction,
which
is
to
comprehensively
plan
the
gas
system
in
a
manner
that
protects,
low-income
households
and
historically
underserved
communities
takes
into
account
workforce
impacts,
maintains
safety
and
reliability
and
reduces
emissions.
I
Section
16
of
the
bill
is
about
res
it's
about
the
resource
planning
process,
so
I
will
return
to
that
section.
When
I
talk
when
I
talk
about
the
resource
planning
process,
section
17
directs
the
ucn
to
launch
an
investigatory
docket
that
covers
the
role
of
gas
utilities
in
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
in
the
state.
How
gas
utilities
can
maintain
safety
and
reliability
if
gas
use
declines
from
customer
migration
to
electric
alternatives
and
how
to
best
meet
the
policy
goals?
I
So
one
critical
component
is
how
low
income,
households
and
historically
underserved
communities
can
be
protected
from
rate
and
bill
impacts,
as
nevadans
with
the
means
to
do
so
choose
to
go
all
electric,
because
technology
has
changed
more
and
more
people
are
going
to
move
toward
electric
heating
and
cooking
for
environmental,
health
and
economic
reasons.
I
We
see
a
similar
trend
toward
electric
vehicles
instead
of
vehicles
powered
by
gasoline,
but
the
gas
systems
costs
are
mostly
fixed
costs
once
pipe
is
laid,
it's
going
to
remain
in
place,
even
if
the
customers
it
serves,
use
less
or
no
gaps
in
the
future
so
because
fixed
costs
are
not
decreasing.
As
people
choose
to
switch
to
electricity.
I
The
likely
impact
on
gas
bills
is
upward
pressure
on
on
gas
rates
and
fixed
charges.
So
this
provision
directs
the
pucn
to
carefully
consider
this
and
carefully
consider
how
to
protect
low-income
customers.
A
couple
of
options
could
include
special
income-based
gas
rates
and
specific
programs
that
help
these
households
switch
along
with
others.
I
This
ensures
that
these
communities
are
not
left
behind
bearing
the
burden
of
of
the
fixed
costs
of
the
gas
system
and
paragraphs
a
and
b
cover
this
paragraph
c
directs
the
pucn
to
investigate
another
way
to
mitigate
the
cost
of
any
transition,
and
that
is,
there
may
be
parts
of
the
gas
distribution
system
that
are
going
to
need
to
be
replaced
soon,
but
where
it
might
be
cheaper
to
serve.
Customers
needs
with
energy
efficiency,
beneficial
electrification
and
other
alternatives.
I
I
I
This
section
adopts
the
same
basic
framework
for
gas
utilities
in
subsection
2a,
the
gas
utility
is
directed
to
do
a
demand
forecast
for
what
gas
demands
look
like
over
the
next
30
years.
There
is
a
base
case
that
reflects
the
best
guess
of
what
might
happen
to
demand
and
a
sensitivity
where
the
gas
utility
examines
what
would
happen
if
gas
demands
fall
from
beneficial
electrification
and
energy
efficiency.
I
The
sensitivity
is
important
because
it
ensures
that
the
pucn
is
considering
a
key
risk
of
building
large
new
gas
projects
right
now,
and
that
is
how
do
they
pencil
out?
If
demand
for
gas
declines
in
subsection
2b,
the
commission
is
directed
to
specify
the
types
of
investments
and
activities
that
the
utility
is
required
to
bring
forward
in
the
plan.
The
intent
here
is
for
the
commission
to
be
able
to
scrutinize
discretionary
projects,
as
opposed
to
those
necessary
for
the
day-to-day
safety
and
management
of
the
system.
I
These
day-to-day
issues
are
already
dealt
with
in
the
general
rate
case
process
and
existing
law,
which
we
don't
alter
here.
A
couple
of
examples
of
the
types
of
investments
and
activities
we
would
like
to
see
included
in
a
plan
would
be
service,
territory,
expansions
or
major
pipe
replacement
projects
that
are
not
required
for
safety,
but
the
ultimate
ultimate
list
of
the
project,
types
that
the
gas
utility
needs
to
bring
forward
in
the
plan.
I
That's
up
to
the
commission
in
the
rulemaking
process,
subsection
2c
requires
the
utility
to
describe
in
detail
these
large
discretionary
projects
it
wants
to
execute
over
the
next
six
years.
A
detailed
description
is
important
because
it
helps
the
pucn
and
stakeholders
understand
whether
a
project
is
necessary.
I
Subsection
2d
requires
the
utility
to
compare
what
they
want
to
do.
The
plan
that
they
put
together
with
alternatives
to
that
plan,
two
specific
alternatives
that
the
utility
has
to
analyze
are
called
out
and
the
commission
can
say
more
about
which
alternate
alternatives
need
to
be
analyzed
in
the
rule,
making
process
or
potentially
in
the
docket
itself.
I
Again,
these
alternatives
just
have
to
be
analyzed,
there's
nothing
that
would
require
the
commission
to
approve
these
alternative
plans,
and
this
is
something
that
electric
utilities
are
required
to
do
in
resource
planning.
To
to
analyze
alternatives
to
what
they
want
to
do,
section
2e
directs
the
utility
to
evaluate
the
costs
and
benefits
of
its
plan
and
the
alternatives.
I
The
final
section
of
the
legislation
that
I
would
like
to
call
the
committee's
attention
to
is
section
22..
This
section
repeals
statutes
enacted
in
2015,
which
unfortunately
removed
commission
discretion
over
gas
utility
service
territory
expansions
under
existing
law.
The
gas
utility
was
able
to
expand
to
spring
creek
a
community
near
elko
and
put
around
90
of
the
costs
57
million
on
northern
nevada
ratepayers
under
the
current
law.
I
The
commission
wasn't
able
to
properly
evaluate
the
expansion
and
the
bill,
and
amendment
in
front
of
the
committee
would
put
expansions
through
the
comprehensive
planning
process
in
section
19,
giving
much
needed
scrutiny.
I
So
that
concludes
my
walkthrough
of
the
bill.
I
would
also
like
to
call
the
committee's
attention
to
nrdc's
letter
of
support
for
assembly
bill
380
filed
as
as
an
exhibit,
and
I
will
now.
I
will
turn
it
back
over
to
to
someone
cohen.
H
A
F
F
One
of
the
things
I
really
appreciate
is
the
work
in
this
built
to
define
historically
underserved
communities
and
make
sure
that
they
are
factored
into
these
processes
and
and
these
planning
discussions,
I'm
excited
because
we've
been
having
this
conversation
on
a
few
different
pieces
of
legislation
this
session.
I
think
it's
overdue.
F
You
know
we've
seen
that
that
these
folks
have
been
left
behind
in
a
lot
of
policies
and
programs.
Frankly,
including
wants
to
support
the
deployment
of
solar
energy,
energy
efficiency
and
even
electric
vehicles.
So
I
it's
important
to
think
about
how
we
can
make
these
decisions
in
an
equitable
way
moving
forward.
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
speak
a
little
bit
more
to
what
you've
heard
from
people
in
these
communities
so
far
and
how
the
communities
themselves
would
be
involved
under
the
provisions
of
this
amended
bill.
H
Thank
you
for
the
question:
leslie
cohen
assembly
district
29.
I
I
have
heard
a
lot
of
concern
about
the
bill
and
I
I
think
that
there
are
concerns
generally,
that
some
of
these
climate
actions
are
going
to
force
people
who
can't
afford
it
to
to
spend
money.
Replacing
appliances-
and
you
know,
as
noted,
we've
created
incentives
and
other
programs,
and
they
sometimes
have
barriers
that
make
it
harder
for
historically
underserved
communities
to
access
them,
and-
and
this
can
be
capital
credit,
but
it
can
also
be
how
to
do
outreach
and
education.
H
You
know
languages
that
type
of
thing
and
just
letting
people
be
in
the
know.
So
the
intent
with
the
bill
is
to
get
in
front
of
this.
By
looking
specifically
at
the
ways
targeted
programs
could
address
those
impacts
and
make
sure
nobody's
left
behind,
so
the
communities
would
definitely
be
involved
and-
and
we
want
them
at
the
puc-
want
them
participating.
F
Thank
you
for
that.
I
I
appreciate
that
and
again,
since
a
lot
of
times,
we've
had
to
try
and
catch
up.
I
think
it's
it's
just
worth
noting
that
this
is
something
that
we're
trying
to
build
in
on
the
front
end,
so
we
don't
have
to
address
greater
issues
moving
forward.
I
just
want
to
express
my
appreciation
thanks,
madam
chair,
for
the
question.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
mine,
is
just
kind
of
a
follow-up
on
assemblyman
watts's
is
so
is
the
senior
citizen
population
the
those
on
fixed
incomes?
Are
they
addressed
in
this
in
this
plan?
And
you
know
there
you
you
talk
about.
You
know
the
the
maybe
the
the
lower
income
demographic
and
in
their
difficulty,
in
transforming
from
electric
to
gas
and
that
there's
certain
parameters
put
in
place
to
help
that.
But
so
maybe
you
can
discuss
in
more
detail
who's
who,
how
is
that
done?
J
How
who
picks
up
the
tab
for
that,
because
there's
obviously
there's
obviously
going
to
be
a
disparity
in
what
they
can
afford
to
do,
whether
they're,
whether
they're
a
a
low-income
demographic
or
a
senior
citizen
on
a
fixed
income?
So
if
they
can't
afford
to
do
what
they
need
to
do
to
to
convert
over
to
electric
in
their
in
their
residence
so
who,
who
picks
up
the
tab?
How
is
that?
How
is
that
done?
And
can
somebody
describe
that
in
a
little
more
detail.
H
Leslie
cohen
assembly
district
29,
so
I'm
it's
section,
12
has
the
definition
for
low-income
households,
which
is
not
more
than
80
percent
of
the
areas.
Median
income
based
on
guidelines
published
by
the
u.s
department
of
housing
and
urban
development
and
then
for
the
rest
of
your
question,
I'll,
try
to
remember
exactly
what
you
said
or
let
me
punt
it
so
that
we
can
get
this
done
quickly.
So,
mr
sullivan,
do
you
want
to
do
you
want
to
go
through
those
details.
I
I
You
know,
because
of
the
incentives
of
rate
of
return
regulation
utilities
are
going
to
want,
to
put,
you
know,
lay
pipe
and
lay
new
pipe,
and
this
bill
will
just
make
sure
that
the
new
things
that
the
gas
utility
wants
to
do
are
cost
effective.
So
the
first
big
impact
of
of
the
bill
will
be
there
on
providing
needed
scrutiny,
and
you
know
really
what
this
bill
calls
for
is
really
just
the
first
steps
of
this
transition.
I
So
it
calls
on
the
public
achilles
commission
of
nevada
to
do
an
investigatory
docket
about
how
to
do
this.
Do
this
transition
how
to
reduce
emissions
from
from
our
natural
gas
utilities
in
an
equitable
manner,
and
so
this
is.
This
is
really,
I
think,
I
think,
just
the
the
starting
point,
but
I
mentioned
some
of
the
things
that
that
that
could
be
good
programs
would
be
special
gas
rates
for
for
low-income
customers
and
specific
programs
that
that
help
customers.
I
You
know
when
they're
already
in
the
market
for
for
an
appliance
when
something
breaks
just
to
make
sure
that
the
you
know
there's
an
option
to
switch
and
that
and
that
it's
you
know
available
to
to
all
types
of
customers.
J
I
do
I'm
just
trying
to
get
some
understanding
of
it,
so
so
we're
I
mean
essentially
what
I
got
out
of
that
is:
is
we're
going
to
force
a
gas
utility
to
charge
someone
a
lower
rate
or
we're
going
to
help
someone
who
has
to
pay
a
certain
rate
whatever
it
is
in
some
way
shape
or
form
to
pay.
That
rate.
What
I
want
to
know
is:
how
do
we?
J
J
What
is
the
plan
to
supplement
that
I
mean
I
is
there,
you
know
I
I
just
I'm
trying
to
trying
to
gauge
how
that
even
works,
because
I
I
I
don't
know
that
there's
an
equitable
way
to
dictate
to
a
certain
company
that
they
need
to
charge.
Someone
less
by
regulation-
and
then
I
just
want
to
know
is,
are
are:
are
other
taxpayers
going
to
have
to
pick
up
the
tab
if
we,
if
we
supplement
their
their
gas
at
some
other
juncture,.
I
Chairman
rome
mourinho
through
you
to
assemblyman
love
it.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
question
you
could.
I
Is
dylan
sullivan
for
the
record?
It's
it
is
other
states
in
the
country
have
income
qualified
programs
for
providing
essential
utility
services.
So
this
would
not
you
know
if
the
commission
decided
that
was
a
good
idea
to
to
to
mitigate
the
the
rate
and
bill
impact.
Then
then
they
could
pursue
that
as
as,
as
other
states
have
done.
I
guess
in
terms
of
how
this
would
work.
I
think
it's
there's
a
good
analogy
to
utility
energy
efficiency
programs.
I
Where
you
know
a
utility
like
in
the
energy,
provides
incentives
for
for
customers
to
buy
down
the
cost
of
of
the
more
efficient
model
and
they
work
with
contractors
to
make
sure
that
contractors
just
know
about
the
efficient
model
and
have
it
in
stock
and
can
offer
it
at
a
good
price.
And
so
I
I
think
in
the
in
the
medium
term,
you
know
after
the
investigatory
docket
it,
the
commission
could
find
that
programs
like
this
would
be
reasonable.
I
But
again,
this
this
bill
is
is
really
is
really
the
starting
point,
and
the
big
thing
it
is
going
to
do
is
is
to
provide
added
scrutiny
on
on
on
on
gas
utility
investments
and
make
sure
that
we're
making
the
right
investments
for
the
long
term.
D
Madam
chair,
could
I
add
on
to
that.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
again,
kyle
davis
for
the
record.
Another
thing
that
I
I
think
my
colleague
makes
some
pretty
good
points
in
terms
of
programs
that
we
already
have
in
place
for
electric
utilities.
We
already
have
programs
in
place
that
that
that
provide
assistance
for
lower
income
rate
payers
for
electric
utilities.
We
already
have
programs
in
place
that
provide
those
efficiency
programs,
so
those
are
some
of
the
options
that
are
available.
D
I
think
the
most
important
thing
to
consider
here
is
that
what
we
want
to
do
is
set
up
a
process
so
that
the
so
the
public
utilities
commission
can
consider
this
in
an
open
public
process.
Where
you
know
other
groups
can
get
involved,
consumer
groups
can
give,
while
the
state
consumer
advocate
can
get
involved.
So
there's
a
so
that
there's
a
way
to
really
work
through
these.
These
types
of
programs
that
could
be
offered.
We
don't
know
right
now
in
terms
of
what
exactly
those
programs
are
going
to
work
best.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
the
bill
presentation.
I
have
a
couple
questions
that
kind
of
goes
into
what
simon
leavitt
talked
about,
and
I
understand
the
the
low
income
and
folks
on
a
fixed
income.
K
So,
obviously,
over
time
the
service
of
gas
is
is
going
to
reduce
and
so
there's
less
people
being
serviced,
and
so
those
people
that
are
stuck
or
can't
leave
or,
for
whatever
reason,
aren't
leaving
the
system
what
happens
to
to
their
bills
or
whatever,
to
to
maintain
the
system
to
still
deliver
gas.
H
Leslie
cohen
assembly
district
29-
I
am
going
to
ask
the
other
presenters
to
to
chime
in,
but
I
think
the
thing
to
remember
is
that
what
we're
talking
about
now
is
planning,
because
we
know
that
the
changes
are
coming.
We
know
like
we
use
the
example
of
electric
cars.
More
people
are
looking
at
electric
cars
just
like
that.
More
people
are
looking
at
electrification
and
you
could
have
a
situation
where
there
are
people
who
are
being
left
behind.
H
But
if
you
don't
start
to
plan
for
that,
it's
going
to
be
10
years
from
now
20
years
from
now
or
29
years
from
now,
which
is
the
number
the
state
has
been
kind
of
looking
at
for
reducing
greenhouse
gases
but
and
carbonization.
But
if
you
don't
start
to
plan
for
it,
you
can't
get
there
and
those
people
will
be
left
behind
within
all
of
a
sudden.
H
What
are
we
gonna
do
now,
but
with
that
I'll,
just
ask
mr
davis
or
mr
sullivan
if
they
want
to
provide
any
more
input
with
that.
D
Yeah,
I
can,
I
can
jump
in.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
kyle
davis,
for
the
record,
and
I
don't
really
have
much
more
to
add.
I
think
the
assemblywoman
covered
it
pretty
well.
The
fact
is,
this
is
happening
based
on
technology
based
on
policies.
You
know
this
is
the
direction
that
we're
already
moving
and,
in
fact
I
remember
that
came
up
during
the
inter
energy
committee
last
year,
where
you
know
where
the
utility
said
that
they
were
planning
for
a
future
where
people
used
less
gas.
D
We
need
to
do
that.
We
need
to
do
that
in
a
comprehensive
way,
because
this
is
going
to
continue
to
happen
because
of
technology
because
of
the
choices
that
consumers
make
and
because
of
policies
that
are
put
into
place.
So
you
know,
assuming
roberts
you're,
certainly
right
that
this
is
something
we
have
that
we
need
to
be
thinking
about,
but
it's
going
to
happen
whether
whether
we
think
about
it
or
not,
so
it
makes
sense
to
plan
for
it
on
the
front
end
and
that's
really
what
this
bill
is
all
about.
K
Well,
thank
you
follow
up.
Madam
chair
is,
is
so
I
understand
that's,
but
what's
your
anticipation
of
the
plan?
So
obviously
you
guys
are
sponsoring
this
bill.
You,
you
believe,
there's
a
need
to
the
plan
for
the
reduced
or
you
know
for
the
reduced
greenhouse
gases.
I
mean,
what
do
you
think
will
occur
at
some
point.
D
Madam
chair,
I
can
certainly
take
that
again
kyle
davis,
for
the
record
to
assemblyman
roberts.
I
think
that
the
the
important
thing
to
keep
in
mind
there
is
that
is
that
we
don't
yet
we
again
that
we
have
to
act.
You
know
we
have
to
actually
plan
for
that.
D
In
terms
of
what
that
looks
like,
I
think
mr
sullivan
talked
about
some
of
the
examples
that
could
be
put
into
place
in
terms
of
programs,
programs
that
that
could
be
put
in,
but
I
think
the
most
important
part
and
what
this
bill
is
trying
to
get
at
is
that
we
don't
exacerbate
the
problem
in
the
meantime,
knowing
that
this
is
a
thing
that
we
need
to
be
that
we
need
to
keep
in
the
back
of
our
mind
that
we
need
to
know
that
the
the
you
may
have
customers
leaving
the
system,
so
it
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
put
a
lot
of
money
into
growing
and
enhancing
that
system.
D
If
it
is
just
gonna,
be
a
bill
that
we're
gonna,
that's
gonna
come
due
in
the
future.
So,
that's
that's
really.
What
we're
talking
about
you
know
and
thinking
about
this
on
the
front
end
is
knowing
that
reality
making
sure
that
we
don't
invest
a
lot
of
money
into
a
system.
That's
that
that
is
going
to
have
fewer
people
paying
for
it
in
the
future,
so
that
we
can
manage
those
costs.
K
Thank
you
and
as
it
gets
reduced
last
follow-up,
I'm
sure.
So
these
are
the
people
that
work
on
these
gas
lines
and
and
some
of
the
infrastructure
that,
through
our
own
planning
in
the
testimony
here,
is
probably
going
to
be
cut
back
over
the
years.
What
happens
to
those
jobs?
How
do
we
mean
they're,
high-paying
union
jobs
and
what
happens
to
those?
How
do
we
retrain
those
people
so
and
so
forth?
D
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair
to
solomon
roberts,
kyle
davis,
again
for
the
record
and
again
yeah.
This
is
about
planning
for
the
future
and
it's
not
requiring
you
know
that
that
any
one
reality
coming
into
play,
but
we
should
would
anticipate
that
you
know
gas
utilities
work.
Workers
such
as
the
thousand
southwest
gas
employees
will
continue
to
maintain
the
current
system,
including
fixing
leaks
for
decades.
D
In
the
meantime,
any
beneficial
electrification
or
energy
efficiency
projects
that
are
determined
to
be
cost
effective
would
create
new
jobs.
On
top
of
this,
existing
workforce
demand
the
bill
establishes
that
it
is
the
policy
of
the
states
to
specifically
consider
the
impact
of
declining
gas
demand
on
utility
workers.
We
don't
have
all
the
answers
here,
but
what
we
want
to
see
is
cross
training
and
other
programs
to
ensure
that,
as
the
jobs
change,
workers
are
able
to
adjust,
and
that
is
called
for
in
the
legislation.
Thanks.
K
L
Thank
you
chair,
thank
you,
assemblywoman,
and
your
support
folks
for
bringing
this
this
bill.
There's
been
a
lot
of
debate
about
banning
banning
or
expanding
gas,
and
what
that
means
for
our
communities,
and
you
know
I'm
a
huge
advocate
for
ensuring
that
we
are
appropriately
investing
in
our
infrastructure
and
not
leaving
it
to
the
last
minute,
as
historically
has
been
a
trend
for
us,
but
I
also
acknowledge
that,
even
in
my
own
family,
the
decision
to
move
away
from
gas
conveniences
has
been
a
struggle.
L
We,
however,
have
been
looking
at
alternatives
and
looking
at
french
trained
chefs,
and
they
only
use
electric
gas
or
electric
stoves.
So
you
know
there
are.
There
are
dancing
alternatives
out
there.
I
do
also
want
to
say
that
I'm
grateful
that
this
bill
is
starting
to
look
at
the
data
and
asking
for
a
really
specific
feasibility
and
analysis
of
the
trends
in
gas
and
how
that
integrates
with
our
advancement
on
climate
change,
adaptation
and
planning
in
the
future.
L
I
also
know
that
there's
another
proposal
for
comprehensive
black
pipe
replacement
gas
pipe
replacement
projects
that
are
linked
to
the
discussion
of
safety.
Can
you
talk
about
how
that
proposal
is
currently
being
evaluated
and
how
that
safety
will
be
fact
would
be
currently
factored
in
their
planning
process
of
the
bill,
along
with
the
the
other,
like
feasibility
study
impacts
like
the
financial
health
concerns
and
climate
impacts.
H
Leslie
cohen
assembly,
district
29
so
I'll
again
start
and
then
throw
it
to
my
fellow
presenters
to
see
if
they
want
to
add
anything,
I
mean
I
I've.
Never,
I
don't
think
I've
ever
been
in
growth
in
infrastructure
before,
but
I'm
guessing
that
this
committee
is
very
familiar
with
puc
and
you
know
there
are
pipeline
safety,
regulators
and,
and
there
I
believe,
they're
also
here
they
can.
H
They
can
do
some
some
testimony
if
necessary,
but
yeah
we've
got
federal
laws
and
it
we've
got
that
in
existing
process
to
ensure
that
projects
are
done
for
safety
and
that
they're
carried
out
immediately
in
cases
of
emergency.
H
But
our
gas
system
is
rated
highly
for
its
safety.
Its
efficiency
and
this
bill
just
doesn't
change
it
or
the
process
for
addressing
issues
with
leaks
and
other
dangers
like
that.
So
it's
just
you
know
basically-
and
this
is
somewhat
a
follow-up
to
the
last
statement
that
assemblyman
roberts
made.
You
know
it's
balancing
the
gains
from
the
infrastructure
and
doing
new,
replace
you
know,
replacement
or
new
infrastructure
against
fiscal,
health
and
climate
impacts
of
the
spending.
H
H
I
Chairman
moreno
through
you
just
let
me
when
peter
is
dylan
sullivan
for
the
record.
I
I
guess
the
one
additional
thing
I'll
ask
is
I'll,
add
a
little
bit
more
detail
about
about
the
federal
pipeline
safety
regulations,
so
the
gas
utilities
are
required
to
file
a
distribution
integrity
management
plan
with
the
federal
pipeline
regulator
that
basically,
each
year,
they're
required
to
identify
those
those
sections
of
pipe
that
are
most
at
risk
and
replace
those
and,
if
and
they're,
also,
of
course,
anytime
anytime.
Somebody
anytime
there's
an
imminent
concern
about
safety.
I
They
have
to
gas
utilities
everywhere
have
to
have
to
address
that,
and
this
bill
does
does
really
nothing
to
change
those
existing
processes
for
managing
the
the
day-to-day
safety
of
the
gas
utility.
What
this
bill
is
is
really
about.
Is
you
know
what
southwest
gas
wants
to
do?
A
giant
replacement
project
to
spend
3.7
billion
dollars?
I
L
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
in
our
chair.
Thank
you,
mrs
cohen.
I
do
have
a
I'd
like
to
start
off
with
mr
sullivan.
If
I
can,
I've
got
four
questions
I
need
to
ask
and
and
with
different
people,
mr
sullivan,
if
I
could
you
know
the
puc
approved
in
and
all
the
expenditures
and
the
plans
that
went
into
spring
creek
nevada,
did
they
not.
I
Chair
monroe
moreno
through
you
to
assemblyman
ellison
for
the
record,
dylan
sullivan,
the
commission
did
approve
the
the
expansion
to
spring
creek.
But,
what's
important
is
that
the
the
law
that
was
passed
in
2015
that
doesn't
really
give
the
commission
the
tools
to
evaluate
whether
expansion
makes
economic
sense
and
it
it
doesn't.
I
It
doesn't
specify
that
expansion
needs
to
be
compared
to
alternatives,
so
what
this
bill
would
do
would
be
to
basically
run
expansion
through
a
planning
process
where
gas
utilities
and
interveners
would
be
able
to
kick
the
tires
on
these
giant
infrastructure
proposals
and
and
make
sure
that
they
that
they
make
sense
in
in
in
the
spring
creek
case,
the
gas
utility
did
a
customer
level
cost
benefit
analysis
where
they,
where
they
looked
at.
I
What
would
be
the
impact
on
a
customer's
bill
if,
if,
if
we
expanded
gas
to
that
community,
instead
of
doing
some
alternative
like
staying
with
propane
or
or
using
electricity
for
heating,
but
the
way
the
company
did
that
analysis,
they
didn't
even
consider
new,
cost-effective
electric
technologies,
heat
pumps
that
could
have
served.
I
Those
heating
needs
actually
lower
costs
than
gas,
and
so
what
this
bill
would
do
is
expansion
could
still
go
forward
and
would
still
go
forward
if
it
makes
economic
sense,
but
it
would
just
remove
existing
law
that
basically
allows
the
gas
utility
free
hand
to
expand
and
make
sure
that
that
expansions
really
really
make
economic
sense,
so
they
could
still
happen.
They
would
just
be
more
rigorously
scrutinized.
C
Wouldn't
the
customer
have
that
the
customer's
the
ones
going
to
make
that
choice
they're
on
propane
now
and
they
did
millions
of
dollars
investment
to
get
it
out
there
and
the
people
are
going
crazy,
they're
so
happy
to
get
natural
gas
out
into
these
these
areas,
because
some
of
these
areas
will
have
to
be
on
propane
for
years
and
years
and
years
to
come
and
so
to
me
the
pu.
She
should
be
the
people,
that's
going
to
invest,
do
they
want
the
natural
gas
or
do
they
not?
C
They
have
an
option
to
say
no
we're
going
to
stay
on
propane
or
yes,
we're
going
to
take
the
natural
gas
or
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
switch
over
to
electric.
That
was
a
question.
I've
got
and
you
had
a
statement
you
want
to
know.
If
there
was
many
calls,
I've
had
more
calls
come
into
my
office
and
elco
in
here
than
all
the
bills.
So
the
people
are
really
really
concerned
about
this
bill.
C
What's
going
to
be
in
the
details,
are
they
are
they
going
to
eventually
lose
the
gas?
So
the
fear
factor
come
out
there
and
and
we're
getting
a
lot.
A
lot
of
you
know
calls.
I
know
the
free
press
is
gonna,
run
an
article
today
about
this
bill.
So
there's
a
lot
of
concerns
about
the
state
and
what's
what's
gonna
happen
and
then
number
two
number
one
is
wells:
nevada,
wild
nevada's,
that
that
little
economy
in
that
that
town
has
been
destroyed.
After
that
earthquake
they
have
no
industry.
C
C
So
one
thing
good
about
natural
gas:
if
it's
running
all
the
time-
and
I
support
propane-
so
don't
get
me
wrong
and
then
I
have
a
business
and
miss
cohen
is.
If
you
can
answer
this,
I
have
a
business
that
depends
on
natural
gas.
If
I
had
to
switch
over
from
propane
over
to
or
natural
gas
to
electric
that
business
wouldn't
be
financially
feasible
because
all
the
dryers,
all
the
equipment
in
there
is
gas
so
to
operate
that
business.
C
It
took
me
probably
a
third
more
to
operate
that
business
and
there's
no
way
that
could
work.
So
I'm
hoping
you're
you're
saying
that
the
gas
is
not
going
to
be
impacted,
but
we're
putting
regulations
on
it
where
we
might
lose
expansion
in
the
future.
And
that's
that's
probably
what
scares
me
the
worst,
I'm
I'm
a
large
supporter
of
natural
gas
and
we
converted
our
house
over
as
much
as
we
could
to
natural
gas
because
it
runs
clean,
it's
safe
and
it's
really
economical.
C
H
Leslie
cohen
assembly,
district,
29,
I'll
I'll
address
some
of
those
issues
and
then
and
then
have
my
co-presenters
also
give
some
comments
and
I
think
assemblyman
what
you
said
about
the
calls
was
was
really
important
because
you
said
the
fear
factor
that
you're
hearing
and
I
think
we
are
hearing
fear.
But
I
also
think
that
a
lot
of
that
is
a
misunderstanding
of
what
this
means
and
what
this
bill
does.
H
A
lot
of
that
that
I'm
hearing
from
people
is
that,
because
I'm
getting
the
emails
too,
is
that
people
think
that
we're
taking
away
their
stoves
in
2023
and
that
this
is
forcing
a
change
and
and
that's
not
what
this
is
doing
again.
This
is
making
a
plan.
H
So
when
you
give
an
example
of
your
business,
let's
say,
for
instance,
that
the
rest
of
your
area
kind
of
moves
away
from
gas
and
and
we're
talking
in
the
future
again
we're
not
next
year
the
year
after,
maybe
not
even
10
years
from
now-
maybe
not
even
20
years
from
now.
But
let's
say
that
the
area
around
you
changes
or
doesn't
change,
but
the
people
just
decide.
H
They
want
to
move
away
from
gas
and
they're
doing
things
to
do
that
and
where
are
you?
H
Where
are
you
left
now,
because
now
there's
been,
if
there's
no
plan
in
place,
you're
still
there
with
your
gas
hookup
and
your
business
trying
to
survive,
and
there
is
no
access
for
you
because
of
the
market
changing
and
that
type
of
thing
which
we
know
the
market
is
changing,
so
that
that's
something
I
want
you
to
consider
and
with
that
I
will
just
ask
my
colleagues
to
to
chime
in
as
well
or
my
my
co-presenters.
C
And
and
madam
I
really
appreciate
you
talking
about
the
fear
factor
because
I
think
the
education
is
is
a
big
big
part
of
this,
and
a
lot
of
these
people
think
that
it's
going
to
get
turned
off
in
the
next
five
six
years.
I
said
no,
no,
no,
it's
not
going
to
happen,
but
I
am
worried
about
the
future
in
some
of
these
areas.
But
if
they
looked
at
the
gas
lines
they
had
to
take
from
elko
all
the
way
to
spring
creek
and
what
they
had
to
go
through
to
get
them
lined.
C
There
was
massive,
the
mountains
and
stuff
they
had
to
go
over,
but
the
good
thing
about
it
was
the
city
of
elko.
Was
there
a
breaking
ground,
the
county
commissioners?
Were
there
the
elected
state
officials
were
there?
I
don't
know
if
I
thought
mark
amadeu
was
there,
but
but
it
was
really
really
a
big
thing
for
people
to
get
gas
out
in
this
rural
area.
It
was,
it
was
a
godsend.
C
So,
if
you'd
have
seen
the
community
come
to
live
and
show
their
support,
they
were
really
strongly
in
support
of
getting
that
natural
gas
out
there.
They
might
have
cost
them
a
few
dollars
more,
but
in
the
long
run,
they'll
benefit,
and
I
just
want
to
talk
to
you
about
the
fear
factor.
Thank
you
so
much.
M
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
pat
and
chair.
I
appreciate
the
conversation
and
the
comments
from
many
of
my
colleagues,
so
thank
you,
assemblywoman
cohen,
for
bringing
this
bill
and
your
team.
I
do
want
to
express
my
appreciation,
in
particular
for
the
consideration
for
low-income
and
older
adults
on
many
who
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
afford
to
retrofit,
especially
those
in
assembly
district
42.
I
have
a
number
of
mobile
home
parks
that
many
times
cannot
be
converted
because
of
the
infrastructure
that
they
possess.
M
M
M
Does
the
gas
company
deliver
a
similar
plan
to
the
public
utilities
commission
now,
or
is
that
not
the
case?
I
heard
mr
davis
identify
that
you're
looking
through
an
open
and
public
planning
process,
so
that
leads
me
to
believe
that
does
not
currently
exist.
Is
that.
H
So
and
then
I'll
ask
my
co-presenters
of
because
they
certainly
have
more
expertise
in
the
in
the
process
in
front
of
the
puc
that
I
do
so.
If
they'd
like
to
kind
of
fill
in
those
blanks.
A
Miss
cohen,
it
was
difficult
to
hear
you
in
the
beginning.
Did
you
say
correct.
H
Yes
correct,
but
I
I'll
I'll
refer
to
the
to
my
co-presenters,
because
this
is
kind
of
the
world
they
live
in
much
more
than
I
do
so
they
can
fill
in
the
blanks
about
how
that
works
in
in
practice.
D
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
kyle,
davis,
again
for
the
record,
and
I
can
give
a
little
bit
of
background
here
and
I'll
turn
it
over
to
mr
sullivan.
He
can
give
the
detail
on
the
existing
process
and
how
how
this
would
be
different,
but,
yes,
gas
utilities
do
not
go.
You
know,
at
least
in
nevada,
do
not
go
through
as
much
of
a
robust
process
as
electric
utilities
and
and
not
just
energy.
D
D
I
note
again
from
the
presentation
that
in
2015
the
process
was
modified
to
disproportionately
favor
the
gas
territory
expansions
if
there
wasn't
any
economic
development
impact,
and
so
essentially,
what
we're
talking
about
with
this
bill
is
that
all
major
utility
projects
should
have
their
costs
and
benefits
balanced
against
long-term
forecasts
and
compared
with
all
potential
alternatives,
and
that's
really
what
we're
talking
about
with
this
bill,
but
I'll
turn
it
over
to
mrs
sullivan.
He
can
tell
you
a
little
bit
more
about
the
current
process.
I
Chairman
moreno,
through
youtube,
assemblyman
brown
may
dylan
sullivan
again
again
for
the
record.
I
think
the
easiest
way
to
understand
this
is
that
gas
utilities
just
don't
have
a
single,
comprehensive
process
for
analyzing
long-term
large
infrastructure
projects,
in
the
same
way
that
electric
utilities
do
there
are
really
one-off
planning
processes.
I
A
lot
of
after
the
fact
review
of
projects
after
the
utility
has
already
made
investments
which
puts
the
public
achilles
commission
in
a
difficult
position,
because
just
you
know
not
allowing
recovery
of
something
that's
already
been
incurred.
Effects
affects
the
utilities
finances
it's
kind
of.
It
would
be
much
better
to
put
it
all,
all
in
one
plan
up
front
so
that
interveners
can
interveners
in
the
commission
can
can
provide
needed
scrutiny,
and
you
know
the
company
would
have
more
certainty.
I
You
know
when
it
makes
an
investment
that
will
be
able
to
recover
those
costs
in
the
future.
It's
kind
of
interesting
to
me
like
just
as
a
regulatory
blank
like
why
we
haven't
had
a
comprehensive
planning
on
the
gas
utility
side.
Integrated
resource
planning
on
for
electric
utilities
really
developed
as
a
result
of
some
really
bad
construction
failures
and
power.
I
Plant
cost
increases
that
happened
in
the
1970s
and
80s,
and
people
realized
that
maybe
we
should
be
looking
at
energy
efficiency
and
other
alternatives
to
building
a
big,
huge
power
plant,
and
I
I
think
you
know
we
just
haven't
really
seen
that
same
level
of
attention
on
the
gas
system
and
whether
it's
a
good
idea
to
you
know,
lay
this
or
replace
this
pipe,
but
we're
starting
to
see.
Utilities
like,
like
people's
gas
in
illinois,
launched
a
pipe
replacement
program
to
replace
every
pipe
in
the
city.
I
Program
costs
grew
from
1.4
billion
to
as
much
as
11
billion
between
2007
and
2015,
really
highlighting
the
need
to
think
very
very
carefully
about
big
gas
utility
expansion
projects
and
pipe
replacement.
So
I
think
this
is
something
that
other
states
are
looking
to
do
and
we'll
see
more
of
in
the
future.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
so
I
just
have
thank
you
for
that
information.
I
appreciate
that,
and
so
I
I
just
want
this
is
a
new
space
for
me.
I
turn
my
stove
on.
It
goes
quickly,
click
and
my
gas
works,
and
so
that
this
is
very
new.
How
long
does
a
gas
line
function
so,
if
we're
going
to
lay
a
new
gas
line
to
a
new
development?
I
Chair
monroe
moreno
through
you
to
assemblywoman
brown
may
dylan
sullivan
again
for
the
record.
The
the
lifetime
over
which
a
gas
pipe
is
depreciated
like
from
an
accounting
sense,
is
about
this.
I
think,
50
years,
when
I
looked
at
the
irs
tables
a
few
weeks
ago,
the
engineering
lifespan
can
be
70
years.
It
can
be
longer
than
that,
and
you
know
in
terms
of
alternatives
that
gas
utilities
can
can
invest
in.
I
You
know,
like
I
I'll
interpret
your
questions
like
like,
can
gastric
do
the
same
thing
and
the
energy
is
doing
basically
rely
more
on
renewable
energy
and
other
alternatives.
It's
it's.
It's
really
more
difficult.
So
there
there's
something
called
renewable
natural
gas
available
on
the
market.
It's
actually
biomethane.
I
It's
a
type
of
methane
molecule,
so
the
same
thing,
the
same
molecule
as
as
fossil
natural
gas.
It's
captured
and
collected
from
wasted
landfills,
livestock
operations,
sewage
treatment
facilities.
I
I
Some
of
the
accounting
assumptions
are
pretty
dubious,
so
I
detailed
this
more
in
nrdc's
comment
letter
so
basically
because
of
the
limited
availability
and
and
also
the
high
cost
of
biomethane,
it's
unlikely
that
it's
going
to
be
itself
a
transition
strategy
and
hydrogen
made
from
renewable
electricity
will
likely
be
like
a
really
key
energy
carrier
in
storage
technology
in
a
low-carbon
world.
But
it's
going
to
be
best
used
where
renewable
electricity
is
not
a
great
option.
I
So
for
things
like
aviation,
some
heavy
duty,
trucking
applications,
industrial
process,
heat
using
green
hydrogen
in
homes
and
businesses
to
heat
spaces
and
water.
The
things
that
we
use
gas
for
on
our
homes
right
now
using
green
hydrogen,
for
that
would
be
fantastically
expensive
and
inefficient
nevada.
We
need
to
build
like
five
to
six
times
the
amount
of
renewable
power
plants
to
serve
heating
needs
with
green
hydrogen
than
if
it
served
those
needs
with
electric
heat
pumps
powered
by
renewable
energy.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Okay,
I'm
listening
to
everyone
saying
you
know
this,
isn't
a
natural
gas
ban
and
I'm
looking
at
I'm
reading
it,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
a
couple
of
things
we
have
a
stated
goal
of
zero
emissions
by
2050
for
this
state.
G
So
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
probably
the
first
step
in
a
natural
gas
ban
is
what
I'm
seeing
here.
But,
more
importantly,
it
looks
to
me
like
especially
through
section
19
here,
that
we're
asking
the
gas
companies
to
go
to
this
puc
and
say:
okay
over
the
next
20
years.
Here's
how
we're
going
to
cut
our
own
throats.
G
H
H
What
utilities
they're
going
to
use
right
going
electric
that
type
of
thing
is
changing,
so
whether
we
sorry
my
I'm
getting
things
on
my
computer,
whether
we
move
forward
thinking
that
there
are
changes
and
we
need
to
prepare
for
them
or
we
stick
our
head
in
the
sand
and
just
say:
well,
we
just
don't
want
to
you,
know
rock
the
boat
and
and
give
give
anyone
a
problem.
That's
kind
of
the
big
issue,
because
the
changes
are
coming
again,
maybe
not
for
10
years
or
20
years
or
29
years.
H
D
Sure,
again,
kyle
davis
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
to
assume
women
wheeler.
I
guess
I
would
just
rephrase
it
a
little
bit
that,
like
what
we're
asking
for
here
is
for
a
process
of
the
public
utilities
commission
to
consider
the
state's
future.
D
So
it's
beyond
any
one
utility
or
you
know
whether
what
the
responsibility
is
of
the
state
to
you
know,
continue
any
utilities
specific
business
model
at
the
time,
but
it
is
asking
the
state
to
you,
know
the
state,
through
our
regulatory
process,
to
take
a
look
at
how
we
are
going
to
plan
for
the
future
and
it's
a
couple
of
things
as
the
assemblywoman
just
mentioned,
yeah,
that
yes,
this
is
a
direction
that
the
market
is
going,
maybe
not
as
fast
right
now,
but
it's
likely
to
increase
so
planning
for
that
fact
that
people
are
going
to
electrify
on
their
own
because
of
improving
technology.
D
So
we
need
to
take
that
into
account,
but
you're
quite
right.
We
also
were
taking
into
account
these
the
state's
overall
carbon
reduction
goals.
This
is
a
part
of
you
know,
planning
for
the
future,
so
that
we
can
plan
to
reduce
our
carbon
emissions.
We
certainly
took
a
big
step
forward
last
session
with
the
passage
of
the
renewable
portfolio
standard
and
increasing
that
to
50
by
2030,
with
a
goal
of
getting
to
100
carbon
free
by
2050.
D
That's
the
place
that
we're
trying
to
get
to
in
order
to
save
off
the
worst
effects
of
climate
change,
and
so
this
is
a
planning
process
to
figure
out
how
to
do
that.
Now
we
want
to
set
up
a
process
that
takes
into
everything
into
account,
so
all
of
these
all
of
these
ideas
can
be
brought
to
the
table
that
they
can
be
considered.
D
I
expect
that
when
you
hear
southwest
gas
speak
later
in
this
meeting,
they're
going
to
talk
about
some
of
the
we'll
call
them
pipe
alternatives
that
they
have,
and
those
should
certainly
be
evaluated
by
the
public
utilities.
Commission,
along
with
you,
know,
electrification,
options
and
other
things
that
we
can
do
to
reduce
carbon
emissions
and
sustainably
move
in
this
in
this
future.
But
these
are
all
things
that
need
to
be
evaluated
because
some
may
make
sense.
Some
may
not.
G
Thank
you.
Just
a
quick
follow-up
manager.
A
G
Thank
you,
okay.
I
hear
what
you're
saying,
but
when
the
assemblyman
says
the
market
is
changing.
What
I
see
here
is
we're
changing
the
market.
With
this
bill,
we're
forcing
a
market
change.
That's
to
me.
We
should
stay
out
of
things
like
that.
The
it
see
again
seems
to
me.
You
know
that
we're
sitting
here
saying
that
we're
going
to
take
a
viable
product
that
is
very
low
emissions
and
yeah,
we'll
get
rid
of
that.
D
Madam
chair,
if
I
could
just
call
or
just
respond
quickly,
kyle
davis,
for
the
record-
and
I
I
hear
what
you're
saying
assemblyman,
the
only
thing
that
I
would
point
out
is
that
nevada
was
one
of
the
first
states
that
adopted
a
renewable
portfolio
standard
back
in
the
early
2000s
and
that
portfolio
standard
was
incredibly
small
at
the
time
it
was
less
than
one
percent,
and
we
all
the
way
up
to
last
session
when
this
body
passed,
you
know
increased
it
to
50
by
2030
on
a
unanimous
vote
now,
certainly
at
the
time
there
were
those
that
said
that
you
know
this
is
forcing
the
market.
D
This
is
changing
the
market,
but
what
it
did
is
it
allowed
for
that
technology
to
develop
and
now
we're
at
a
point
where
solar
is
the
cheapest
source
of
energy
that
we
have
in
the
state.
So
we
certainly
see
opportunities
in
doing
things
like
this.
Now
we
don't
want
to
do
something
that's
going
to
put
people
out
on
the
street.
A
All
right,
I
thought
you
might
have
a
follow-up
and
I
will
move
on
to
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chairs.
Chandra
summers:
armstrong
assembly
district,
six
for
the
record
earlier
it
was
so
we
talked
about
infrastructure
for
gas.
Can
we
talk
about
what
it
cost
and
the
life
span
of
an
electric
power
plant
and
transformers,
and
what
we
are
looking
at
as
far
as
replacement
of
those
infrastructure
items
might
be.
H
Nicely
on
assembly
district
29
I'll
I'll,
have
my
my
co-presenters
address
that.
D
Right,
thank
you,
madam
chair
kyle,
davis.
Again
for
the
record.
My
short
answer
is:
no,
I
don't
know
the
exact
cost
on
that.
It
obviously
depends
on.
D
My
technology
depends
on
the
size
and
everything
like
that,
but
I
think
the
larger
point
there-
and
I
don't
know
you
know-
certainly
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
here,
but
just
thinking
about
infrastructure
in
general,
whether
we're
considering
the
costs
of
investing
in
new
gas
pipelines
and
in
a
gas
distribution
system
or
whether
we're
thinking
about
building
new
power
plants,
new
transformers,
new
electric
lines,
no
matter
what
no
matter,
you
know
what
those,
what
those
large
infrastructure
projects
are.
D
Our
belief
is
that
they
should
be
subjected
to
a
resource
planning
process
at
the
public
utilities.
Commission
and
that's
what
does
happen
right
now
with
the
electric
utility
is
that
they
do
bring
these
types
of
projects
forward.
They
come
to
the
commission
and
say
here's
what
we'd
like
to
do.
You
know
with
with
transmission
planning,
with
building
new
power
lines.
D
In
fact,
we
just
saw
that
a
few
weeks
ago,
where
the
public
utilities
commission
approved
the
green
link
project
in
part,
and
they
did
that
after
after
the
company
made
their
case
of
the
commission,
they
demonstrated
that
this
was
in
the
best
interest
of
the
ratepayers.
That
was
in
the
best
interest
of
bringing
new
renewable
energy
online
and
they
went
through
that
process.
D
And
so
we
believe
that,
no
matter
what
whether
we're
talking
about
those
types
of
big
expensive
projects-
but
you
know,
evaluate
them
against
the
benefit
to
the
ratepayers
or
we're
talking
about
gas
infrastructure
projects
that
everything
should
be
subject
to
such
a
process.
And
so
that's
what
we're
trying
to
set
up
with
this
bill.
It's
that
type
of
process.
E
E
I
still
have
to
be
conscious
of
how
this
could
affect
my
community,
and
so,
if
we
are
going
to
a
system
where
electric
infrastructure
is
going
to
be
more
highly
used,
then
we
can
also
expect
right
that
the
infrastructure
is
going
to
wear
out
faster
and
if
it's
going
to
wear
out
faster,
then
that's
also
going
to
affect
when
infrastructure
projects
have
to
be
requested.
E
Wouldn't
that
still
affect
the
rates,
because
the
the
lecture
company
would
have
the
right
to
want
to
have
payment
back
on
on
that
infrastructure.
Is
that
correct.
H
Leslie
cohen
assembly
district
29
well,
but
right
now
the
electric
company
does
have
to
go
before
the
puc
and,
if
there's
something
that
that
they're
asking
to
have
done
that,
isn't
necessarily
in
the
best
interest
of
the
ratepayers,
the
puc
can
say:
no,
you
know,
but
we
we
have
the
same
issue
with
with
the
gas
utilities
right.
If
they
decide
they
want
to
do
a
whole
big
new
infrastructure
program,
or
you
know,
make
repairs
that
aren't
necessarily
required.
H
They
don't
have
to
go
before
the
puc.
So
but
again,
this
isn't
about
forcing
it
to
happen.
It's
about
considering
that
it
is
going
to
happen
and
we
need
to
start
making
these
plans.
But
it's
it's
going
to
happen.
You
know
the
I
think
the
market
is
going
to
get
us
there.
H
I
Sure
monroe
mourinho
through
you
too,
as
someone
who
wants
summers
armstrong,
I
I
I
think
it's
it's
a
it's
a
great
question,
basically
like
how
if,
if
we're
going
to
be
adding
this
new
electricity
demand,
eventually,
what's
what's
going
to
be
the
cost
of
adding
that?
And
how
do
we
take
that
into
account?
I
But
I
think
the
really
important
thing
is
that
solar
electricity
has
just
plunged
in
price
since
I
started
working
at
an
rdc
in
2008,
it's
basically,
the
the
cheapest
power
you
can
buy
in
america
is
solar
power
that
is
made
in
nevada,
and
so
we
will.
You
know
if,
if,
if,
if
this
market
takes
off
we're
going
to
be
serving
these
new
electric
appliances
in
nevada
homes
and
businesses
with
really
cheap
solar
electricity
and
also
you
know,
nevada
doesn't
really
produce
any
fossil
fuels.
I
We
have
to
buy
our
fossil
fuels
from
other
states
and
other
countries,
because
you
know
we
just
we
don't
produce
any.
So
every
year
we
spend
about
1.4
billion
dollars,
sending
money
to
other
states
to
buy
fossil
fuels
when
what
we
have
here
and
what
can
create
jobs
here
is
nevada's,
just
really
world-class
solar
resources
and
when
you
run
the
numbers,
what
you
find
is
is
that
you
know
it's
it's
it's
some
of
the
cheapest
electricity
you
can
get
in
the
country.
E
I
don't
really
have
a
question,
madam
chair,
I
thank
you
for
acknowledging
me
shauna
simmons
armstrong
for
the
for
the
record.
I
just
think
that
it's
just
important
to
ask.
I
mean
I
think
we
have
to
realize
that
infrastructure
is
going
to
be
taxed.
E
I
I
feel,
like
I
was
kind
of
dismissed
and
and
that's
not
the
the
question
is
a
valid
question,
and
so
you
know
I
appreciate
the
answer,
but
I
I
think
that
it
requires
an
answer
and
it
requires
an
honest
one
and
it
requires
consideration.
So
thank
you.
I
Chairman
romano,
through
through
you
to
assemblywoman
service
armstrong,
I
go.
I
All
right,
this
is
dylan
sullivan
for
the
record,
apologies
and
assemblywoman
summer's
armstrong.
I
I
I'm
sorry
if,
if,
if
I'm
sorry,
if
I
didn't
answer
your
question-
and
I
think
you
you
bring
up
an
important
question-
and
I
think
that
they're,
you
know,
as
we
add
more
electric
vehicles
to
the
grid,
as
we
add
electric
demands,
we
yeah,
we
might
need
some
more
electric
distribution
system
investment,
but
I
think
the
important
thing
is
that
the
state
can
compare
the
cost
of
that
extra
investment
to
the
cost
of
continued
investments
in
the
gas
system
and
and
that's
what
can
be
allowed
for
in
in
in
this
bill
in
the
planning
process
that
is
articulated
in
the
bill.
A
Thank
you,
mr
sullivan,
for
the
answer
and
going
along
the
lines
of
assemblywoman
summers
on
tron
I,
and
if
I'm
incorrect,
assemblywoman,
please
correct
me.
I
I
think
the
biggest
concern
that
she
was
trying
to
stress
is
not
so
much
the
state's
investment
as
we
move
forward,
but
the
individual
investment
of
the
families
that
will
be
impacted,
there's
been
a
lot
of
conversation
about
disadvantaged
communities,
but
I
haven't
really
heard
in
the
presentation
how
those
disadvantaged
communities
are.
Actually
you
know,
what's
the
distinct
plan
of
how
they're
going
to
make
the
adjustment?
A
It
was
just
a
short
time
ago
in
texas
that
we
saw
when
their
system
kind
of
went
haywire
and
they
were
relying
on
electricity
and
a
lot
of
families
in
in
that
area
were
kind
of
left
out
in
the
cold
literally
because
of
some
of
the
failures
in
their
infrastructure.
So
I
believe,
with
the
assemblywoman
was,
was
asking
and
addressing
how
do
families
in
her
communities?
How
did
those
seniors
as
we
we've
given
ourselves
this
goal,
and
and
all
of
us
that
were
here
last
legislative
session?
We
all
voted
unanimously
to
get
to
that
goal.
A
We
did
not
give
ourselves
the
blueprint
or
the
plan
of
how
we
get
there,
but
we
also
didn't
address
how
those
underserved
lower
income
senior
communities
are
actually
going
to
pay
for
it.
We
look
at
solar
and
solar
is
great,
but
they're
still
in
those
communities.
They
don't
have
solar
access,
we're
getting
towards
that.
A
So
I
think
what
she
was
asking
and
what
I
would
like
to
know-
and
I
know
what
I
what
I've
gotten
emails
on
from
my
constituents
is
exactly
how
they
are
going
to
pay
for
that
and
what's
that
pathway
for
them
and
moving
to
this
direction
that
we've
given
ourselves,
giving
them
a
sense
of
security
of
the
infrastructure
that
is
in
place
and
how
they
become
a
part
of
that,
and
if
I
was
wrong
in
that
a
silly
woman,
please
let
me
know.
H
Thank
you,
leslie
cohen
assembly,
district,
29.
right
and
I
and
I
certainly
understand
the
concern,
especially
after
what
we
saw
in
texas.
Although
I
think
I
can
have
mr
sullivan
kind
of
explain
why.
H
That's
that's
not
something
that
we'd
be
looking
at
here
because
of
differences
in
our
system,
but
no,
I
I
get
it
I
I
do
understand
and-
and
it's
certainly
something
that
we
do
have
in
the
bill
where
there
is
a
concern
for
different
communities
and
making
sure
that
they're
that
those
concerns
are
addressed
because
we
don't
want
to
force
anyone
to
make
a
change
or
to
get
rid
of
things
when
they're
not
ready
for
it.
H
H
But
I
do
think
that
we
should
have
the
puc,
who
are
the
experts
in
this
field
at
public
hearings
addressing
these
issues
so
that
those
steps
can
be
formulated
because
again-
and
I
truly
believe
this-
that
that
the
change
is
coming
and
it's
just
a
quote
not
because
of
me,
but
because
it's
coming
because
of
the
market
and
because
we
know
change
comes
right.
We
we
know
that
technologies
change.
H
We
know
that
the
preferences
of
communities
change,
so
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
when
those
changes
come
that
those
that
the
same
people
we're
talking
about
now
and
being
concerned
about,
aren't
left
behind.
So
let's
at
those
public
hearings
in
front
of
the
puc
start
to
put
the
steps
in
place
and
the
plan
in
place
so
that
again,
if
it's
20
30
years
from
now
we're
starting
to
figure
out
well,
what
do
we
do
with
those
homes?
H
And
you
know,
is
it
the
plans
that
I
think
it
was
mr
sullivan
talked
about,
might
have
been,
mr
davis,
but
but
about
you
know
some
that
providing
availability
for
getting
different
different
appliances
through
different
resources
where
there's
a
lower
cost.
H
All
of
those
types
of
things
are
that
were
mentioned
are
a
possibility,
but
we
have
to
plan
to
get
there
and
with
that
I'll
just
turn
it
over
to
the
co-presenters
in
case
they
want
to
add
something.
D
Yeah,
thank
you,
madam
chair
kyle,
a
couple
of
things
I
I
cause.
I
I
totally
understand
the
the
points
that
you're
making
here
I
mean
this,
is
you
know
nothing
about
this
is
or
there
are
easy
answers
that
you
know
that
we
can
that
we
can
just
give
and
that's
why
we
want
to
set
up
a
process
to
really
consider
this
over
the
next
decade
or
two
decades.
D
I
think
it's
important
to
consider
when
you're
talking
about
like
energy
costs
in
a
home
and
really
how
that's
divided
between
you
know,
say:
electricity
or
gas
and
how
that
might
to
change
might
change.
Obviously
those
costs
are
going
to
be
there
either
way
you're
going
to
have
bills
every
month.
But
the
idea
here
is
is
that,
as
we
make
those
changes
that
we
keep
the,
but
we
that
we
do
what
we
can
to
keep
those
costs
this
you
know
the
same
or
even
bring
those
down.
D
You
know,
as
we
decide
where
to
put
rate
per
dollars
for
infrastructure,
whether
we
put
that
into
new
transformers
or
we
put
it
into
new
pipes.
I
think
you
know
I'm
glad
you
brought
up
the
issue
of
of
texas,
because
we
certainly
watched
that
happen
as
well,
and
you
know
I
certainly
share
you
know
the
concern
about
making
sure
that
we
have
the
plans
to
provide.
D
You
know
critical
energy
during
natural
disasters,
but
the
lucky
thing
that
we
have
here
is
that
nevada
energy
companies
are
much
further
ahead
in
planning
for
this,
and
they
can
really
speak
to
the
pre
preparations.
In
fact,
I
know
that
this
committee
heard
presentations
on
this
earlier
this
session.
D
It's
worth
noting
that
most
natural
gas
appliances
also
require
electricity
to
operate
and
contrary
to
what
someone
said,
a
major
factor
for
the
recent
texas
energy
crisis
was
the
failure
of
gas
power
plants
and
gas
wells
themselves,
so
the
pc
places
a
high
value
on
reliable
service.
That's
really
one
of
the
main
things
that
they
do
and
improving
the
planning
process
can
just
improve
that
oversight
in
terms
of
costs
for
customers.
D
I
think
customer
cost
is
central
to
the
planning
process
that
is
articulated
in
60
sections,
16
and
19
of
the
bill.
The
gas
utility
needs
to
evaluate
the
utility
infrastructure
cost,
the
customer
equipment
cost
and
the
environmental
and
health
costs
of
its
plan
and
the
alternatives,
and
the
commission's
directed
to
take
that
into
account
when
they're,
making
these
decisions
and
then
finally
I'll
certainly
defer
to
the
authors
of
the
state
climate
strategy
for
specifics
on
on
what
is
it,
what
is
in
there
and
what
they're
what
they're
envisioning?
D
But
I
think
it
is
under
important
to
understand
that
the
strategy
lays
out
a
framework
for
policies
to
enable
us
to
meet
our
climate
goals.
But
it
is
on
policy
makers,
regulators
to
really
enact
those
policies
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
today
by
at
least
setting
up
that
planning
process
to
get
to
those
goals.
Knowing
that
there's
a
lot
of
decisions
to
be
made
along
the
way.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
that.
I
know
we
have
one
last
member
with
a
question,
but
before
we
go
to
that
last
member,
I
just
I
also
want
to
say
that
you
know
when
we,
we
think
of
policies
and
and
the
changes,
and
I
agree
with
the
assembly
one
when
we
are
moving
in
this
direction.
I
don't
know
if
it's
five
years,
ten
years
or
how
long
down
the
road
that
we
are
moving
in
this
direction,
but
oftentimes
in
our
committee
meetings
we
hear
conversations
about
the
underserved
communities
and
our
seniors
in
low
income.
A
I
think
when
we
have
these
community
conversations,
we
need
to
go
into
them
thinking
up
the
least
of
these
and
how
it's
going
to
affect
the
least
of
these.
I
hear
a
number
of
people
talking
about
communities
of
colors
and
underserved,
but
then,
when
the
policies
are
actually
put
in
place,
those
same
communities
are
the
ones
left
holding
the
bag
are
left
left
out
of
the
process,
they're
often
the
ones
that
are
holding
the
jobs
that
will
be
disenfranchised
or
maybe
shut
down,
but
they're
also
some
of
the
small
business
owners.
A
So
when,
when
we
look
at
things,
we're
asking
them
to
not
not
just
change
out
their
homes,
but
they
may
have
that
small
business
that
has
to
be
changed
out.
So
as
we
have,
these
discussions
in
the
future
always
have
the
least
of
these
in
mind
and
make
sure
that
those
communities
that
we
say
we
want
to
protect
we're,
not
unfairly
harming
and
leaving
out
of
the
conversation.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
just
quickly,
and
it
really
kind
of
echoes
the
sentiments
of
chairman
moreno
and
assemblywoman
summers
armstrong,
but
I
agree
that
we
are
moving
in
this
direction
and
that
proper
planning
is
the
best
way
for
us
to
to
move
there
where
we
don't
leave
people
behind.
B
I
guess-
and
maybe
this
is
turning
into
more
of
maybe
a
comment
than
a
question
at
this
point,
because
I
kind
of
think
you
addressed
it,
and
that
is
just
ensuring
that
we
are
in
this
planning
that
we
are
also
considering
you
know
the
homes
that
are
not
able
to
from
age
or
different
things
like
that,
which
could
be
across
all
communities
that
are
not
able
to
easily
make
these
transitions
that
we
are
making
sure
that,
in
this
study
and
in
this
planning
that
we're
doing
that,
how
the
oldest
homes
are
also
going
to
be
incorporated
and-
and
things
like
that,
so
so
yeah
that
I
mean,
I
think
it
was
more
of
a
statement,
because
I
do
think
that
you
addressed
it
a
bit
when
you
mentioned
the.
B
H
It's
it's
been
our
intent
that
we
always
have
the
communities
in
mind,
but
with
that
one
of
the
things
we're
keeping
in
mind
is
also
health
issues
right,
because
these
same
communities
are
also
the
ones
that
are
most
affected
by
smog
and
and
things
like
that
and
the
numbers
of,
and
and
and
having
greenhouse
gas
issues
issues
with
too
much
of
that,
and
and
so
in
order
to
make
sure
that
that
these
communities
are
considered,
we
also
do
have
to
consider
those
health
issues
and
then,
as
far
as
the
older
homes,
I
I
I
certainly
do
think
it
is
something
that
needs
to
be
considered
and
that
we
do
even
you
know,
everyone
thinks
las
vegas
is
being
all
brand
new,
but
there
are
houses
there.
H
That
are,
you
know
from
that
are
still
up
from
the
40s,
which
I
know
isn't
as
old
as
some
of
the
houses
in
in
other
parts
of
the
state.
But
it's
you
know,
it
is
hard,
it
is
old
and
it
is
something
that
we
need
to
consider
and
and
again
I
think
that's
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
do
want
to
have
this
as
part
of
a
planning.
H
As
part
of
a
planning
before
the
puc,
because
that
way
it's
public
people
can
come
and
put
those
issues
forward
and
and
make
sure
that
those
issues
are
addressed
as
opposed
to
just
kind
of
going
along
and
seeing
where
we're
going
to
end
up.
So
with
that,
I
will
just
turn
over
to
my
co-presenters
in
case.
They
have
anything
to.
I
Add
chairman
monroe
mourinho
threw
you
to
assemblyman
miller
for
the
record,
this
is
dylan
sullivan.
I
think
you
brought
up
a
really
good
point
about
about
older
homes.
Those
are
homes
that
are,
you
know
least
likely
to
have
like
insulation
and
air
sailing
to
be
really,
you
know
tightened
from
the
elements
and
they
they
probably
use
the
most
energy
in
both
the
summer
and
winter,
and
these
homes
really
need
to
be
a
priority
in
in
program
efforts.
I
We
have
a
bill
over
on
the
senate
side
that
one
of
the
provisions
in
the
bill
is
to
double
the
low
income
programs
spending
requirement
for
for
for
nb
energy
so
that
they
spend
10
of
their
program
budget
on
on
programs
that
are
that
are
specifically
targeted
to
low-income
households
and
historically
underserved
communities,
because
you
know,
as
as
you
mentioned,
these
are
households
that
pay
often
a
large
portion
of
their
of
their
income
on
energy
bills,
and
they
really
need
to
be.
I
They
really
need
to
be
front
and
center
in
our
attention.
Thank
you.
A
F
F
N
N
Today,
I
would
like
to
note
away
support
for
senator
cohen's
conceptual
amendment
to
ab380,
given
all
of
the
recent
conversations
in
nevada
around
the
future
of
gas
away
has
thought
hard
about
what
we
think
is
the
best
way
to
manage
long-term
infrastructure
in
an
uncertain
future.
What's
not
uncertain
is
that
the
economics
and
technologies
of
our
energy
resources
are
shifting
dramatically
and
consumer
preferences
are
changing
in
response.
N
These
trends
require
a
re-examination
of
the
way
we
plan
our
infrastructure
investments
so
that
we
build
what's
necessary
for
safety
and
reliability,
but
avoid
assets
that
are
likely
to
become
stranded
and
drive
up
ratepayer
costs
over
the
long
term.
If
we
don't
plan
carefully
today
to
manage
the
transition
that's
already
underway,
we
may
face
rising
gas
bills
for
consumers
who
maintain
their
appliances
either
by
choice
or
because
they
do
not
have
the
means
to
renovate
a
new
gas
utility
planning
process.
N
N
We
see
it
borrowing
some
of
the
best
practices
from
that
electric
utility
resource
planning
process
to
ensure
that
approved
gas
infrastructure
projects
appropriately
balance
a
number
of
important
priorities
that
include
cost
safety,
reliability,
flexibility
and
environmental
impact
in
the
face
of
uncertainty
about
the
future,
as
it
relates
to
changing
gas
demands,
economic
conditions,
policies
and
technologies
in
a
way
that
the
current
processes
do
not
allow
for.
I've
submitted
more
extensive
comments
in
writing
that
detail
what
awa
particularly
likes
about
this
proposed
infrastructure
supply
and
alternatives
plans
and
investigatory
docket.
F
O
Chairman
roe
moreno
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
jaina,
moan
j-a-I-n-a-m-o-a-n
and
I'm
the
external
affairs
director
for
the
nature
conservancy
in
nevada.
We
are
a
global
organization,
conducting
science-based
on-the-ground
conservation
work
to
support
our
mission
of
conserving
the
lands
and
waters
on
which
all
life
depends.
Climate
change
is
the
biggest
threat
to
this
mission.
As
an
organization,
we
are
united
in
doing
what
we
can
to
mitigate
and
adapt
to
climate
change,
and
we
support
policies
that
will
help
us
ensure
global
warming
stays
below
1.5
degrees
c.
O
We
support
eb
380
with
the
proposed
conceptual
amendment,
because
it
does
just
that
it
establishes
a
goal
for
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
in
the
building
sector
and
a
mechanism
of
responsible
planning
to
ensure
that
nevada
achieves
the
goal
in
a
reasonable
and
equitable
manner.
Addressing
the
threat
of
climate
change
will
have
trade-offs.
O
We
cannot
leave
people
behind
and
at
the
same
time,
we
have
no
choice
but
urgent
action
through
responsible
planning
through
ab
380,
with
the
proposed
conceptual
amendment,
seeks
to
ensure
that
no
one
is
left
behind,
including
the
workforce
and
the
disadvantaged
populations
that
would
be
affected
by
this
climate
action.
Nevada
is
a
state
like
no
other.
We
have
incredible
biodiversity
of
ecosystems
in
the
state.
Sagebrush
deserts
springs
mountains.
O
O
A
F
N
Thank
you,
chairman
moreno
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
My
name
is
jasmine.
Vazeen
j-a-s-m-I-n-e-v-a-z-I-n
for
the
record,
and
I'm
here
today
to
represent
the
sierra
club
on
behalf
of
the
sierra
club
and
our
more
than
40
000
members
and
supporters
statewide.
We
urge
this
committee
to
support
ab380
this
bill
will
require
gas
companies
to
submit
plans
for
approval
to
the
public
utilities
commission
before
building
out
expensive
pipelines
that
will
cost
ratepayers
money.
N
Methane,
gas,
commonly
known
as
natural
gas,
is
a
fossil
fuel
that
emits
pollutants
in
our
air.
When
it's
extracted,
transported
and
burned
burning
methane
gas
has
been
regulated
for
the
electric,
u
sector,
but
for
many
years
the
gas
distribution
companies
have
not
engaged
in
a
robust
planning
process.
This
bill
aims
to
solve
that
problem
as
covered
in
the
presentations
today.
The
electric
utility
has
engaged
in
a
resource
planning
process
at
the
public
utilities
commission
for
decades,
and
this
bill
would
bring
about
a
similar
resource
planning
process
to
the
gas
utility.
N
Process
for
the
energy
this
bill
calls
on
gas
utilities
to
plan
for
how
they
spend
ratepayers
money
and
account
for
the
impact
that
they
have
on
nevada's
environment.
It's
a
common
sense
solution
as
our
state
transitions
to
clean
energy.
For
these
reasons,
the
sierra
club
urges
support
of
ab380
as
amended.
Thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
considering
this
important
piece
of
legislation.
F
P
P
There
is
no
question
that
nevada
must
transition
away
from
burning,
meth
and
gas,
also
known
as
natural
gas
inside
of
our
homes
and
our
buildings,
and
to
power
more
of
our
appliances
with
clean
electricity
from
sources
like
solar.
Some
folks,
including
myself,
are
blessed
enough
to
have
already
begun
this
transition,
I'm
in
the
process
of
replacing
my
gas
stove
with
an
electric
induction
range,
and
I
am
so
excited
about
the
new
technology
and
the
health,
economic
and
environmental
benefits
it's
going
to
bring.
P
But
not
everyone
is
so
fortunate
and
it's
important
that
nobody
gets
left
behind.
That's
why
I
support
ab
380,
which
requires
the
nevada
gas
utility
plan
for
the
future.
We
simply
cannot
leave
low-income
families
on
the
hook
to
pay
for
expensive
gas
system
projects
in
which
a
few
short
decades,
because
we
didn't
take
the
proper
important
steps
now
to
be
clear,
ab-380
is
designed
to
protect
low-income
nevadans.
It
will
require
gas
utilities
to
look
ahead
and
compare
all
the
costs
and
benefits
of
business
as
usual,
with
alternative
alternative
options,
including
efficiency
and
electrification.
P
Electric
utilities
already
do
this
long-range
plan.
It
is
only
fair
that
gas
utilities
do
the
same
so
chairwoman.
I
am
thanking
you
for
this
opportunity
in
advance
to
consider
ab380.
F
N
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
tess
opferman,
that's
o-p-f-e-r-m-a-n.
Speaking
on
behalf
of
seiu,
the
nevada
chapter,
local
1107,
our
seiu
members
support
responsible
energy
planning
and
smart
environmental
measures
to
help
nevada
reach
our
climate
goal
of
100
clean
power
and
zero
greenhouse
gas
emissions
by
2050.
N
A
healthy,
clean
environment
is
important
for
all
nevadans.
Thank
you
to
assemblywoman
cohen
for
her
work.
Bringing
forward
ab380
this
bill
is
an
important
step
to
help
move
toward
nevada's
environmental
goals,
while
being
conscientious
of
undue
cost
burdens
on
low
income
and
fixed
income
residents.
We
urge
your
support
on
this
measure
and
thank
you
for
your
time
this
afternoon.
F
If
you
are
just
joining
us,
we
are
currently
taking
support
testimony
for
assembly
bill
380..
Please
press
star
nine
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue.
If
you
wish
to
testify
and
support
caller
with
the
last
three
digits
of
zero.
Eight
four,
you
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin.
N
Good
afternoon,
madam
chairwoman
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
cynthia
moore.
N
C-I-N-T-H-I-A-M-O-O-R-E
and
I'm
calling
I'm
the
las
vegas
field,
organizer
for
mom's,
clean
air
force
and
national
lead
for
eccomartes,
and
we
are
strongly
in
support
of
av
380,
calling
on
behalf
of
our
over
8
000
members.
Methane
gas
is
a
harmful
climate,
pollutant
driving
dangerous
increases
in
smog
and
wildfires
in
nevada.
N
A
Thank
you
for
joining
us.
We
have
time
for
one
more
caller,
and
then
we
have
one
testimony
that
will
be
on
soon.
F
P
Good
afternoon
monroe,
moreno
and
members
of
the
assembly
growth
and
infrastructure
committee,
my
name
is
matt
rubin
m-a-t-t
r-u-b-I-n,
I'm
an
energy
policy
analyst
for
western
resource
advocates.
Wra
is
a
nonprofit
organization
that
dedicated
to
protecting
the
west's
land,
air
and
water.
Wra
supports
assembly
bill
380
and
the
conceptual
amendment
ab380
creates
a
framework
similar
to
integrated
resource
plans
that
electric
utilities
submit
every
three
years.
P
P
Supply
plans
provide
nevadans
events
impacted
by
these
plans
would
be
able
to
provide
their
views
by
intervening
in
public
utilities.
Commission
dockets
that
address
the
plans
filed
by
the
cash
utilities
similar
to
what
is
done
in
an
electric
utility
irp
wra
urges
members
of
the
committee
to
pass
the
ab
380
and
the
conceptual
amendment.
Thank.
A
You
thank
you
so
much
and
for
the
other
callers
that
have
waited
patiently
to
give
your
testimony
and
support.
I
am
so
sorry,
but
I
will
encourage
you
if
you
have
not
already,
please
send
in
your
written
testimony
and
we'll
go
to
our
last
testimony
in
support
which
will
be
by
zoom,
and
that
will
be
mr
figueroa.
J
J
If
the
policy
of
the
state,
as
outlined
in
the
governor's
climate
initiative,
is
to
eventually
transition
away
from
the
use
of
natural
gas
by
2050,
then
it
is
imperative
for
economic
reasons,
that
natural
gas
research
planning
be
implemented
so
that
natural
gas
utility
customers
are
not
left
with
billions
of
dollars
in
stranded
assets.
When
that
time
comes
a
methodic
and
early
approach,
such
as
research
planning
is
outlining.
This
bill
is
necessary
to
make
sure
our
natural
gas
utilities
upgrade
and
plan.
Accordingly,
in
line
with
the
state's
policy
goals.
J
A
F
P
Yes,
for
the
record,
my
name
is:
barry
gold,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
b-a-r-r-y-g-o-l-d,
and
I'm
the
director
of
government
relations
for
aarp,
nevada,
aerp
supports
sustainable
energy
policies,
but
we
also
ask
about
the
impact
on
energy
bills
and
affordability
as
well
as
reliability.
We
have
several
concerns
about
ab380.
P
While
we
support
utility
planning
and
a
robust
dialogue
and
sustainability.
We
also
believe
the
puc
should
be
allowed
to
do
its
job
and
not
be
micromanaged.
Accelerating
depreciation
of
natural
gas
assets
could
raise
rates
and
encouraging
the
use
of
additional
electricity
could
also
raise
electric
rates
by
requiring
massive
new
investments
in
electric
generation,
transmission
and
distribution.
P
Many
older
adults
and
lower
income?
Nevadans
currently
rely
on
natural
gas
to
heat
their
homes
cook
and
to
heat
their
hot
water.
It
is
cheaper
to
use
natural
gas
to
do
this
and
forcing
them
to
use
electricity
could
only
increase
the
difficulties
they
may
currently
already
have
choosing
between
buying
food
and
medicine
or
heating
their
homes.
Many,
if
not
most
older
homes
in
lower
income
areas
have
natural
gas,
and
this
would
create
a
huge
burden
for
many
of
them
to
retrofit
their
homes,
replace
appliances
and
then
also
have
to
pay
more
for
electricity.
P
I've
heard
it
could
cost
about
nine
thousand
dollars
per
house
to
do
that.
These
initiatives
need
further
study
before
any
legislative
action
is
taken.
Erp
nevada,
on
behalf
of
our
345
000
members
across
the
state,
oppose
ab380
due
to
reliability
and
affordability
concerns.
We
should
not
be
asking
grandma
to
rip
out
her
hot
water
heater
in
her
mobile
home
at
great
expense.
Thank
you.
F
O
Good
afternoon,
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
alexandria,
dazzlich
d-a-d-l-I-c-h
and
I'm
the
director
of
government
affairs
for
the
nevada
restaurant
association,
the
nevada
restaurant
association
is
in
opposition
to
ab380,
which
proposes
to
remove
natural
gas
in
commercial
and
residential
buildings.
O
It
is
vital
that
restaurants
continue
to
use
gas
to
cook
particular
types
of
food
over
a
fire
as
a
chef's
control
over
the
intensity
of
heat
directly
affects
the
flavor
of
the
food,
whether
it
be
flame,
seared,
meats,
charred
vegetables
or
using
a
traditional
wok
national
natural
gas
is
a
necessary
to
our
restaurants
and
as
base
and
as
basic
as
ingredients
of
spices
that
make
up
our
favorite
recipes.
In
addition,
natural
gas
provides
chefs
and
cooks
optimum
speed
and
efficiency,
which
affects
the
volume
of
customers.
O
A
restaurant
can
serve
natural
gas
is
absolutely
essential
to
the
running
of
a
restaurant,
and
our
operators
need
our
help
more
than
ever
to
protect
what
remains
of
the
restaurant
industry
as
they
begin
to
recover
over
the
course
of
many
years.
Nbra
appreciates
the
intent
behind
the
bill
and
are
committed
to
taking
steps
to
combat
the
effects
of
climate
change.
However,
we
believe
that
ab380
goes
too
far
is
for
these
reasons
that
we
are
opposed
today.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
G
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
jordan,
crainbull
j-o-r-d-a-n
k-r-a-h-e-n-b-u-h-l.
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
plumbing
heating
cooling
contractors
of
nevada.
The
phcc
of
nevada
is
strongly
opposed
to
ab-380,
as
submitted
and
as
recently
amended,
addressing
the
amendment
starting
with
section
3,
beneficial
electrification
means
converting
energy
source
of
customers
end-use
from
non-electrical
fuel
source
to
an
effective
electric
source
sections,
5.1,
15
c
16.4
b,
17c
19.
G
part.
Two.
All
re
refer
to
using
less
gas
and
electric
electrification,
section
22
repeals
nrs
for
expansion,
any
legislation
submitted
or
amended
that
would
prohibit
or
limit
the
use
of
natural
gas
would
be
devastating
to
our
industry,
business
owners,
homeowners
and
would
cost
many
jobs
across
the
state
also
requiring
homeowners
and
businesses
to
convert
to
non-gas
appliances.
Not
only
would
be
costly
in
regards
to
the
equipment,
but
also
in
many
cases,
require
electric
service
and
panel
upgrades.
Many
would
sit
and
simply
not
be
able
to
afford
this.
G
The
question
that
has
been
asked
many
times
today
and
has
never
been
addressed,
is
who
is
going
to
pay
for
this,
including
not
just
low
income
but
middle
income,
families
and
businesses.
The
elimination
of
natural
gas
through
ab30
or
any
other
bill
is
not
in
the
best
interest
of
the
homeowners,
businesses
and
citizens
of
nevada.
F
Q
Begin
good
afternoon,
chair
monroe,
moreno
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
doug
cannon
d-o-u-g-c-a-n-n-o-n
and
I'm
president
and
ceo
for
nv
energy.
Our
company
provides
electric
service
to
1.3
million,
electric
customers,
statewide
and
gas
service
to
175
000
customers
in
northern
nevada.
Q
The
decarbonization
of
our
energy
grid
is
one
of
nv
energy's
highest
priorities.
In
fact,
since
2005
we've
reduced
our
carbon
emissions
by
close
to
55
percent.
During
that
same
time,
nv
energy
customers
have
benefited
from
some
of
the
largest
rate
decreases
that
have
been
seen
across
the
country
today.
In
fact,
our
customers
rates
in
nevada
are
at
or
below
what
they
paid
in
2009.
Q
decarbonization,
when
done
through
a
deliberate
and
fact-driven
process
can
be
done
without
increasing
customer
rates.
Nv
energy
supports
our
state's
efforts
to
continue
decarbonization
and
it
is
critically
important
that
these
efforts
be
done
in
a
balanced
and
deliberate
manner
in
order
to
avoid
negative
impacts
on
energy,
reliability
and
price
nv.
Energy
is
committed
to
advancing
nevada's
decarbonization
goals
and
supports
the
state's
desired
clean
energy
and
technology
revolution
outlining
governor
sysolak's
state
of
nevada
climate
initiative,
as
the
legislature
considers
additional
ways
to
decarbonize
our
economy,
automobile
tailpipe
emissions.
Q
Q
The
topic
at
hand
today,
natural
gas
resource
planning,
is
yet
another
opportunity
to
benefit
our
environment
and
our
economy,
and
the
energy
has
participated
in
the
integrated
resource
planning
process
for
decades
for
our
electric
business.
It
is
this
very
processes
that
has
allowed
our
electric
business
to
achieve
significant
carbon
emission
reductions
and
bring
more
renewable
energy
to
nevada.
We
support
the
philosophy
that
natural
gas
service
can
also
benefit
from
resource
planning.
The
process
that
exists
today
for
electric
utilities
allows
all
stakeholders
to
participate
in
the
assessment
of
the
costs
and
benefits
of
all
alternatives.
Mr.
Q
A
If,
if
you
can
send
your
comments
to
us
in
writing,
that
would
be
wonderful,
but
we're
at
our
time
limit.
I
I
apologize,
but
thank
you
so
much
for
calling
we'll
do
that.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
We
have
one
more
caller
by
phone
and
then
the
next
callers
will
be
by
zoom.
F
O
Good
afternoon,
chairman
roe
moreno
and
committee
members
kerry
kramer
k-e-r-r-I-e-k-r-a-m-e-r
with
argentine
partners
on
behalf
of
neop.
We
would
like
to
thank
the
assemblywoman
for
continuing
to
speak
with
us
and
working
toward
a
solution
on
this
build.
Unfortunately,
at
this
time,
even
considering
the
amendment
nap
is
opposed.
While
we
understand
the
need
to
look
at
ways
to
address
climate
change,
the
need
for
natural
gas
and
commercial
development
remains
necessary
and
will
long
into
the
future.
O
A
R
Good
afternoon
sharon
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
john
hester,
I'm
president
and
ceo
of
southwest
gas,
I'm
also
proud
resident
of
nevada
for
over
30
years.
In
short,
we
oppose
this
legislation.
Legislation
creates
an
incremental
gas
utility
planning
process
to
facilitate
a
move
away
from
natural
gas
appliances
and
conversion
to
electricity.
R
The
goal
is
pretty
obvious.
If
you
read
the
third
sentence
in
the
legislation
to
learn
the
definition
of
beneficial
electrification,
beneficial
electrification
is
somewhat
of
a
misnomer
in
a
state
like
nevada,
where
approximately
70
percent
of
our
electricity
is
generated
with
natural
gas.
Natural
gas
has
also
supported
the
expansion
of
intermittent
renewable
resources
like
wind
and
solar.
That
said,
the
most
efficient
use
of
natural
gas
is
through
direct
use
and
natural
gas
appliances.
As
mentioned
earlier,
the
the
company
has
supported
economic
development
in
nevada,
as
seen
in
the
communities
of
mesquite
and
spring
creek.
R
We're
currently
investing
approximately
100
million
dollars
pursuant
to
extensive
plans
that
we
filed
with
the
pucn
any
suggestion
in
this
hearing
today
that
the
company
is
not
one
of
the
most
highly
regulated
businesses
in
nevada.
That's
subject
to
the
regulation
of
the
public
utility
commission
in
nevada,
the
federal
energy
regulatory
commission,
the
department
of
transportation
and
others
is
just
not
accurate.
R
R
Bill
for
a
customer
in
southern
nevada
from
southwest
gas
is
40
dollars.
I
really
appreciate
the
concern
for
affordability
for
customers.
We
also
are
working
to
pivot
our
business
to
new
sources
of
energy,
as
was
mentioned
earlier,
renewable
natural
gas,
hydrogen
energy
efficiency
and
supplies
that
come
with
offsets.
So
we
are
fully
supportive
of
taking
efforts
in
energy
efficiency
and
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
but
we
also
are
very
concerned
about
the
needs
of
our
customers
here
in
nevada.
A
R
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
tom,
brill
b-r-I-l-l
of
counsel
at
greenberg,
tourig,
and
I'm
here
to
testify
in
opposition
to
and
also
to
provide
technical
expertise
on
assembly
bill.
380..
I've
reviewed
I've
reviewed
several
versions
of
ab380,
including
two
sets
of
amendments
over
the
past
five
days.
R
Unfortunately,
the
bill
does
not
ask
the
puc
to
take
a
neutral
look
at
the
future.
The
problem
with
the
current
language
of
ab
380
is
that
electrification
would
be
assumed
to
be
beneficial
without
considering
several
factors,
including
the
upfront
cost
of
electrification,
the
higher
natural
gas
rates
that
would
be
imposed
on
customers
who
cannot
afford
to
electrify
and
would
be
required
to
pay
a
higher
share
of
the
utilities,
fixed
costs
as
a
result
of
electrification,
the
carbon
intensity
of
natural
gas
and
the
carbon
intensity
of
the
electricity
that
would
replace
it.
R
R
Today,
when
renewable
natural,
gas
or
biomethane
is
produced
from
the
right
biogenic
feedstocks,
it
can
significantly
reduce
emissions
in
other
sectors
such
as
the
agriculture,
dairy
or
other
industries.
When
I
say
this,
I'm
not
talking
about
a
fuel
zero
emissions
like
electricity
from
renewable
generation,
I
mean
negative
life
cycle
emissions,
and
when
this
renewable
natural
gas
is
used
in
the
transportation
industry,
it
also
helps
reduce
emissions
in
that
sector.
R
All
of
these
opportunities
should
be
considered
by
the
commission
without
a
thumb
on
the
scale
in
favor
of
electrification.
Thank
you.
A
B
Many
of
the
people
that
you
know
we
we
talk
about
protecting,
have
spoken
loudly
and
cannot
even
imagine
not
having
the
choice
of
clean
energy,
natural
gas.
B
We
have
heard
from
our
everyday
hard-working
hispanic
folks
who
have
loudly
said
they
are
worried
about
losing
their
choice
of
low-cost
natural
gas
to
heat
their
homes
and
cook
their
family
meals
and
from
our
abuelas
and
aguelitos,
which
is
our
grandma
and
grandpas.
Many
on
fixed
incomes,
they've
stated
loudly
that
they
enjoy
the
choice:
the
choice
of
affordable,
clean
natural
gas
for
their
homes.
B
We
know
that
eliminating
energy
choice
will
eliminate
jobs.
We
need
more
affordable
energy
choices.
When
we
talk
about
the
7
000
miles
of
lane
type
that
was
mentioned,
that
is
7
000
miles
worth
of
jobs.
What
we
need
is
more
innovative
collaborations,
and
this
will
lead
to
more
jobs,
which
we
know
is
needed.
B
B
I
feel
I
must
point
out
that,
with
good
paying
jobs,
you
have
paid
taxes
volunteered
in
all
aspects
of
our
community
and
have
helped
make
las
vegas
and
nevada
a
better
place.
Hold
your
heads
up
high,
knowing
that
your
work
of
delivering,
affordable,
clean
energy
choice
is
much
appreciated,
and
then
lastly,
thank.
A
I
appreciate
it
and
I
apologize
to
all
of
the
other
colors
that
are
on
the
line.
I
encourage
you
to
send
your
written
testimony
into
us
and
then-
and
we
can
all
just
you
know-
hate
a
simply
woman
cohen.
This
was
a
really
great
bill
with
a
great
discussion
and
the
the
questions
were
necessary,
but
unfortunately
we
have
a
hard
stop
today
for
this
committee,
we
have
to
finish
at
four,
so
members
can
go
off
to
other
committees.
A
We
will
roll
the
bills
that
are
were
not
heard
today
to
thursday
and
friday
and
yes,
committee.
We
were
only
going
to
have
a
work
session
on
friday,
but
it's
not
looking
that
way
now,
so
I
apologize
for
those
of
you
that
joined
us
today
for
the
other
bills
on
our
agenda,
and
I
hope
my
staff
will
reach
out
to
you
within
the
next
24
hours
to
let
you
know
when
the
bills
will
be
rescheduled
and
with
that
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
380,
neutral
neutral.
F
P
Hello,
chair
and
elected
officials,
businessmen.
I
respect
your
time.
Some
of
you
guys
did
a
good
job
that
are
going
against
it.
They
use
their
time
very
well,
and
I
only
heard
one
of
them
use
this
word.
That
starts
with
an
h
and
it's
called
hydrogen.
P
You
guys
should
look
into
hydrogen
vehicles
as
opposed
to
electric
vehicles
hydrogen's
the
wave
of
the
future.
P
P
It's
not
a
good
thing
when
nasa
says
we're
the
brightest
place
on
earth,
because
you
guys
need
to
think
about
all
this
electricity.
P
That's
going
all
these
casinos
and
you
guys
are
talking
about
electric
electric
electric,
it's
like
where
all
this
power
gonna
come
from,
and
why
are
you?
Why
do
you
guys
want
a
water
grass?
Why
do
you
want
to
use
our
water
to
build?
Make
grass
in
summerland
that's
not
good
and
looking
to
the
solar
panels
that
are
being
built
in
china,
we
don't
want
any
more
china
and
look
into
electrical
transformers
that
have
extra
that
are
being
found
with
extra
technology.
O
P
A
F
N
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I'm
kristen
averitt
state
climate
policy,
coordinator,
k-r-I-s-t-e-n-a-z
e-r-y-t,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
climate
initiative.
I
am
testifying
neutral
on
ab380
natural
gas
is
a
fossil
fuel
when
it's
burned,
whether
at
power
plants
or
directly
in
our
homes
and
businesses.
N
It
releases
carbon
dioxide
in
our
state
45
of
our
total
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
come
from
burning
natural
gas,
given
the
significant
contribution
of
gas
to
the
state's
greenhouse
gas
emissions
profile
and
based
on
what
we
currently
know,
it
will
be
necessary
to
transition
from
natural
gas
across
all
sectors
in
order
to
achieve
nevada's
net
zero
emissions
target.
The
topic
topic
of
natural
gas
was
contemplated
in
the
state
climate
strategy
that
was
released
last
year,
as
it
relates
to
natural
gas
and
ab380.
N
The
state
climate
strategy
states
the
following
number
one:
in
order
to
meet
nevada's
long-term
goal
of
zero
emission
transitioning
away
from
natural
gas
is
necessary.
Number
two
burning
gas
ovens
can
compromise
indoor,
air
quality
and
the
health
of
families
and
those
working
in
commercial
kitchen.
Three,
a
phased
transition
from
gas
in
the
residential
and
commercial
sectors
will
require
careful
planning
and
engagement.
N
N
F
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
david
bob
zane,
the
last
name
is
spelled
b-o-b-z-I-e-n
and
I
serve
as
the
director
of
the
governor's
office
of
energy
for
governor
steve
sisolak.
G
I
do
also
want
to
quickly
note
a
couple
of
the
the
the
technical
issues
about
alternatives
for
natural
gas
that
were
discussed
previously.
There
was
some
conversation
about
renewable
natural
gas
as
a
possible
path
forward
for
gas
distribution.
G
I
would
note
that,
while
this
legislature
has
been
supportive
and
we
are
watching
this
effort,
renewable
natural
gas
was
not
considered
in
the
state
climate
strategy
because,
according
to
the
company's
own
filing
southwest
gasoline
filings
with
the
puc,
the
current
goal
for
displacement
of
the
gas
supply
for
direct
use
is
three
percent
by
2035..
G
We
do
see,
though,
some
opportunity
with
green
hydrogen.
Hydrogen
is
mentioned
in
the
state
climate
strategy.
I'm
proud
to
report
that
I
serve
as
the
co-chair
of
the
western
green
hydrogen
initiative,
so
we're
very
active
in
the
investigation
of
green
hydrogen's
applications
for
heavy
industrial
transportation
as
a
storage,
medium,
etc.
G
There
is
some
question
as
to
as
the
future
ability
to
use
this
in
the
direct
use
context
whether
or
not
it
can
be
blended.
I
think
the
point
was
made
earlier,
though,
that
economically,
it
probably
won't
happen.
Nonetheless,
we
look
forward
to
working
with
the
company
on
these
alternatives
and
we
would
certainly
be
participating
in
an
investigatory
docket.
Should
this
bill
move
forward
directing
the
puc
to
open
one.
Thank
you.
F
A
H
Thank
you
chair,
yes
and
I'll
make
it
very
brief
so,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
the
hearing
and
for
the
very
good
conversation
we're
facing
a
climate
crisis,
one
that
will
primarily
affect
those
not
watching
or
participating
in
this
hearing
confronting
this
crisis
won't
be
easy,
but
our
choices
are
harder
because
of
because
for
decades
too,
many
of
us
chose
to
do
nothing
and
every
day
that
we
fail
to
do
action.
H
We
leave
harder
and
worse
decisions
for
the
next
generation
planning,
for
the
future
will
help
make
those
decisions
easier,
smarter,
more
predictable
for
everyone.
The
proposal
doesn't
force
anyone
to
change
anything,
but
it
does
ask
us
to
look
at
where
we're
headed,
where
we
want
to
go
and
for
us
to
choose
wisely.
So
I
urge
your
support
for
ab380,
because
this
is
an
issue
we
can't
ignore
any
longer.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
presentation
and
the
interesting
dialogue
today
and
with
that
we'll
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill,
380
and
members
that
takes
us
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda
for
today,
unfortunately,
which
will
be
public
comment,
and
I
will
ask
our
broadcast
staff.
If
we
have
anyone
in
the
waiting
room
for
public
comment.
F
O
O
F
P
Hello,
mr
my
deepest
apology
for
for
not
doing
that
the
right
way
my
name
is
jc
j-o-h-n
and
then
my
last
name
is
t-a-r-l-o
and
I'm
calling
from
vegas.
But
I
do
want
to
talk
to
you
guys
because
you
guys
need
to
look
into
hydrogen
vehicles
and
investing
into
hydrogen
at
gas
pumps,
because
hydrogen
it
takes
less
time
to
refuel
than
electrical
cars
and
they're,
less
combustible
and
they're,
not
hydrogen's,
not
harmful
to
your
health.
P
So
you
guys
there's
never
going
to
be
100
trying
to
say
you
know
we're
we're
recycling,
but
what
I'm
trying
to
tell
you
guys
do
use
do
not
water
the
grass
in
summerland.
Why
would
you
guys
try
to
use
our
water
that
way?
I
think
we
could
use
it
better
and
recycling
in
the
public.
Schools
is
like.
Why
hasn't?
No
one
ever
thought
about.
P
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
members.
That
brings
us
to
the
end
of
today's
meeting
and,
as
I
said,
the
other
bills
that
were
supposed
to
be
heard
today
will
be
rolled
to
thursday
and
friday.
Our
staff
will
reach
out
to
the
bill,
sponsors
and
the
presenters
to
let
them
know
exactly
what
day
that
they
will
be
scheduled.
I
apologize,
but
we
did
have
a
very
important
bill
with
a
lot
of
dialogue
and
I
didn't
anticipate
it
to
go
as
long.