►
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
A
A
We
have
three
bill
presentations
today
and
for
those
that
are
watching
virtually
the
building
is
open
on
a
limited
basis
for
in-person
visits
to
our
building,
and
we
do
have
a
guest
in
our
audience
today,
which
makes
us
feel
good
to
have
someone
here
live.
A
However,
if
you're
joining
us
virtually-
and
you
would
like
to
submit
your
opinion
or
testimony
to
the
committee,
you
can
do
so
online
for
up
to
48
hours
after
this
meeting
and
if
you're
joining
us
here
in
person.
A
Please
remember
to
wear
your
mask
and
to
please
observe
social
discipline
protocols,
our
first
hearing
for
the
day,
oh
and
before
we
get
to
the
first
hearing
for
the
day
for
those
who
are
here
joining
us
in
person
and
watching
us
online,
we're
at
that
time
of
the
legislative
session
when
members
of
this
committee
will
be
presenting
bills
or
a
work
session
in
another.
So
if
you
see
us
coming
and
going,
please
don't
think.
A
That's
weird
we're
just
at
that
time
of
the
legislative
session,
and
I
will
be
one
of
those
members
leaving
to
present
a
bill
and
another
committee
and
my
vice
chair
will
be
taking
over,
but
we
will
get
this
meeting
started
today
with
senate
bill.
2
59,
it's
a
measure,
that's
sponsored
by
senator
dennis,
and
I
am
not
sure
if
he
is
joining
us.
A
C
Okay,
this:
this
is
a
really
good
bill.
C
The
nta
is
pretty
excited
about
it
and
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
distinguished
members.
We
appreciate
everything
you
do
and
the
tow
operators
in
nta.
You
know.
C
I
think
this
is
going
to
be
very
helpful
because
we
will
be
teaching
we'll
have
our
enforcement
officers
in
with
the
tow
operators,
and,
I
think,
it'll
be
a
better
rapport
for
for
both
of
us
and
basically
when
you're,
with
the
nevada,
transportation
authority,
you're,
really
thinking
about
safety
and
you're
thinking
about
how
you
can
help
these
people
and
making
a
difference
and
do
well,
and
so
this.
This
is
perfect.
For
us,
we
have
been
doing
training
before
the
pandemic
and
we're
starting
again,
and
it
fits
right
into
everything.
We're
doing.
C
I
do
want
to
share
with
you
that
the
compliance
enforcement
supervisors
and
the
compliance
audit
chief
will
meet
with
the
deputy
attorney
general
to
no
provisions
added
or
advised
or
regulations
that
were
adopted
and
immediately
preceding
year.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
and
I
will
let
you
know
that
senator
dennis
has
joined
us
so
senator
dennis
we
are
on
your
bill.
Ms
gibbons
did
a
great
start
to
your
presentation.
D
D
So
the
idea
for
this
bill
came
from
the
owner
of
a
tow
car
company
who
was
concerned
about
the
level
of
training
for
operators
in
the
industry
under
existing
law.
Tow
car
operators
are
regulated
by
the
nevada,
transportation
authority
or
nta
and
are
required
to
comply
with
statutes
and
regulations
affecting
more
motor
carriers,
but
trying
to
keep
up
with
the
new
regulations
and
bills
passed
during
a
legislative
session
is
not
an
easy
task.
D
During
the
senate
hearing
on
the
bill,
an
amendment
was
proposed
to
include
the
nta's
compliance
enforcement
officers
in
the
annual
training
and
that
change
was
made
with
the
wholehearted
concurrence
of
the
authority.
Clearly,
compliance
enforcement
officers
will
also
benefit
from
annual
training
on
new
laws
and
regulations.
D
So
let
me
walk
you
through
the
bill
section.
One
is
the
primary
substantive
provision
and
requires
the
nta
to
provide
annual
training
to
tow
car
operators
and
compliance
enforcement
officers
on
any
new
or
revised
law
or
regulations
affecting
tow
cars
and
motor
carriers
under
the
authority
of
the
nta.
D
The
annual
training
is
mandatory,
but
if
no
laws
or
regulations
were
enacted
or
revised
in
the
preceding
year,
then
the
training
need
not
be
held.
That
year,
section
one
includes
most
of
chapter
706
in
the
nrs,
within
the
scope
of
the
training
curriculum,
with
the
exception
of
the
taxi
cab
authority
provisions
and
also
requires
the
training
curriculum
to
be
uniformly
provided,
section,
1.3
and
1.5
on
our
conforming
provisions.
D
D
It's,
I
think
it's
an
fairly
simple
concept,
but
over
the
years
I've
passed
various
bills
and
trying
to
make
sure
that
they
were
implemented
accurately
and
that
and
actually
with
the
amendment
having
both
the
ones
that
enforce
it
and
the
ones
that
have
to
do
it
on
the
same
page,
I
think
is,
is
a
it's
a
really
good
opportunity
for
everybody
to
understand
what
those
changes
were,
that
we
did
and
then
any
regulations
that
were
promulgated
because
of
that
of
either
the
legislation
or
that
came
forth.
D
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
and
good
afternoon,
senator
sorry,
I'm
a
little
late.
I
was
at
the
memorial.
I
do
have
some
questions.
The
question
I've
got
is
it
it
says
training
and
it
says
training
by
an
officer
or
whatever.
But
what
does
the
training
really
consist
of
and
how
long?
How
long
a
training
do
they
got
to
have.
D
Well,
I
can
start-
and
I
think
the
chairwoman
could
probably
talk
about
it
too,
but
the
information
that
needs
to
be
trained
upon
is
any
new
laws
or
regulations
that
that
come
about
either
because
of
the
legislative
session,
or
you
know
the
regulations
that
occur
afterwards,
so
they
would
be
trained
on
on
those
in
on
and
so
that
they
would
understand
what
the
new
laws
were
so
as
they
enforce
them
on
the
enforcement
side
and
as
they
have
to
follow
them
on
the
toe
car
side
that
they
all
are
on
the
same
page,
and
I
I'm
sure
chairman
gibbons
could
probably
talk
about
what
her
thoughts
are
on.
D
E
D
Okay
yeah,
they
they
do
other
training
there,
but
this
is
specific
to
any
new
laws
or
regulations
that
that
that
they
need
to
follow.
F
Thank
you,
man,
I'm
sure
my
my
question's,
just
like
kind
of
the
same
maine
as
this
assemblyman
ellison's.
So
is
there
any
is
this?
Is
there
currently
a
training
in
place
is?
Is
there
something?
Is
there
some
level
of
training
that
they're
currently
getting?
Is
this
adding
upon
the
current
training,
or
is
it
something
that
you
guys
are
starting
from
scratch
and
just
and
just
implementing.
D
I
well
if
we
lost
the
chairwoman
there,
but
I
think
she
could
probably
talk
about
historical.
D
For
me,
it
was
I'm
sure
that
they
have
something
that
they
have
done
in
the
past,
but
what
I
have
found
in
some
of
the
in
the
past,
when
I've
passed
some
legislation
that
it
doesn't
always
get
down
to
the
two
car
operators
exactly
the
same
and
I've
had
stuff
where
we
passed
the
bill
and
they
still
weren't
following
it.
You
know
a
year
or
two
later,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
they
all
understand.
D
You
know
if
we
pass
a
bill
that
that
how
that
worked
and
and
how
they're
supposed
to
do
that.
So
that's
and
I
approached
the
chairwoman
and
she
she
said
it
would
be
good
because
they've
been
wanting
to
do
some
training
and
this
just
helped
them
to
to
be
able
to
organize
that.
D
And
once
again
I
that
the
main
reason
it
came
to
me
was
one
of
the
tow
car
operators
who
had
done
some
work
in
a
different
state.
I
was
talking
about,
or
maybe
a
different
industry
talking
about
how
they
get.
You
know
they
have
to
do
some
kind
of
training
periodically
and
so
he's
wondering
why
we
couldn't
do
that
here.
A
G
G
H
Tesla
laxalt
p-e-s-s-a-l-a-x-a-l-t,
I'm
the
government
affairs
manager
at
the
nevada,
trucking
association,
which
includes
members
who
are
too
operators.
We
are
here
in
full
support
of
sc
259
and
thanks
senator
dennis
for
his
work
on
this
bill.
We
believe
that
having
the
nevada
transportation
authority
providing
annual
training
is
needed
for
both
our
regulated
operators
and
their
enforcement
staff.
This
measure
will
keep
our
tow
operators
apprised
of
new
laws
and
regulations,
as
well
as
aligning
the
regulator
and
the
regulated
industry
of
those
laws
and
rules.
H
A
A
D
Want
to
thank
you
for
the
opportunity,
I'm
chair
and
committee
for
hearing
the
bill
and
hope
that
we
can
do
this
to
make
it
the
tow
car
industry
even
better.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
bill,
presentation
and
joining
us
and
again
I
apologize
for
not
informing
you
of
the
rearrangement
of
our
agenda
for
today.
So
members
with
that,
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
259
and
we
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
18,
which
will
be
presented
by
the
staff
from
the
public
utilities.
Commission
and
the
presenters
will
be
joining
us
by
zoom
as
soon
as
you're
ready.
The
floor
is
yours.
I
I
The
commission
proposes
to
increase
the
administrative
fine
amounts
for
several
reasons.
First,
the
fine
amounts
are
very
dated.
The
legislature
established
the
current
maximum
fine
amount
under
nrs
703154
and
703
380
in
1981
and
in
1979
for
704
640.,
while
perhaps
appropriate
40
years
ago.
Those
amounts
are
no
longer
sufficient
to
create
the
necessary
disincentive
for
violating
important
statutes,
regulations
and
orders
that
ensure
the
safety,
reliability
and
affordability
of
utility
service
throughout
the
state.
I
I
I
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
nevada
puc,
unlike
pucs
and
other
states,
receive
no
financial
benefit
from
imposing
administrative
fines
and
fines
are
deposited
in
the
state
general
fund
and
do
not
affect
the
agency's
budget.
The
commission's
only
interest
in
imposing
a
fine
is
maintaining
compliance
with
its
governing
statutes,
orders
and
regulations.
I
I
I
The
amendment
also
reduces
the
maximum
fining
authority
to
50
percent
of
the
amount
originally
proposed
and
to
the
extent
that
some
regulated
entities
still
have
concerns
about
the
increase
to
finding
authority.
Ultimately,
the
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
empower
the
pucn
to
impose
fines
that
are
concerning
to
those
companies.
I
I
In
conclusion,
the
commission
requests
your
support
of
sb18
to
provide
an
important
tool
to
ensure
the
safety,
reliability
and
affordability
of
utility
service
and
to
also
ensure
the
effective
implementation
of
public
policies
adopted
by
the
nevada
legislature,
garrett
weir,
the
pucs
general
counsel,
and
I
are
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
Thank
you.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
the
purpose
of
this
bill
and
I
appreciate
the
time
you
took
with
with
me
to
answer
some
of
my
questions
the
other
day,
but
I
do
want
to
get
on
the
record
some
of
the
intent
related
to
the
use
of
this.
These
fining
mechanisms
and
the
variety
of
sizes
of
utilities
that
are
regulated
under
the
puc.
J
So
we
don't
put
out
a
business
like
a
small
water
treatment
utility
in
a
in
a
regional
area
versus
one
of
our
larger,
like
energy
utilities
that
that
just
are
not
comparable.
I
I
I
think
I
would
ask
our
general
counsel,
garrett
weir,
to
answer
this
question
and
walk
through
the
the
safety
mechanisms
that
we
have
put
in
place
in
this
amendment.
K
I
am
thank
you,
so
thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
peters
and
as
you
mentioned,
there
are
a
variety
of
regulated
entities
subject
to
the
commission's
jurisdiction
that
range
in
all
sizes
of
customers
and
revenues,
and
so,
if
you
do
look
at
section
two
of
the
bill
and
it
would
be
subsection
two
of
section
two,
that's
when
the
language
begins
listing
out
the
criteria
that
the
commission
has
to
consider.
K
It
shall
consider
in
assessing
a
fine,
the
first
subsection
that
you
see
there,
subsection
2a
addresses
the
size
of
the
business
of
the
person
charged,
and
so
just
you
know,
relating
to
the
revenues
and
number
of
customers.
You
know
that's
an
important
part
of
the
consideration.
K
And
so,
as
you
continue
to
go
down
through
those
considerations,
there
are
various
other
criteria
that
that
outline
the
specific
circumstances
require
examination,
specific
circumstances
of
the
offense
and
ensure
that
you're
not
gonna,
that
the
commission
is
not
going
to
levy
a
disproportionate
or
excessive
fine
to
a
smaller
utility
or
utility
doing
something
that
isn't
or
isn't
going
to
assess
a
fine
that
doesn't
fit
the
violation.
J
Thank
you
for
for
that
response,
and
if
you
do
have
additional
information,
it
would
be
good
for
their
record
just
to
to
maintain
that
record
of
intent.
I
have
a
second
question
if
I
may-
and
I
think
it's
mostly
clarifying-
because
I
may
have
missed
it
in
your
presentation,
but
when
you
assess
these
feet
these
fines,
where
do
those
dollars
go?
Are
they
did?
I
miss
that
they
went
to
the
general
fund
or
do
you
guys
retain
them
and
can
they
be
used
for
certain
activities
by
the
puc.
I
I
J
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
my
question
is
more
about
the
appeal
process.
If,
if
someone's
levied
a
fine
so
who
handles
the
appeal
process,.
K
I'll
take
this
one,
madam
chair,
so
through
you,
two
assemblyman
love
it
the
appeal
process.
Well,
I
guess
taking
a
step
back
there
there's
a
quite
a
bit
of
due
process
involved
in
any
assessment
of
a
penalty
pursuant
to
these
statutes
there.
If
you
look
at
the
at
the
statutes,
there's
a
requirement
for
a
hearing,
and
so
there's
that
offer
opportunity
for
hearing,
notably
in
recent
years.
Actually,
the
commission
has
had
held
very
few
hearings
where
it's
gotten
to
the
point
of
being
contested.
K
But
so
there
are
hearings
where
the
commission
will
go
through
the
criteria
that
I
mentioned
previously
and
at
the
conclusion
of
that
hearing,
the
commission
would
then
vote
on
whether
and
to
what
extent,
to
assess
a
penalty,
a
party
would
have
an
opportunity
to
request
reconsideration
of
that
determination
and
then,
ultimately,
there
would
be
an
appeal
that
would
go
beyond
the
commission
or
an
opportunity
for
an
appeal
through
the
judicial
review
process,
which
would
initiate
first
in
district
state
district
court
and
that
that
would
be
presided
over
by
a
district
court
judge.
F
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
One
of
the
questions
I
do
have
is
you
know,
I
know
the
amount
of
the
increases
is
quite
high.
I
mean
from
we
didn't
take
little
steps,
we
took
large
steps
and
what
kind
of
effect
would
this
have
on
on
the
company's
bonding
and
insurance
rate,
and
would
that
cost
then
be
pushed
onto
the
consumer.
K
So
assemblyman
ellison.
K
Oh,
I
apologize
for
the
record
garrett
weir
general
counsel,
for
the
public
authorities.
Commission.
K
K
We'd
be
required
to
go
through
all
those
criteria
so,
but
certainly
if
there
is
a
significant
penalty
that
that
is
excessive,
you
know,
theoretically
it
for
a
smaller
utility.
It
could
affect
the
financial
health.
That's
something
that
the
commission
will
be
very
mindful
of
and
pursuant
to
law
has
to
to
balance
and
avoid
the
you
know.
The
commission
has
an
overarching
duty.
K
I
mean
both
in
protecting
the
utility
shareholders,
but
also
the
customers
of
the
utility
to
not
damage
the
utilities
bond
rating
in
a
way
that
makes
it
more
expensive
for
costs
to
access
capital
and
provide
service
to
its
customers.
So
so
that's
that's
something
that
will
be
considered.
We
don't
believe
that
there'd
be
any
effect
on
bond
rating
from
just
the
mere
passage
of
this
authority,
given
that
there
are
those
safeguards
in
place
to
ensure
that
a
utility
won't
be
excessively
fined
or
financially
funded.
E
Well,
the
question
I've
got
is,
and
you
answered
most
of
it,
but
it
you
know
just
like
any
other
business
or
whatever
and
you've
got
to
increase
insurance
that
rate's
going
to
go
way
out.
It's
not
that
you're
a
liability,
it's
just
the
unseen
circumstances,
so
anytime
you
put
it
that
kind
of
increase
on
there.
They've
got
to
pay
for
that
one
way
or
another
because
it
it's
it's
a
big
insurance
policy,
one
way
or
another.
E
So
the
only
thing
I
can
think
of
is
if
it
did
to
still
have
to
come
back
off
this
consumer
now,
if
there
was
a
large
fine-
and
it
was
a
large
like
california
head-
I'm
sure
they
would
have
to
raise
rates
for
a
while
to
to
you
know
to
recoup
what
they
lost.
But
I'm
just
saying
that
you
know
when
you
get
into
that
many
millions
of
dollars
in
and
fine
it's
like
insurance,
doubling
the
insurance
on
your
house.
It's
going
to
go
way
up!
So
you
don't
see
that
being
a
problem.
E
K
Depend
on
the
size
and
scale
of
the
utility
operation,
you
know
even
at
the
well.
I
guess
first
to
take
a
step
back.
The
types
of
of
offenses
or
violations
that
would
warrant
the
assessment
of
a
penalty
on
the
the
high
end
of
the
requested.
Enhanced
authority
would
would
likely
be
connected
to
violations.
That
would
involve
civil
liability.
K
You
know
in
torque
or
other
arenas
that
would
exceed
those
amounts,
and
so
you
know
any
sort
of
insurance
that
a
utility
would
have.
You
know
I'm
not
an
insurance
expert,
but
it's
it's
conceivable
that
those
costs
will
be
captured
there,
but
also
just
that.
K
The
sizes
of
these
utilities
that
we
regulate
for
the
vast
majority
of
them-
or
I
guess
the
vast
majority
of
customers
or
the
regulations
that
would
warrant
penalties,
they're,
pretty
large
entities
who,
even
in
even
relatively
speaking,
smaller
companies,
the
the
dollar
amounts
they
would
potentially
be
assessed,
are
likely
not
significant
enough
to
be
harmful
to
the
sustainability
of
of
the
company.
As
far
as
the
insurance
rates,
the
premiums
that
they
have
to
pay,
given
a
couple
of
million
dollars
relative
to
the
revenues
of
these
utilities.
K
So
but
you
know
frankly,
we
haven't
heard
that
concern
expressed
by
any
utilities,
so
we
we
haven't.
I
haven't
recently
explored
that
issue,
but
that's
just
my
initial
response
to
your
question.
We
can
certainly
look
into
that
and
get
back
to
those
simply.
A
Thank
you
and
just
for
clarification.
I
know
we
do
have
one
other
question.
These
administrative
fines
would
only
be
assessed
and
when
things
certain
violations
occur
that
are
related
to
public
utilities,
which
could
be
inaccurate
or
misleading
information
to
the
pucn
or
for
increasing
criminal
penalties
for
certain
violations
related
to
public
utilities.
A
And
then
I
have
one
more
question
because
I
myself
I'm
going
to
have
to
leave
to
go
testifying
another
committee
and
I
apologize.
There
was
a
in
conversations
with
some
of
the
stakeholders.
There
was
an
amendment
that
was
presented
from
some
of
the
commercial
mobile
radio
services
companies.
A
Were
you
able
to
have
a
conversation
with
those
companies?
Have
you
seen
their
amendment?
Is
it
a
friendly
amendment
and
if
not,
why.
K
K
We
would,
I
guess,
characterize
it
as
an
unfriendly
amendment,
it's
not
something
that
we
are
particularly
supportive
of
the
reason
being.
Well
frankly,
we
haven't
heard
a
description
of
exactly
why
those
carriers
believe
that
it's
justified
for
them
to
be
essentially
carved
out
of
this
finding
authority
under
the
existing
law.
K
Those
entities
are
subject
to
the
same
penalties
that
other
utilities
are
there.
Despite
the
relatively
light
touch
regulation
that
the
commission
imposes
upon
competitive
suppliers
of
telecommunications
service,
there
are
instances
when
we
would
have
regulatory
jurisdiction,
such
as,
for
example,
oversight
of
programs
to
provide
assistance
to
low-income
customers,
for
example,
on
the
universal
service
fund.
At
the
federal
level
we
administer
that
here
at
the
state
we
designate
carriers
to
be
eligible
for
those
funds,
and
so
if
there
were
some
sort
of
fraud
or
abuse-
or
you
know,
misconduct
related
those
programs.
K
At
least
those
are
large
entities
and
ultimately,
the
you
know,
two
million
dollars
or
even,
if
there's
some
egregious
misconduct
that
would
warrant
up
to
the
five
million
dollar
amount.
You
know
it's
unlikely
that
those
fines
would
bankrupt
entities
as
large
as
those
companies.
B
K
You
know
again,
there
are
many
different
types
of
entities
that
are
regulated
by
the
psc,
all
of
whom
can
probably
argue
that
they're
distinguishable
from
the
types
of
companies
that
you
initially
think
of
when
you
think
of
regulated
utilities
and
if
we
start
carving
out
one
group
of
service
providers,
inevitably
others
are
going
to
want
to
be
carved
out
as
well,
and
we
just
we
think,
it's
much
simpler
and
more
equitable
to
apply
these
new
enhanced
funding
authorities
across
the
board.
C
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
thank
you,
and
I
want
to
offer
my
my
appreciation
for
the
time
that
you
spent
a
meeting
with
me
prior
to
this
meeting
as
well.
I
I
just
would
really
like
a
clarification.
C
As
I
read
section
one
of
the
bill,
it
says
that
this
is
specific
to
intra-state
pipelines
in
the
state
which
are
used
to
store
and
transport
natural,
natural
gas,
liquefied
petroleum
gas
in
its
liquid
or
vapor
form.
So
to
me,
we're
talking
about
gas
pipelines
specifically,
and
then
I
I
think
I
just
heard
you
say
to
apply
these
fines
across
the
board.
So
I
really
just
would
like
clarification.
Are
we
specifically
talking
about
finding
for
pipelines
and
violations
specific
to
that
issue
area,
or
could
the
puc
apply
this
to
any
other
entity.
K
For
the
record
garrett,
we're
general
counsel,
the
public
facilities
commission
so
to
address,
I
guess
I'll,
go
directly
to
a
simple
one
with
brown
may,
so
that
first
section
is
frankly
just
codifying
statutory
finding
authority
that
actually
exists
elsewhere
in
the
nrs
at
nrs,
704
595,
I
believe-
and
and
so
it
it's
kind
of
a
housekeeping
measure,
so
to
the
extent
that
that
fines
are
being
levied
for
pipeline
safety
related
violations,
that
those
are
the
amounts
that
would
be
involved
there.
K
So
anyone
who
wouldn't
then
also
otherwise
be
subject
to
the
broader
finding
authority
in
section
two,
those
are
the
entities
to
whom
that
those
pipeline,
specific
penalties
would
be
assessed.
A
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
for
the
record.
My
name
is
kyle
davis
today,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
conservation
league,
the
public
utilities
commission
plays
a
crucial
role
in
the
reduction
of
pollution
in
the
path
of
our
clean
energy.
Future
enforcement
of
the
decisions
made
in
this
body
are
implemented
at
the
commission
and
it's
critical
that
the
fines
for
non-compliance
are
strong
enough
to
ensure
that
utilities
follow
the
law,
and
these
fines
aren't
just
considered
the
cost
of
doing
business.
L
A
G
G
G
E
E
Sb18
in
its
entirety,
thank
you
very
much.
That
concludes.
G
H
Good
afternoon,
chairman
romano
and
committee
members,
I'm
deborah
gallo
with
southwest
gas.
We
support
sb
18
and
it's
amended
version
which
is
before
you
today,
and
we
would
like
to
again
thank
the
public
utilities.
Commission,
mr
ware
and
ms
mullen
for
working
with
us
to
address
some
concerns.
We
had
on
section
two.
Thank
you.
G
H
C-H-R-I-S-T-I-N-A-B-A-I-L-E-Y
s-h-a-v-e-r
speaking
on
behalf
of
nd
energy,
as
nevada's
largest
regulated
utility
nd
energy,
fully
understands
the
importance
of
the
pscn's
enforcement
responsibility.
We
support
sb18
and
recognize
the
need
to
update
and
modernize
the
administrative
signs
that
can
be
imposed
by
the
pucn.
The
fee
structure
of
nrs
703.154
has
not
been
updated.
Since
1993.
H
the
fee
structure
of
nri
703.380
has
not
been
updated
since
1981..
We
agree
they
need
to
be
updated.
Now
at
nb
energy.
We
have
been
fortunate
not
to
not
to
have
often
faced
the
prospect
of
a
sign
from
the
pcn,
but
the
potential
impact
of
signs
and
negative
aspects
on
our
reputation
is
a
significant
deterrent
to
the
pro
to
prohibit
misconduct.
H
A
A
A
I
A
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I'm
garrett
weir
general
counsel
for
the
public
utilities,
commission
of
nevada,
so
the
bill
sb
59
before
you
is
a
bill
that
simply
proposes
to
clarify
the
current
effect
of
the
law,
taking
a
step
back
to
provide
some
context
here.
The
pucn
is
exempt
from
the
judicial
review
framework,
where
the
decisions
of
the
puc
are
exempt
from
the
judicial
review
framework.
K
The
commission's
decisions
being
exempt
from
that
process
is
for
one
reason,
and
one
reason
only,
and
that
is
to
expedite
the
resolution
of
appeals
of
puc
decisions
and
just
very
quickly
I'll
walk
through
some
of
the
ways
in
which
the
pucs
judicial
review
process
is
expedited.
K
First,
the
timelines
for
initiating
the
appeal
are
expedited
from
30
days
or
from
45
days
rather
to
30
days.
The
timeline
for
transmittal
of
the
record
is
expedited
from
45
days
to
30
days.
The
timeline
for
submitting
an
opening
brief
is
expedited
from
40
days
to
30
days
and
then
also
importantly
as
delineated
in
703
nrs703373
sub
10.
K
I
believe
the
appeals
of
qc
and
decisions
take
precedence
over
all
other
civil
actions
before
the
court,
so
the
final
way
in
which
the
judicial
review
of
pc
decisions
is
different
in
statute
from
the
process
applicable
to
other
administrative
agencies
decisions
is
that
the
briefing
schedule
is
truncated,
contemplating
only
an
opening
brief
from
the
appellants
and
a
reply
from
the
respondents
who
are
defending
the
pc's
decision.
K
So
the
reason
for
this-
and
this
bill
addresses
that
particular
component,
where
there's
there's
been
some
recent
attempts
to
file
additional
briefing
and
so
just
again,
taking
a
step
back
the
reason
for
that
the
legislature.
K
Looking
at
the
legislative
history
from
when
this
separate
judicial
review,
section
was
created
in
statute
for
pvc
decisions,
the
reason
for
it
for
that
that
the
legislature
took
into
account
was
that
an
expedited
review
protects
customers
of
the
utility
and
when
you
look
at
a
decision
of
a
commission
and
the
potential
risks
to
ratepayers
of
that
decision
being
overturned,
it's
it's
important
to
recognize
that
if,
if
the
commission
disallows
certain
recovery
of
costs
that
ultimately
would
be
passed
on
through
utility
rates
to
customers
that
that
disallowance,
if
it
is
reversed
by
a
court,
is
not
limited
to
just
those
dollars
that
were
disallowed,
you
would
also
have
the
potential
time
value
of
money
that
the
utility
could
seek
recovery
of
over
the
tendency
of
the
appeal
and
so
the
longer
that
an
appeal
is
pending
the
more
money
that
rate
payers
would
potentially
have
to
be
on
the
hook
for
if
a
court
overturns
the
pc's
decision
and
so
recognizing
that
the
legislature
was
prescriptive
in
limiting
the
court's
discretion.
K
Procedurally
in
reviewing
and
resolving
appeals
of
poc
decisions.
So
what
we're
increasingly
seeing
in
appeals
of
puc
decisions?
K
Is
that
the
folks
who
are
who
file
petitions
for
judicial
review
are
requesting
additional
opportunities
for
briefing
so
there's
the
initial
brief
that
the
opponent
files
followed
by
the
response
from
the
puc
and
any
other
parties
who
are
supporting
the
pc's
decision
and
then
instead
of
the
case,
proceeding
then
to
hearing
the
appellant
files
motions
to
recover
or
to
to
file,
then
an
additional
responsive
brief
to
the
respondents
group.
K
K
Then,
if
the
court
does
in
fact
grant
the
opportunity
for
an
additional
brief,
there's
the
time
for
filing
that
brief,
often
if,
if
additional
briefs
are
allowed
for
the
appellants,
the
respondents
then
seek
the
opportunity
for
a
serve
applied
brief
and
we
go
through
that
whole
exercise
again.
So,
ironically,
a
process
that
was
intended
to
be
different
from
the
nrs
233b
process
to
expedite
resolution
of
fusion
cases
is
actually
taking
longer
than
it
would
have
if
the
pucs
decisions
were
subject
to
the
same
framework
that
other
administrative
agencies
are
subject
to.
K
So
we
are
simply
seeking
to
clarify
the
fact
that
the
briefing
schedule
is
truncated
and
that
there
isn't
any
discretion
to
take
additional
briefing
and
that
if
the
court
requires
additional
information,
they
can
gather
that
information
and
there's
appropriate
due
process
through
hearing,
and
so
with
that,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation,
mr
weir.
I
actually
don't
have
a
question
so
much
as
a
comment.
You
know
whenever
I
see
a
bill
that
addresses
judicial
review,
I
always
take
a
a
close
look
at
it
and
you
know,
particularly
for
for
processes
that
are
outside
of
the
administrative
procedures
act.
F
Making
sure
that
there
is
good
access
to
due
process
with
ability
for
any
aggrieved
party
to
to
seek
judicial
review
is
important
to
me,
and
so
I
looked
at
this
bill
pretty
intently,
but
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
it
does
not
limit
who
has
standing
or
or
otherwise
limit
access
to
justice
and
instead
is
seeking
to
help
move
the
process
along
so
that
you
can
get
to
a
resolution
in
a
more
timely
manner.
So
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
comment
on
the
record.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
for
the
comment.
I
am
not
seeing
any
questions
from
any
of
the
members,
so
I
will
go
to
testimony.
We
have
no
one
here
in
the
committee
room
to
provide
testimony
in
any
of
the
positions,
so
we
will
move
to
our
virtual
platform
and
ask
if
we
have
any
callers
on
the
line
who
wish
to
provide
testimony
and
support
of
senate
bill
59.
G
G
E
Hi
good
afternoon,
my
name
is
ernest
figueroa
e-r-n-e-s-t
f-I-g-u-e-r-o-a
good
afternoon,
chairman
moreno
and
vice
chair
watts
and
members
of
the
committee.
Once
again,
I'm
here
to
testify
in
support
of
pucn
bill
sb59.
A
A
G
A
A
K
Sure
for
the
record,
you're
at
weird
general
counsel
for
the
uc.
Just
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
present
sp59,
and
we
urge
your
support
to
provide
much-needed
clarity
to
protect
utility
customers
of
the
costs
of
delayed
resolution
of
appeals
of
puc
decisions.
A
A
Well,
thank
you
so
much
so
members
with
that
it
will
conclude
today's
meeting.
I
thank
our
presenters
for
joining
us
here
today
and
our
committee
broadcast
staff,
who
is
amazing,
as
always,
our
next
meeting
for
the
assembly
committee
on
growth
and
infrastructure
will
be
tuesday
may
11th
and
we
will
be
starting
at
1
30
and
we
will
be
hearing
one
bill
and
we
will
have
a
work
session
on
a
number
of
bills.
So
with
that
this
meeting
is
adjourned.