►
From YouTube: 4/5/2021 - Senate Committee on Growth and Infrastructure
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.
D
A
Here
we
have
three
members
present,
that's
a
core,
madam
secretary.
Please
go
ahead
and
mark
senators
hammond
and
spearman
present
as
they
arrive
and
per
usual.
I
will
endeavor
to
give
you
a
verbal
confirmation
once
they
show
up
as
well
just
a
couple
of
quick
reminders
if
you're
presenting,
but
not
speaking,
please
keep
yourself
on
mute
and
our
general
committee
reminder
for
everyone
to
be
respectful
of
each
other,
both
senators
and
presenters.
A
Even
if
you
disagree
with
another
person's
position,
a
couple
of
ways
to
participate,
hopefully
everybody's
familiar
with
this.
By
now,
we've
got
our
opinion
poll
online.
You
can
click
to
participate
in
any
meeting
through
nellis.
If
you
have
questions
about
how
to
how
to
participate,
go
ahead
and
email.
A
Our
committee
manager,
whose
email
address
is
on
the
agenda
with
that
we
will
go
ahead
and
jump
right
into
our
business
for
the
day
and
start
with
senate
bill
303,
who
is
brought
to
us
by
our
own
vice
chair,
senator,
brooks
senator,
brooks
please
go
ahead
and
take
it
away
when
you're
ready.
E
E
Over
20
years
ago
I
started
one
of
the
first
solar
electric
companies
in
the
country
and
the
first
here
in
nevada.
I
installed
the
first
net
meter.
Systems
in
nevada
have
owned
a
rooftop
solar
net
meter
at
home,
for
nearly
that
entire
time.
Restoring
the
rooftop
solar
industry
and
providing
nevadans
with
clean
and
efficient
ways
to
create
their
own
energy
was
one
of
the
reasons
I
wanted
to
become
a
legislator.
E
Since
we
successfully
restored
the
residential
rooftop
solar
back
in
2017
legislature,
the
demand
has
skyrocketed
with
that
increased
demand
has
come.
The
increase
in
bad
actors
in
this
industry
in
2017.
The
legislature
also
put
into
place
many
consumer
protections
that
have
become
a
model
for
the
rest
of
the
nation,
but
more
needs
to
be
done
to
protect
consumers.
E
E
Many
of
these
people
and
companies
are
unlicensed
and
are
misrepresenting
themselves
to
nevada's
consumers,
some
have
posed
as
government
agencies
or
even
the
electric
utility.
Some
have
even
referenced
the
law
that
we
passed
in
the
legislature
to
say
that
nevada
law
requires
you
to
get
their
product.
Many
even
claim
free
energy
and
non-existent
state
rebates.
E
E
E
I've
worked
very
closely
with
the
nevada
state
contractors
board
public
utilities,
commission
and
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection
while
drafting
this
bill,
and
I
would
like
to
refer
the
committee.
If
I,
if
I
may,
to
the
proposed
amendment
that
I
submitted
to
the
committee
on
friday
of
last
week,
it
is
dated
4
to
21,
and
the
amendment
is
based
on
a
consensus
with
the
contractors
board
and
the
residential
rooftop
solar
industry.
E
It
is
under
exhibits
on
the
website
and
and
you
should
have
it
available,
and
I
would
like
to
present
based
upon
that,
if
possible,
if
it
pleases
the
committee
and
the
chair,
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
margie
green,
the
executive
officer
of
the
nevada
state
contractors
board
to
talk
about
some
of
the
provisions
of
this
bill
as
a
pro
as
we
have
proposed
in
the
amendment.
E
We
also
with
us
today
have
mr
tim,
guestwine
and
paul
rosario
from
the
nevada
state
contractors
board
as
well,
and
then
I
would
note
that
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection
has
submitted
amendment
language
that
they
would
like
to
have
considered
and
I'm
working
with
them
to
incorporate
those
concepts
into
a
proposed
conceptual
amendment.
I
consider
those
friendly
amendments
and
and
by
my
own
error.
Some
of
them
were
not
included
in
in
our
draft,
and
I
apologize
for
that
and
then
after
miss
green
runs
through
it.
E
I
would
also
like
to
have
the
solar
electric
industries,
association
and
sunrun,
to
say
a
few
brief
comments,
as
well,
finally
followed
up
by
mr
mark
kruger
from
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection.
If
that
is
okay
with
you
chair.
A
Perfectly
fine
vice
chair
brooks
to
proceed
in
the
order
that
you'd,
like,
I
believe,
we'll
turn
it
over
to
mr
green
at
this
or
miss
green.
At
this
point,
thank
you.
B
Thank
you
senator
brooks
and
good
afternoon,
chair
harris
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
margie
green
and
I'm
the
executive
officer
for
the
nevada
state
contractors
board.
I'm
here
today
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
303,
which
aims
to
enhance
protection
protection
for
consumers
engaged
in
the
installation
of
residential
solar
systems.
B
The
contractors
board
has
worked
collaboratively
with
senator,
brooks
on
the
language
of
this
bill
and
agrees.
This
is
an
industry
where
additional
safeguards
are
necessary.
Legislation
passed
in
2017
and
19
has
helped
encourage
the
residential
solar
market
with
the
highest
number
of
solar
installations
being
realized
in
2019.
B
B
The
damages
validated
through
the
recovery
fund
process
best
illustrates
the
board's
concern
for
the
public's
welfare
and
safety.
Since
2016
275
residential
recovery
fund
claims
have
been
awarded
to
homeowners
totaling
over
3.1
million
dollars.
Of
this
amount,
174
of
the
claims
were
against
solar
contractors
totaling
over
767
thousand
dollars.
B
It's
important
to
note
that
the
total
amount
of
awards
would
have
been
greater,
if
not
for
the
monetary
limitations
in
place
for
the
recovery
fund
at
issue.
In
several
cases,
is
acceptance
of
large
down
payments,
some
even
requesting
full
payment
up
front
as
high
as
50
000,
followed
by
project
abandonment
or
substandard
workmanship.
B
It
is
our
belief
that,
by
enhancing
the
requirements
and
expectations
of
contractors
engaged
in
residential
photovoltaic
product
projects,
we
will
begin
to
see
a
noticeable
decrease
in
the
number
of
complaints
filed
with
our
board.
Consumers
will
be
afforded
greater
access
to
information
before
making
their
decision.
It
will
be
more
adequately
protected
with
regard
to
financial
option
and
down
payment
limitations,
and
they
will
be,
and
they
will
proactively
be
made
aware
of
the
right
to
file
a
complaint
with
the
contractor's
board.
In
the
event,
issues
arise
throughout
their
project.
B
Additionally,
it
will
help
provide
a
more
standardized
contracting
practice
within
the
solar
industry,
allowing
the
board
to
hold
the
industry
more
accountable
and
ensuring
consumers
are
treated
fairly
through
the
residential
solar
process.
At
this
time,
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
the
board's
general
counsel
council,
mr
tim
guestwine,
to
present
an
amendment
for
your
consideration.
B
F
F
F
Section
five
of
the
act
defines
essentially
what
we're
trying
to
regulate
here.
The
residential
solar,
little
photovoltaic
industry.
We've
made
some
changes
regarding
what
the
actual
definition
is,
but,
more
importantly,
at
the
industries
request.
We've
added
section
subsection
3,
which
defines
what
this
is
not.
F
Section
7
of
this
bill
as
a
conceptual
change
to
make
sure
that
homeowners
understand
under
section
seven
one
sub
c,
a
new
subsection
that
the
public
utilities
commission
has
their
requirements
must
admit
as
well.
Any
requirements
of
the
electric
distribution
system
to
which
the
work
will
interconnect,
as
the
solar
system
has
told
us
repeatedly,
these
statutes
these
regulations
and
these
industry
standards
are
important
to
have
a
safe
and
functional
solar
photovoltaic
system.
F
F
F
When
modeled
against
the
pool,
regs
and
statutes,
the
board
already
had
pool
regulations
in
place
before
the
statutes
were
created.
Thus
this
this
series
of
rules
came
before
the
bill.
So
now,
since
we're
going
to
do
the
solar
work
first,
some
of
this
language
is
not
as
needed
as
it
was
with
the
pool
standards.
F
This
is
because
we've
realized,
as
we
worked
with
our
industry
partners,
that
the
financing
for
these
types
of
construction
projects
is
not
as
simple
or
as
ordinary
as
many
other
types
of
projects,
primarily
because
of
the
different
arrangements
that
fund
and
pay
for
these
types
of
systems.
Lease
agreements,
solar
buybacks.
All
these
things
make
this
type
of
financing
regulation.
F
again,
because
the
solar
regulations
preceded
the
solar
bills.
The
penalties
were
actually
captured
in
other
places.
Here
we're
trying
to
simplify
and
just
refer
to
the
current
standards
of
nrs,
624,
700
and
nrs624750
for
the
penalties
for
contracting
to
do
solar
work
without
a
required
state
contractor's
board
license.
A
All
right,
thank
you
vice
chair
brooks.
Is
it
mr
rosario
who's
up
next.
E
G
Yeah,
that's
that's
correct,
senator
just
if
you
have
any
questions
I'll
be
happy
to.
E
Thank
you,
so
I
think
up
next
we
would
have
we
have
sarah
birmingham
from
the
solar
electric
industries
association,
followed
by
mr
stephen
lasseter
from
sunrun.
C
Great
thank
you
good
afternoon,
sir
harris
and
members
of
the
senate
growth
and
infrastructure
committee.
My
name
is
sarah
birmingham
and
I'm
here
representing
the
solar
energy
industries,
association
or
sia.
We
are
the
national
solar
trade
association
and
here
today
testify
testifying
in
support
of
sb
303.
C
As
we
see
the
solar
industry
grow
in
nevada,
especially
after
the
2017
legislation
that
senator
brooks
had
mentioned.
We
want
to
ensure
that
that
growth
occurs
in
a
responsible
and
ethical
manner.
Therefore,
consumer
protection
is
a
top
priority
for
us
at
cf.
We
want
to
work
and
collaborate
with
state,
local
and
federal
policy
makers
to
increase
consumer
understanding
and
ensure
that
those
who
don't
follow
the
rules
suffer
the
consequences.
C
Residential
solar
relies
on
word
of
mouth
for
success.
Consumers
who
understand
what
they're
getting
are
going
to
be
more
likely
to
have
good
experiences,
misleading
clean
claims
and
bad
actors,
only
poison
consumers,
experiences
with
solar
and
their
friends,
families
and
neighbors
will
hear
about
it.
C
C
C
H
Thank
you,
so
much
chair
harris
vice
chair
brooks
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
this
important
legislation
which
sunrun
supports.
My
testimony
today
pertains
to
the
bill
amendment
from
last
week.
My
name
is
stephen
lasseter
and
I'm
a
senior
manager
at
sunrun
sunrun
is
the
largest
residential
solar
storage
and
energy
services
company
in
the
country,
with
more
than
500
000
customers
across
the
country
and
thousands
across
the
state
of
nevada.
H
We
employ
a
hundred
nevadans
at
our
office
and
warehouse
on
eastgate
road
in
henderson,
which
is
also
one
of
two
national
sunrun
training.
Centers
hundreds
of
sunrun
employees
from
across
the
country
visit
henderson
each
year
to
receive
training
on
everything
from
home
battery
installation
to
flying
drones
for
home
audits.
H
One
of
our
company
company's
most
important
values
is
to
be
human-centered,
which
means
customer
centered,
because
we
have
a
decades-long
relationship
with
our
customers.
Nothing
is
more
important
than
ensuring
that
they
have
a
positive
experience
to
that
end.
Sunrent
takes
consumer
protection
very
seriously
and
we
frequently
work
with
policy
makers
across
the
country
on
consumer
protection
issues.
H
For
that
reason,
we
we
do
support
sb,
303
and
greatly
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
work
with
collaborative
collaboratively
with
nevada
policymakers
to
advance
these
critical
consumer
protection
issues,
chair
harris
and
by
share
books
thanks
very
much
for
this
opportunity
and
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
All
right,
mr
lasseter,
thank
you
so
much.
If
the
secretary
will
please
mark
senator
hammond
present
as
he
has
arrived
and
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
you
vice
chair
brooks.
If
you
would
like
to
make
any
more
comments
or
have
any
other
presenters
before
we
go
to
questions.
E
Well,
thank
you,
chair
harris.
I
think
I
would
like
to
finish
with
mr
mark
kruger
from
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection
that
just
highlight
a
few
of
the
points
that
didn't
make
it
into
this
amendment
that
that
we
would
like
to
see
make
it
into
the
amendment.
A
I
The
intent
of
the
proposed
amendment
to
the
proposed
conceptual
amendments
that
you've
heard
today
are
to
ensure
harmony
between
the
provisions
governing
the
regulation
of
rooftop,
solar
by
the
nevada
state
contractors
board
and
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection.
The
actual
standard
form
contract
for
rooftop
solar
is
housed
within
nrs
chapter
598.
The
deceptive
trade
practices
act,
the
enforcement
for
which
is
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection.
I
Additionally,
the
edits
provide
a
synchronized
definition
for
the
term
residential
photovoltaic
system,
as
used
in
nrs,
chapter
624
and
the
term
distributed
generation
system,
as
used
in
nrs
chapter
598.
Both
are
residential,
rooftop,
solar,
section
5.
The
amendments
to
this
section
include
third
party
advertisers
and
solicitors
of
solar
photovoltaic
systems
within
the
definition
of
work.
This
is
important
as
many
solar
companies
use
third-party
advertisers
and
solicitors
of
solar.
I
The
amendments
in
this
section
incorporate
critical
provisions
of
nrs
chapter
598
into
the
requirements
of
the
work
associated
with
the
contract,
thus
again
harmonizing
this
section
with
relevant
solar
consumer
rights
outlined
in
nrs
chapter
598.,
section
9
captures
the
provisions
of
nrs
chapter
598
to
ensure
that
the
nevada
state
contractors
board
includes
the
requirements
of
nrs
chapter
598
for
rooftop
solar
into
regulations.
If
they
elect
to
adopt
regulations
it
it.
It
also
includes
information
to
clarify
that
the
dates
upon
which
payments
are
due
and
an
acknowledgement
of
the
deadlines
articulated
in
section
8..
I
And
finally,
the
edits
impose
a
requirement
that
the
contractor
provide
the
owner
with
the
form
that's
signed
by
the
owner
and
contractor
acknowledging
that
the
owner
received
the
fully
signed
contract
in
all
associated
documents,
as
well
as
a
receipt
just
further
clarifying.
What's
also
included
in
here,
just
as
senator
brooks
said
about
the
importance
of
consumer
protection
provisions
in
section
10.
I
The
amendments
would
clarify
that
the
work
performed
under
this
section
captures
contractors
and
third-party
advertisers
and
solicitors
acting
on
behalf
of
the
contractors
and
then,
finally,
in
section
14,
we
propose
that
an
amendment
that
that
a
violation
of
this
chapter
is
also
a
violation
of
the
deceptive
trade
practices
act.
In
addition
to
the
penalties
provided
for
in
this
act.
That
would
allow
for
both
the
bureau
of
conservation
consumer
protection.
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
mr
krueger
vice
chair
brooks
anything
else
before
we
turn
over
to
questions.
E
No,
no
advice
or
excuse
me,
chair
harris.
I
I'm
ready
to
stand
for
questions.
J
Thank
you,
chair
harris
and
thank
you
senator
brooks
for
bringing
the
bill.
I
know
you
and
I
have
had
conversations
about
this
very
issue
in
the
past
and
that
stemmed
in
part
from
my
own
experience,
where
the
first
contractor
I
talked
to,
because
I
wanted
to
be
an
early
adopter
told
me.
My
house
orientation
was
such
that
it
wouldn't
get
enough
electricity
generated
to
make
worth
my
while
and
then,
of
course
I
got
a
second
opinion.
Who
said?
Oh
no,
you
know
they
don't
know
what
they're
talking
about,
and
I
didn't
trust
them.
J
J
In
any
event,
my
questions
are
these
and,
and
I've
got
several
but
the
important
ones
I
I'll
mention
under
section
six,
which
does
not
appear
to
be
amended
here
where
requiring
a
license.
But
is
this
the
current
c2
license,
or
is
this
a
new
license
that
they
will
be
able
or
they
will
be
required
to
obtain?
And
if
it's
a
new
license,
do
we
grandfather
in
those
that
have
been
doing
the
work
under
a
standard
c2
license
or
how
does
that
work.
E
J
Okay,
perfect,
then,
as
we
look
at
section
eight
and
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
do
the
comparison
between
the
two,
but
it
looks
like
it's
remaining
in
section
8.
We
don't
require
them
to
start
until
30
days
after
the
permits
are
pulled.
Why
do
we
want
them
to
wait
30
days
because,
most
in
my
experience,
customers
once
they've
got
the
contract
in
place?
They've
got
the
permits
in
place.
They
want
to
pull
the
trigger
and
get
that
thing
up.
Why
are
we
making
them
wait?
30
days.
E
It's
no
more
than
30
days
and,
and
you
know
that's
in
really
common
within
the
industry,
if
you
you're
trying
to
schedule
installations
and
and
and
permitting
and
materials,
and
things
like
that,
this
is
within
30
days.
That
of
of
getting
the
permit.
J
Okay,
my
apologies.
I
misread
it.
I
read
it
as
they
shall
start
the
work
30
days
after
okay.
That
makes
me
feel
much
better
on.
Well,
let
me
go
to
the
amendment
because
the
rest
of
these
I've
got
some
technical
questions,
but
this
probably
will
go
to
the.
I
don't
know
if
this
is
a
contractor's
board
question
or
yours,
but
I'm
looking
at
section
10
and
the
amendment
we're
striking
the
bait
and
switch
advertising
prohibition.
J
E
I
I'll
hand
this
over,
to,
I
think,
probably
mister
gaswain
from
the
contractor's
board,
but
the
the
board
may
adopt
regulation
standards
for
advertisements
used
by
contractors
in
connection
with
the
solicitation
of
this
work,
which
struck
the
the
language
here
that
could
be
considered.
I
guess
duplicative
of
that
first
statement
as
well
as
what
already
exists
in
nrs
598
on
some
of
the
work
we
did
in
the
17
legislature
and-
and
I
believe
you
were
helpful
in
that
conversation
back
in
the
assembly
when
I
was
running
that
bill.
J
I
don't
know
if,
mr
yes
wayne,
can
you
open
anything.
F
Further,
yes,
tim
gusman
from
the
contractor's
board.
I
concur
with
what
senator
brooks
said
by
making
the
subsection
one
of
section
10
permissive.
It
seemed
unnecessary,
then,
to
give
the
detailed
instruction
on
what
those
regulations
should
say.
If
the
board
should
enact
regulations,
ideas
about
bait
and
switch
would
be
included
in
those
prohibitions.
F
J
Well,
let
me
explain
why
I'm
really
concerned
about
that,
and-
and
this
was
my
hesitation
for
making
this
language
permissive
instead
of
mandatory-
and
that
is
you
know
so
often
we
see
these
advertisements
coming
in
and
making
bold
promises
and
then
delivering
something
different
and
by
making
this
number
one
permissive
and
number
two
striking
language.
J
My
fear
is
we're
creating
a
legislative
history
that
makes
these
kind
of
provisions
optional,
and
I
think
that
may
be
a
mistake
because
most
of
at
least
in
my
experience,
most
of
because
I
did
enough
civil
general
civil
litigation
to
get
into
these
kind
of
things
and
decided,
I
didn't
want
to
keep
doing
that.
J
But
at
the
end
of
the
day,
these
were
the
kinds
of
of
issues
that
would
be
brought
that
the
contractor
made
a
promise
in
their
advertising
or
they
made
a
promise
in
their
contract,
and
then
they
didn't
fulfill
the
contract
and
if
we
don't
put
something,
or
particularly
by
deleting
it
from
the
the
proposed
language,
there
appears
then
to
be
a
a
course
of
legislative
history.
That
would
suggest
we
didn't
want
to
do
this.
J
So
it
sounds
like
the
the
intent
of
the
the
language
is
not
to
avoid
prohibiting
bait
and
switch,
but
merely
to
leave
it
up
to
the
board.
To
put
that
in
regulation,
is
that
fair.
F
You
know
tim
guest,
one
for
the
contract,
for
that's
correct,
senator
to
leave
this
not
to
foreclose
it
forever,
but
to
leave
it
to
the
sound
discretion
as
these
matters
move
forward.
J
All
right,
but
the
the
senator
brooks
suggested
that
we're
already
prohibiting
another
led
or
other
statute
we've
already
prohibited
bait
and
switch
we've
already.
We
enforced
the
contracts
that
are
in
place
and-
and
that
will
continue-
is
that
correct.
J
E
My
understanding,
I'm
sorry
this
senator
brooks
and
and
and
that
when
mr
kruger
from
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection,
was
walking
through
some
of
his
his
suggestions.
What
most
of
his
suggestions
do?
Is
they
tie
this
language
back
to
598,
which
598
makes
that
deceptive?
That
makes
that
misleading
advertising,
a
deceptive
trade
practice.
J
And
that
mean
to
cut
you
off
side
too,
all
right,
and
he
that's
where
I
wanted
to
go
last
and
that's
mr
kruger,
can
you
talk
about
what
kinds
of
things
are
already,
for
example,
what
types
of
bait
and
switch
are
you
currently
going
after,
because
I
want
to
tie
that
into
the
legislative
history
here
and
we're
being
told
that
that's
not
necessary?
J
Is
there
sufficient
statute
in
place
to
be
able
to
enforce
these
things,
and
let
me
just
give
you
a
little
bit
of
a
backdrop
but
not
to
take
too
much
time
here,
but
I
pursued
some
cases
for
clients
where
the
contractor
had
failed
to
honor
a
promise
made
in
a
contract
and
because
the
contractor's
board
didn't
take
specific
action.
The
justice
court
said
you
know:
if
they're
not
going
to
do
anything
about
it,
neither
will
we
and
yet
it
was
a
bait
and
switch
type
of
situation.
I
Yes,
senator
pickard-
this
is
mark
kruger
chief
deputy
attorney
general,
for
the
record
senator
brooks
is
correct
and
and
the
the
proposed
the
conceptual
amendments
that
we're
making
would
harmonize
both
those
protections
that
do
exist
under
598
with
624
not
to
impinge
upon
the
authority
of
the
contractor's
board
in
any
way,
but
rather
complement
it
with
the
protections
that
are
in
place
and
for
for
the
record
so
you're.
Absolutely.
You
are
absolutely
correct.
There
are
bait
and
switch
prohibitions
contained
in
598.
I
By
allowing
this
cross
penalization,
we
can
either
go
after
pursue
a
person
who
would
employ
these
tactics
or
the
contractor's
board
can
underneath
the
licensee.
Sometimes
the
third-party
dealers
aren't
necessarily
licensed
at
this
point
and
we're
trying
to
capture
some
of
those
so
that
we
can
continue
to
have
that
joint
enforcement
authority.
To
answer
your
specific
secondary
question,
the
attorney
general's
office
bureau
of
consumer
protection
takes
complaints
and
oftentimes.
I
They
are
routed
through
primarily
the
public
utilities
commission
and
then
sent
over
to
us
where
we
look
at
them
enforcement
that
isn't
the
only
place
where
we
get
complaints.
We
get
them
from
individual
citizens.
Of
course,
people
that
are
subject
to
it,
as
well
as
others
and
other
state
agencies
we're
in
regular
communication
with
the
contractors
board
as
well.
I
When
we
take
a
complaint,
it
can
be
a
variety
of
things,
usually,
as
you
said,
of
the
bait
and
switch
type
situation,
and
we
did
actually
take
action
and
entered
into
assurance
of
discontinuance
to
stop
a
prohibition
with
some
fines
and
some
suspended
fines
for
a
particular
company
that
was
doing
some
activity,
particularly
in
the
las
vegas
area,
where
they
were.
You
know
implying
that
they
were
from
the
actual
city
or
county
and
and
trying
to
use
those
kind
of
marketing
tactics
to
make
their
sales.
I
We've
stopped
that
and
and
and
clean
that
up
as
well,
that
that's
one
way
that
we've
done
it.
We
also
have
been
working
with
the
solar
industry
itself
and
relying
on
a
good
working
relationship
with
them
to
handle
individual
complaints
so
that
the
industry
can
actually
address
the
complaints
themselves
and
correct
correct
mistakes
that
have
occurred.
So
there's
a
variety
of
ways
that
we
are
working
together
to
try
to
address
complaints,
but
the
enforcement
provisions
are
important.
J
All
right,
thank
you
and
then
my
last
question,
madam
chair,
if
I
may
is
that
mr
krueger,
am
I
correct
in
understanding
what
the
justice
court
was
telling
us
that,
in
terms
of
bait
and
switch
and
those
types
of
deceptive
trade
practices
that
is
reserved
jurisdiction
to
your
office
and
the
contractor's
board?
But
there's
no
private
right
of
action
as
to
those
violations?
Is
that
correct.
I
Senator
picker
mark
kruger,
chief
deputy
attorney
general
for
the
record,
I'm
not
exactly
certain
what
the
justice
court
did
other
than
what
you
represented
to
me,
and
I
and
I
don't
have
the
facts-
the
particular
facts.
Underneath
that
circumstances,
however,
I
can
speak
to
general
to
chapter
598..
I
Chapter
598
does
leave
primary
enforcement
jurisdiction
with
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection.
However,
it
does
carve
out
a
private
right
of
action
for
individuals
as
well.
In
addition
to
that
there
there
is
a
department
under
the
business
industry
that
has
some
co-enforcement
authority
too.
J
All
right,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
and
yeah.
I
should
be
careful
not
to
put
too
much
of
my
case
on
the
record
here.
They
had
just
suggested
that
we
couldn't
pers
or
that
the
justice
court
wouldn't
pursue
it,
because
the
contractors
board
declined
to
hear
it,
and
you
know
the
the
ag's
office
had
exclusive
jurisdiction
over
the
bait
and
switch
issues.
J
So
with
that,
as
a
backdrop,
I'm
approaching
this
case,
I'm
not
saying
the
judge
didn't
make
it,
you
know,
get
it
wrong,
but
anyway,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
and
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
letting
me
ask
the
questions.
E
Thank
you
senator
pickard.
I
appreciate
that
and-
and
you
know,
having
worked
together
with
you
in
17
on
the
on
some
of
this
language,
it's
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
take
that
private
right
of
action.
Take
that
deceptive
trade
practices
under
the
attorney
general's
office
and
then
as
well
as
as
taking
what
enhancing
the
tools
that
the
contractors
board
has
available
to
them,
so
that
we
can
tie
all
three
of
these
things
together
to
really
try
to
filter
out
the
bad
actors
and
protect
the
consumer.
So
I
appreciate
the
question.
A
And
succeeded,
sir.
It
appears
since
there
are
no
other
questions
from
members
we'll
go
ahead.
Then
senator
brooks
if
you're
ready,
we'll
go
ahead
and
turn
it
over
to
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill.
A
K
K
K
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Let's
go
ahead
and
turn
to
those
who'd
like
to
testify
in
opposition
to
senate
bill
303.
K
K
G
K
A
All
right
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
testimony
then,
and
I'll
turn
it
back
to
you.
Vice
chair
brookford,
in
closing
comments.
If
you'd
like
to
make
any.
E
I
just
I'd
just
like
to
thank
you,
chair,
harris
and
all
the
members
of
the
committee
for
entertaining
this
bill
and
and
it's
an
important
issue
that
I
think
we
need
to
take
action
on.
So
I
I
urge
your
support
and
I
also
like
to
thank
senator
pickard
for
those
insightful
and,
and
I
think
that
we
really
shed
some
light
on
some
of
these
issues.
A
E
Great
well
we'll
open
up
the
hearing
on
371
and,
and
I
would
like
to
invite
senator
harris
to
present
the
bill
and
and
senator
harris.
We
have
anyone
else
presenting
the
bill
with
you
this
afternoon.
A
Yes,
we
do.
We
have
mr
sever
and
miss
lennon
from
the
dmv
and,
after
some
brief
opening
remarks,
I'll
turn
it
over
to
that.
E
A
Please
go
ahead
all
right.
Thank
you.
So
much
good
afternoon,
vice
chair
brooks
and
committee
members,
I'm
dallas
harris
representing
senate
district
11
in
clark
county,
I'm
here
to
kick
off
the
presentation
for
senate
bill
371,
which
revises
some
of
the
provisions
in
the
bmt
pilot
study
bill,
which
we
enacted
in
the
2019
session.
A
As
some
of
you
may
recall,
ab-483
from
last
session
created
a
seven-year
pilot
study
that
requires
reporting
of
odometer
readings
in
connection
with
vehicle
registrations
and
small
checks.
The
odometer
readings
are
being
used
by
the
dmv
to
compile
and
report
data
on
vehicle
miles,
traveled
in
nevada
or
vmt
as
part
of
an
effort
to
better
understand
highway
usage
and
to
lay
the
groundwork
for
changes
to
transportation.
Funding.
Assemblyman
watts
was
the
sponsor
of
ab483
and
based
on
some
concerns
brought
to
his
attention.
A
He
proposed
three
fixes
to
the
bmt
pilot
study
and
I
was
happy
to
sponsor
the
bill
on
the
senate
side.
I
want
to
thank
the
department
of
motor
vehicles
who
helped
immensely
with
working
out
the
details
of
this
bill
while
being
neutral
on
the
measure,
and
the
dmv
has
graciously
agreed
to
present
the
bill
after
their
presentations.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
the
committee
may
have
and
now
I'll
turn
it.
The
presentation
over
to
mr
sean
sever
and
miss
molly
miss
molly
lennon
from
the
dmv,
mr
sever.
L
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
vice
chair
and
committee
members,
sean
sever
from
the
dmv
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
letting
us
present
sb
371
to
you
today
and
as
the
senator
mentioned,
this
is
a
revision
to
the
provisions
governing
the
mileage
pilot
program
that
the
dmv
is
required
to
conduct
to
gather
mileage
data
relating
to
certain
nevada
motor
vehicles,
including
body
type
fuel
type
and
weight.
L
These
changes
could
improve
the
reporting
and
collection
of
odometer
readings,
and
this
bill
puts
those
suggestions
forward.
So
the
three
suggestions
are
number
one.
Is
the
dmv
collects
and
reports
odometer
readings
for
recreational
vehicles
for
the
mileage
gathering
pilot
this
bill
would
exempt
recreational
vehicles
from
reporting
their
odometer
readings,
which
would
simplify
compiling
the
report
and
paint
a
better
picture
of
the
general
population's
mileage
per
year
since
rvs
do
not
represent
normal
driving
habits
or
high
use
of
alternative
fuels.
L
So,
for
example,
if
I
drive
20
000
miles
per
year,
my
insurance
company
might
charge
me
a
higher
rate
than
someone
who
drives
10
000
miles
a
year
number
three.
There
are
no
administrative
penalties
built
in
for
failure
to
report
the
odometer
readings
at
registration,
and
this
bill
would
give
the
dmv
the
option
to
apply
administrative
fines
to
improve
customer
compliance
and
the
mileage
data
collection.
L
L
E
J
Thank
you,
mr
vice
chair,
and
I
will
only
ask
one
question
on
this
round,
and
that
is
why
are
we
you
explain
that?
Because
the
driving
distances
are
different
for
recreational
vehicles,
that
it
may
not
capture
a
good
picture
as
to
the
vehicle,
but
I
I'm
wondering
recreational
vehicles
are,
are
pretty
ubiquitous
and
they
they
still
put
miles
on
the
roads,
they're,
not
quite
as
heavy
as
a
big
rig
but
they're
heavier
than
normal
automobile,
so
wired.
J
If
we're
trying
to
get
a
total
picture
of
mileage
rather
than
you
know
what
the
typical
driver-
and
this
is
the
question,
why
would
we
exclude
them,
or
maybe
better
said,
are
we
trying
to
get
in
a
picture
of
what
the
vehicles
are
doing,
because
I
don't
see
how
excluding
them
removes
them
from
the
picture
as
to
how
they
impact
the
you
know
the
roads
and
how
many
miles
are
put
on
the
roads?
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
could
expand
on
why
we're
excluding
recreational
vehicles,
because
I
see
them
all
the
time.
C
C
J
Okay,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
that's
kind
of
where
I
figured
you'd
go
with
it.
I
just
think
that
given
and
you
know
living
in
southern
nevada,
you
see
a
lot
more
than
maybe
you
would
in
northern
nevada,
but
I
I
see
them
year-round
and
predominantly
you're
right
in
the
summertime
and
they're
ubiquitous,
and
so
I
thought
you
know
they're
still
putting
a
lot
of
miles
on
the
road,
but
if
the,
if
the
data
is
being
used
in
a
way
that
that
would
skew
the
numbers
I
get
it.
Thank
you.
E
E
Dmv,
it
appears
as
if
we
do
not
so
with
that
we
can
go
to
the
phones
and
see
if
we
have
anyone
on
the
line
in
support
of
senate
bill.
371.
K
K
K
K
K
M
Vice
chair
brooks
members
of
the
committee
on
growth
and
infrastructure.
My
name
is
connor
kane.
M
M
In
our
opinion,
this
proposed
amendment
is
it
just
simply
clarifies
the
existing
language
and
it
completely
comports,
with
the
intent
of
sb
371
and
more
specifically,
section
2,
subsection
6
of
sb
371.
M
If
you
do
have
the
opportunity
to
take
a
look
at
the
amendment
it,
it
kind
of
moves,
moves
the
language
around
to
get
rid
of
what
we
perceive
as
some
ambiguity
and
be
happy
to
answer
any
any
questions.
If
there
are
any
thank.
M
K
C
K
K
E
All
right
well,
thank
you,
so
I
believe
that
comes
to
the
end
of
this
hearing.
Chair
harris.
Do
you
have
any
final
remarks
you'd
like
to
make
on
senate
bill
371.
A
Thank
you
so
much
vice
chair
brooks
hate
to
say
it,
but
I
dare
say
this
is
a
simple
bill
that
does
a
little
bit
of
clarification
on
that
pilot
study.
Cleans
it
up
a
little
bit
makes
it
a
bit
more
effective.
A
I
would
ask
the
committee's
consideration
to
do
pass
this
bill
at
a
future
work
session.
Thank
you.
E
All
right
well,
thank
you,
chair
harris,
and
with
that
I
will
close
the
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
371
and
hand
it
back
over
to
you.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
so
much
I'll
go
ahead
and
open
up
the
hearing,
then
on
senate
bill
382,
and
I
believe
we
have
a
few
friends
with
us
to
present
this
bill.
Mr
sul
sullivan,
miss
zuckerman
and
whoever
else
they
brought
along
in
their
mighty
energy
efficiency
gang
I'll
turn
it
over
to
you
all
to
present
when
you're
ready.
N
Great
thank
you,
chair
harris
vice
chair
brooks
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
ellen
zuckerman
and
I
am
with
sweep
the
southwest
energy
efficiency
project.
My
last
name
is
spelled
z
as
in
zebra.
U
c,
k
e
r
m-a-n,
and
I'm
very
grateful
to
be
here
today
with
my
colleague,
dylan
sullivan
of
nrdc,
to
walk
you
through
senate
bill
382
and
why
our
organizations
are
in
support.
N
Today
we
plan
to
cover
four
components
quickly.
I
will
introduce
you
to
sweep
and
nrdc.
We
will
also
explain
what
the
bill
would
accomplish.
We'll
also
talk
through
some
examples
and
benefits
of
energy
efficiency
and
then
I'll
hand
it
over
to
dylan
who
will
walk
through
the
technical
details
of
the
bill,
including
the
conceptual
amendment.
N
So,
as
I
mentioned,
my
name
is
ellen
zuckerman.
I
am
the
director
of
the
utility
program
with
sweep
sweep
is
a
regional
nonprofit
working
in
six
states
in
the
southwest
to
advance
energy
efficiency
in
all
of
its
forms,
and
we
do
this
work
to
save
people,
money,
protect
the
environment
and
build
a
more
robust
economy.
I've
been
working
with
sweep
for
more
than
a
decade
and
work
in
about
half
the
states
under
wearing
different
hats
to
advance
energy
efficiency,
and
my
background
is
originally
in
low
income
and
multi-family.
Low-Income
energy
efficiency.
N
N
From
the
outset,
one
of
the
reasons
why
we're
here
today
in
support
of
senate
bill
382,
is
because
of
the
tremendous
benefits
it
will
deliver
for
all
nevadans.
By
passing
this
bill,
nv
energy
will
expand
its
energy
efficiency
programs,
programs
that
save
all
nevadans
money,
improve
our
air
and
help
keep
our
power
running
no
matter
the
weather.
N
In
addition,
when
we
do
a
lot
of
energy
efficiency,
we
can
displace
the
need
for
expensive
utility
investments,
and
that
saves
us
all
money
on
their
utility
bills.
In
the
long
run.
Importantly,
you'll
also
hear
from
my
colleague
dylan
today
that
this
bill
contemplates
a
doubling
of
funding
for
low-income
nevadans.
This
will
ensure
that
not
only
do
all
nevadans
benefit
from
this
bill,
but
those
who
are
struggling
and
most
vulnerable
will
receive
immediate
benefits.
N
This
bill
will
also
help
to
create
local
jobs.
Nearly
12
000
nevadans
already
work
in
the
energy
efficiency
sector,
and
this
work
is
all
inherently
local.
For
example,
when
you
hire
a
contractor
to
install
insulation
in
your
attic
you're
calling
a
local
contracting
firm,
often
a
small
business,
so
with
the
expansion
of
these
energy
efficiency
programs,
we're
creating
more
jobs
here
in
the
state
and
then
finally,
this
bill
is
about
building
a
more
resilient
grid.
N
I
think
many
of
us
have
poor
memories
from
this
past
summer,
when
we
were
asked
to
conserve
during
the
extreme
heat
wave
and
that
event
really
just
underscored
the
need
for
us
to
infuse
energy
efficiency
throughout
our
power
system,
so
that
we're
more
resilient
and
we
can
ex.
We
are
in
a
better
position
to
ex
to
respond
to
extreme
heat
events
that
will
become
more
frequent
frequent
with
climate
change.
N
Often,
when
we
talk
about
energy
efficiency,
people,
think
of
programs
or
incentives
to
replace
lighting
in
our
homes
and
businesses,
and
what
I'm
here
today
to
share
with
you
is
that
energy
efficiency
is
so
much
more
than
that.
It's
comprised
of
hundreds
of
technologies
and
strategies
to
help
all
customers,
residential
business
industrial,
become
more
energy
efficient.
What
you
see
on
the
slide
here
is
just
a
sampling
of
the
types
of
programs
that
are
available.
N
Everything
from
home
energy
checkups,
where
an
a
trained
energy
auditor
comes
to
your
home,
to
diagnose,
what's
wrong
with
it
and
offer
services
and
repairs
so
that
you
can
save
money
on
your
utility
bill,
efficient,
new
construction
programs
that
make
sure
that
we
build
homes
and
buildings
right
the
first
time
around
and
don't
have
to
go
back
and
fix
them.
Programs
that
work
with
large
industrial
customers
to
help
them
fine-tune
their
production
and
manufacturing
lines
so
that
they're
efficient
at
all
stages
of
the
process.
N
The
first
thing
it
will
do
is
it
will
position
mv
energy
to
deliver
greater
energy
savings
for
all
of
its
customers,
and
that's
because
it
would
direct
the
utility
to
produce
electricity
savings
through
energy
saving
programs
that
deliver
at
least
1.3
savings
as
a
percent
of
their
retail
sales.
This
is
something
that
pure
utilities
across
the
country
are
already
doing,
and
something
that
utilities
in
colorado
and
arizona
are
doing
right
now.
N
N
The
bill
would
also
require
that
any
investment
that's
made
into
energy
efficiency
is
cost
effective.
What
that
means
is
that
every
dollar
that
goes
into
programs
must
demonstrate
that
it
returns
more
than
one
dollar
back
to
all
of
us.
With
this
requirement,
this
bill
ensures
that
all
nevadans
will
see
lower
utility
bills
as
a
result
of
senate
bill
382
and
then,
finally,
this
bill
institutes
new
performance-based
earning
opportunities
for
mv
energy,
to
make
sure
that
the
programs
and
services
that
they
are
offering
are
superior,
successful
and
deliver
strong
performance.
G
D
Good
afternoon,
chair
harris
vice
chair,
brooks
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
dylan
sullivan
and
that's
spelled
s
d-y-l-a-n-s-u
l,
l,
I
v
a
n,
I'm
a
senior
scientist
at
the
natural
resources,
defense
council,
a
national
environmental
group
with
25
000
members
and
activists
in
nevada.
D
Now
that
my
colleague
alan
zuckerman
gave
you
an
overview,
I
am
going
to
walk
through
the
bill
in
detail,
but
I
first
just
want
to
extend
our
thanks
to
chair
harris
and,
and
vice
chair
brooks
for
granting
us
the
opportunity
to
to
work
on
this
bill
with
stakeholders.
D
D
We
worked
on
the
definition
of
historically
underserved
community
with
feedback
from
other
advocates
and
you're
you'll
likely
be
seeing
other
legislation
this
session,
using
the
same
or
very
similar
definitions,
the
definitions
based
on
existing
federal
and
state
definitions
and
data
that
allows
for
easier
identification
of
these
communities
and
it's
included
to
assist
the
utility
and
the
pucn
in
ensuring
that
energy
efficiency
investment
is,
is
equitable.
D
These
definitions
are
used
later
in
the
bill.
In
section
six
to
b,
that's
the
low
income
carve
out,
so
I'm
going
to
talk
about
how
they're
used
when
I
get
down
to
that
section.
The
changes
that
you'll
see
in
the
conceptual
amendment
to
sections
two
and
three
were
just
made
to
align
definitions
in
this
bill
with
those
definitions
and
in
other
bills,
this
session.
D
Turning
to
section
five,
this
section
alters
the
existing
definition
of
energy
savings.
Let
me
explain
the
first
change
annualized
kilowatt
hour,
energy
savings.
Imagine
for
a
second
that
indy
energy
has
a
program
that
saves
energy
by
working
with
hvac
contractors
to
make
it
easier
for
customers
to
install
a
high
efficiency,
air
conditioner
in
las
vegas,
and,
let's
assume
a
customer's
air
conditioner
breaks
at
the
end
of
the
summer
cooling
season
in
september,
and
they
replace
it
with
a
new
efficient
model
and
they
use
a
utility
incentive
to
do
it.
D
Basically,
the
concept
of
annualized
savings
is
that
for
the
purposes
of
measuring
progress
toward
the
1.3
percent
goal,
that's
later
in
the
bill
in
section
62a2,
envy
energy
should
measure
savings
from
that
air
conditioner
as
if
it
were
installed
january
1st
of
that
year,
instead
of
in
september.
It
simplifies
the
process
of
measurement,
because,
when
you're,
estimating
savings,
envy
energy
doesn't
need
to
keep
track
of
when
the
measure
was
installed
in
a
year.
So
the
utility
kind
of
gets
extra
credit
in
the
first
year,
but
it's
balanced
by
credit.
D
They
don't
receive
in
the
second
year.
It
all
comes
out
in
the
wash
in
the
second
change.
We
delete
conversations
of
net
versus
gross
savings
changes
in
the
2017.
Oh,
I
guess
I
should
say,
and
a
lot
of
this
section
of
law
was
added
in
senate
bill
150
in
2017,
sponsored
by
senator
senator
spearman,
so
I'll
I'll
be
referring
to
the
2017
bill,
and
that's
what
I
mean
by
that.
D
So
changes
in
the
2017
bill
that
focused
the
electric
utility
on
gross
savings
were
well
intentioned,
because
net
savings
refers
to
a
pretty
hard
to
measure.
Contentious
evaluation
of
whether
a
customer
that
participates
in
an
energy
efficiency
program
is
participating
in
the
program
because
of
the
program
it
gets
complicated,
but
under
the
framework
that
kind
of
resulted
after
that
change
in
2017,
the
election
utility
does
not
have
sufficient
guidance
in
law
to
design
programs
that
actually
push
the
market
forward
beyond
levels
of
efficiency.
That
would
happen
with
or
without
programs.
D
The
third
edition,
and,
in
the
last
part
of
section
five
on
appropriate
baseline,
solves
this
by
ensuring
that
we
measure
your
utility
program
performance
from
a
baseline
that
reflects
the
level
of
efficiency
that
the
market
would
have
delivered
without
its
incentive
programs.
D
So,
if
we're
trying
to
maximize
opportunities,
we
just
really
have
to
make
sure
that
we're
pointing
the
utility
in
the
right
direction
to
give
you
an
example
on
using
an
appropriate
baseline
if
the
electric
utilities
evaluator
we're
measuring
savings
from
a
new
program
that
provides
incentives
for
highly
efficient
new
commercial
buildings
in
las
vegas.
D
D
If
the
market
average
new
building
is
already
more
efficient
than
the
building
code
requires
it,
it's
really
not
the
utility
that
delivered
that
extra
measure
of
savings,
it's
the
market,
so
the
utility
shouldn't
be
able
to
claim
credit
for
the
amount
of
savings,
that's
between
the
minimum
standard
and
the
market
average
efficiency.
And
this
framework
I
know
it's
technical,
but
it
ensures
that
the
utility
focuses
programs
on
places
where
its
incentives
and
coordination
efforts
can
actually
deliver
additional
savings.
D
This
is
the
framework
that's
used
by
evaluators
in
the
pacific
northwest,
including
the
berkshire
hathaway's
pacific
corps,
so
evaluators
already
have
a
lot
of
experience
with
it.
I'm
going
to
turn
now
to
section
6..
This
is
the
heart
of
the
bill
with
multiple
sections,
so
we'll
spend
some
time
here.
Subsection
one
requires
the
public
achilles
commission
of
nevada
to
establish
energy
savings
goals
and
subsection
two
sets
the
form
of
those
goals.
D
Electric
utilities
in
resource
plans
are
required
to
aim
for
energy
savings
of
on
average,
as
ellen
said,
1.3
percent
of
sales
per
year
over
the
resource
plan
period,
a
utility
like
envy
energy
with
two
operating
companies
is
allowed
to
use
a
weighted
average
across
the
two
utilities
to
demonstrate
performance
relative
to
the
goal,
provided
that
savings
from
the
lower
saving
utility
does
not
go
below
1.08
percent
on
average
over
the
three
years
of
the
resource
plan,
and
we
we
did
this
based
on
feedback
from
nv
energy
that
there's
lower,
achievable
savings
opportunity
up
here
in
the
north.
D
So
with
this
language
in
subsection,
two
a
utility
would
demonstrate
performance
relative
to
the
goal.
Let's
say
in
the
final
year
of
a
resource
plan
by
summing
the
annualized
savings
from
the
measures
that
it
installed
in
the
first
second
and
third
year
of
the
resource
plan,
so
basically
the
stuff
you
did
before
and
the
stuff
you
did
this
year.
D
What's
the
impact
of
that
this
year,
and
if
that
amount
exceeds
3.9
percent
of
weather
normalized
sales
in
the
final
year,
the
resource
plan,
then
the
utility
has
met
the
goal.
Why
do
we
set
it
up
this
way?
It?
Basically
we
set
it
up.
So
it's
you
know
based
on
the
final
year
performance,
because
it
really
focuses
the
utility
a
bit
more
on
long-term
savings,
which
is
what
we
need
to
see.
D
You
know
if
we're
to
accomplish
our
our
clinicals
subsection
2a2
requires
the
utility
to
go
further
if
there
is
more
cost-effective,
achievable
energy
efficiency
out
there
in
the
market
than
that
is
reflected
in
the
1.3
percent
each
year
goal
and
subsection
2b
is
the
really
important
section
on
low
income,
energy
efficiency
programs.
D
This
section
updates
and
expands
the
low
income
carve
out,
that
is
in
existing
law,
so
that
electric
utilities
devote
10
of
their
budget
to
energy
efficiency
programs
designed
for
and
targeted
to
low-income
households
and
also
residential
customers
in
historically
underserved
communities.
D
I
mentioned
we
would
use
that
definition,
so
this
is
where
we
use
it
down
down
here
in
the
bill.
It's
used
here,
mainly
because
it
will
simplify
program
administration,
think
about
it.
If
there's
a
multi-family,
affordable
housing
complex
in
a
historically
underserved
community,
then
envy
energy
can
serve
that
complex
with
its
programs
or
work
with
other.
You
know
community
service
agencies
to
to
to
serve
that
complex
and
improve
its
energy
efficiency
without
having
to
verify
everybody's
income
or
that
everybody's
federal
anti-poverty
program
status.
D
We
also
double
the
low
income
spending
requirement
to
10
of
the
overall
energy
efficiency
program.
Budget
10
is
really
close
to
the
national
average
low
income
energy
efficiency
program
spend
the
national
averages
is
9.
According
to
a
recent
analysis
by
the
lawrence
berkeley,
national
lab
subsection.
Three
retains
existing
law
that
allows
the
commission
to
modify
energy
savings
goals.
If
there's
a
recession,
I
actually
wrote
this
section
back
in
2017.
D
It's
never
been
invoked
because
the
targets
under
20
the
2017
not
only
go
into
effect
next
year,
but
we
are
adding
an
an
after
notice,
an
opportunity
for
hearing
in
here
just
to
ensure
that
this
modification
is
a
public
process
if
it
happens,
and
so
that
you
know
advocates
like
nrdc
can
can
can
just
make
sure
that
we
have
a
voice
in
that
in
subsection
four,
we
we
change
existing
law
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
to
wait
for
a
whole
other
irp
cycle
or
until
2025.
D
If
we
didn't
make
this
change
to
see
the
benefits
from
this
law,
electric
utilities,
we
need
to
reflect
the
new
goals
for
programs
beginning
in
2023
or
one
year
into
the
resource
plan
that
begins
january
1st
2022..
So
you
know
the
the
commission's
goals
established
under
sb
150
from
2017
is
a
1.1
percent
goal.
So
to
meet
the
goal
over
the
next
three
years:
the
electric
utility
we
need
to
achieve
annualized
savings
in
2024
of
3.7
percent
of
weather,
normalized
sales
from
measures
that
they
installed
in
2022,
2023
and
2024.
D
We're
making
this
change
informed
by
our
experience
from
send
bill
150,
where
you
know,
even
though
we
passed
it
in
2017,
consumers
are
only
going
to
see
the
benefit
of
that
legislation
next
year
and
and
five
years
is,
is
really
just
too
long
to
wait,
because
you
know
every
building
that
we
build.
Now.
That's
not
efficient,
every
15-year
life
appliance
that
we're
you
know
we're
not.
D
We
don't
have
an
incentive
program
to
make
it
super
efficient,
that
that's
a
real
lost
opportunity,
and
so
you
know
we
we
need
to
see
benefits
quickly,
subsections,
five,
six
and
seven
of
of
section
six,
as
amended
clarify,
but
basically
keep
the
same
cost-effectiveness
standards
as
in
current
law,
the
electric
utilities,
energy
efficiency
portfolio
as
a
whole,
inclusive
of
pilot
programs
and
low-income
programs,
which
might
be
more
expensive
than
your
mass-market
program.
D
The
portfolio
as
a
whole
has
to
be
cost
effective,
which,
as
ellen
said,
it
has
to
lead
to
energy
bill
savings
that
meet
or
exceed
the
cost
of
running
the
programs,
and
we
changed
this
provision
from
the
earlier
version
of
the
legislation
from
the
introduced
version
of
the
legislation.
After
extensive
discussions
with
the
pucn
section,
seven
deals
with
financial
issues
and
we're
really
making
two
changes
in
law.
The
the
the
first
thing
we're
changing
is
we're
dealing
with
the
utilities
financial
disincentive
to
run
energy
efficiency
programs.
D
So,
if
you
think
about
it,
you
know
we're
asking
in
the
energy
to
sell
less
of
their
product.
They're
a
utility
utilities,
like
almost
by
definition,
economically,
have
a
lot
of
fixed
costs.
So
we
need
to
address
that
because
it
well
I'll
just
say.
Current
regulation
allows
electric
utility
to
collect
an
amount,
that's
sort
of
meant
to
offset
lost
revenues,
but
regulations
mean
that
if
the
utility
is
over
earning,
it
can't
collect
this
amount.
D
So
it's
not
actually
operating
as
a
effective
thing
to
offset
a
disincentive
so
section,
seven
one
b,
one
in
the
legislation
removes
this
earnings
test
and
we
also
preserve
existing
law
that
allows
the
commission
to
implement
decoupling
as
an
alternative
to
the
lost
revenue.
Offset
section.
7
2
establishes
a
positive
incentive
capped
at
5
percent
of
program
costs,
which
is
a
national
standard
practice,
a
reasonable
level
to
encourage
a
good
utility
performance.
The
design
of
the
performance
incentive
is
at
the
commission's
discretion
and
we'll
be
arguing.
D
You
know
in
dockets
and
in
rule
makings
that
we
should
design
that
incentive
in
a
manner
that
gives
the
utility
kind
of
more
incentive
if
it
does
a
better
job
at
implementing
programs-
and
I
should
also
say
the
not
subject
the
the
change
we
make
here
of
not
subjecting
the
lost
revenue
offset
to
our
rate
of
return
requirement
is
also
national
standard
practice.
It's
it's
just
you
know
generally.
D
The
thinking
is
that,
in
order
to
get
good
utility
performance
at
energy
efficiency,
we
need
to
have
utilities
collect
the
program
costs.
You
know
the
incentives
and
coordination
costs
that
they
incur
running
programs.
We
need
to
do
something
around
lost
revenues
and
we
need
to
provide
a
positive
incentive,
and
so
we're
really
we're
really
doing
two
of
those
three.
The
first
one
is
already
done
in
existing
laws.
We
didn't
need
to
change
anything.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
sullivan,
for
that
walk
through
looks
like
we
do
have
a
couple
of
questions
from
members
senator
hammond
I
saw
your
hand
but
I'll
start
with
senator
pickard.
I
think
he
got
his
up
a
bit
quicker.
Senator
pickard.
J
Thank
you,
ma'am,
chair,
and,
and
thank
you
all
for
bringing
the
bill.
This
is
a
little
more
technical
in
an
area
that
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
personal
experience,
so
I
can't
get
into
the
weeds
as
I
normally
would
a
bill.
I
know
that
doesn't
hurt
anybody's
feelings,
but
I
I
did
get
some
comments
from
others
and
specifically
as
it
deals
with
the
impacts
on
nv
energy
and,
of
course,
I
hope
that
they
and
others
will
jump
in
and
give
this
a
good
debate.
J
But
one
of
the
concerns
was
that
the
utilities
will
now
be
able
to
pass
on
costs
of
stranded
assets
to
the
consumers
that
it
has
currently
not
been
afforded
them.
J
J
D
My
first
hearing
of
the
session,
thank
you
so
that
that's
a
good
question
and
it's
an
important
one
in
terms
of
who
you
know
whose
national
standard
I
I
think
my
colleague
alan
mentioned
the
27
states
that
that
have
you
know
robust
energy
efficiency
policy
frameworks
in
place-
and
it
is
you
know,
it's
kind
of
it's
very,
very
common
in
in
those
states
for
state
policies
to
do
something
to
offset
the
the
lost
revenue
issues.
D
So
this
is
very
common
and
I
think
some
you
know
we're
asking
the
utility
to
do
something:
that's
not
in
its
inherent
interest,
but
is
in
the
inherent
interest
of
its
service
territory,
because,
as
ellen
mentioned,
these
are
things
that's.
You
know
that
that
save
energy
and
save
money
relative
to
an
alternative
power
plant
that
utility
could
build.
So
this
is
all
things
that
are
good
deals
for
for
for
the
ratepayers
and
this
lost
revenue
offset
that's
in
the
bill.
D
It's
it's
it's
actually,
it's
it's
a
pretty
modest
amount
of
money
for
the
benefits
that
that
customers
are
receiving.
J
And
I
appreciate
that
answer,
because
what
I
hear
you
saying
is
it's
standard
or
common
in
those
27
states
that
have
adopted
it,
but
in
the
others
they
may
have
a
different.
So
if
we
look
at
it
from
a
national
perspective,
including
all
50
states
and
all
the
territories,
standard
practice
in
those
27
may
not
be
the
the
standard
practice
in
the
other
states
and
that's
the
distinction.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
understand
is
that
it.
J
You
know
every
anyone
who
comes
to
the
table
and
says
this
is
standard,
and
we
we
experience
this
all
the
time.
Oh,
this
is
best
practice
best
by
whose
definition
right
the
guy
who
has
to
pay
the
bill
might
not
think
that's
the
best
practice
if,
in
the
short
run,
it
costs
less
money.
Now
I
I
and
I'm
not
trying
to
debate
that
piece
of
this
right.
I
just
wanted
to
understand
how
we
got
there
and
then
my
only
other
question
is
when
we're
dealing
with
the
technical
requirements.
J
What
is
this?
What's
the
impact
to
the
average
consumer's
bill
in
nevada?
How
would
you
know
when
the
puc
puts
in
place?
Assuming
that
they
follow
the
direction
you
want
them
to
go
and
art
pulled
aside
or
off
on
a
different
direction
by
another
stakeholder.
J
What's
this
going
to
mean
to
the
average
consumer,
because
the
representations
are
that
this
will
save
money
and
in
the
economic
models
that
I've
been
shown,
that
can't
happen
in
the
short
term,
we're
actually
going
to
see
an
increase
as
we
adopt
these
new
programs
and
requirements
to
the
average
bill
until
we
get
cheaper
renewables,
for
example,
online
feeding
the
system
and
bringing
price
down.
J
So
you
can
you
go
through
those
economic
models
or
have
you
done
them,
and
can
you
show
us
that
it's
actually
going
to
save
the
consumer
money,
despite
what
the
utilities
are
telling
us.
N
Chair
harris
threw
you
to
senator
pickard
again
for
the
record.
This
is
ellen
zuckerman
with
sweep.
Thank
you
for
that
excellent
question.
I
will
share
with
you
that
sweep
will
soon
be
releasing
a
benefit,
cost
analysis
of
this
particular
legislation,
and
I
can
give
you
a
sneak
peek,
and
that
is
that
the
total
net
economic
benefits
of
this
bill
would
equal
about
1.73
billion
dollars
over
the
next
decade,
which
is
save
whom
this
would
be
net
benefits
for
all
nevadans.
J
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you,
yeah.
I
would
love
to
see
that
that
would
be
helpful
for
us
to
see
in
advance
of
of
working
this
bill,
because
obviously
my
constituents
they
care
about
one
thing.
Well,
two
things
number
one:
they
have
the
energy
they
need
and
number
two
that
they're
not
paying
more
for
it
than
they
did
yesterday.
A
good
number
of
my
constituents
are
on
fixed
incomes,
they're
in
the
retirement
communities,
the
sun
city,
anthem
and
sun
city
mcdonald
ranch,
and
they
can't
afford
more
we're
already
taxing
them
to
death.
J
N
Yeah
we'll
be
happy
to
share
that
analysis
with
you.
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
I
would
reiterate.
That
brings
me
a
lot
of
confidence
about
this
bill
is
the
cost
effectiveness
requirement,
and
I
would
note
that
no
other
utility
investment
is
held
to
the
same
bar,
where
every
dollar
that
goes
in
needs
to
demonstrate
back
to
society
as
a
whole
that
it's
providing
more
benefit
and
that's
an
incredible
standard
and
one
frankly
that
I
think
many
advocates
wish
would
be
applied
to
other
utility
investments.
N
N
But
again
every
one
of
those
dollars
is
required
to
demonstrate
that
it
returns
and,
as
I
mentioned
in
this
economic
analysis,
that
we
will
be
soon
releasing.
The
analysis
is
very
compelling
that
over
the
next
decade
we
would
see
billions
of
dollars
in
benefits
to
nevadans,
and
I
think
that's
an
incredible.
J
Sure-
and
I
want
to
applaud
you
for
that
cost-benefit
approach,
it's
something
I
wish
we
had
in
all
legislation.
I
think
that
would
be
telling
if
we
had,
particularly
if
it's
peer-reviewed,
where
we
get
everybody
agreeing
on
those
numbers.
But
thank
you
I'd
I'd,
love
to
see
that
and
thank
you,
chair
harris
for
your
indulgence.
A
L
Sir,
mr
sullivan,
this
is
very
technical
and
I
and
I
don't
know
it
very
well,
but
you
know
when
you
were
giving
me
giving
a
lot
of
information.
You
were
doing
it
quite
quickly.
It
was
at
the
beginning
of
your
presentation
where
you
had
described
a
consumer
somebody
buying
something
in
september
or
october,
and
but
then
going
back
and
saying
that
it
was
we
adjusted
to
it
was
january
1st.
Could
you
walk
with
you?
L
L
So
if
you
could
explain
that
one
more
time
and
that
way
I
can
kind
of-
maybe
I
can
chew
into
it
a
little
bit
more
and
then
find
out,
there's
a
question
there,
because,
obviously,
that
you
know
the
dead,
the
data
is
is
going
to
be
instrumental
in
making
sure
we
know
if
we're
hitting
the
goals
that
you
have
set
out,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you
understood
that
a
little
bit
better.
D
Chair
hair
is
through
you
to
senator
hammond.
Thank
you
for
the
question
and
I
I'm
sorry
my
explanation
was
was
so
technical?
I
I
mention
it
because
I
I
think
it's
you
know
the
the
the
term
annualized
energy
savings
is
you
kind
of
have
to
pick.
You
know
you
have
to
pick
something,
and
so
it's
important
for
us
to
understand
what
that
means.
D
So
you
know
what
this
definition
is
used
for
is
really
in
when
the
utility
demonstrates
to
the
public
utilities,
commission
how
it's
doing
relative
to
the
goal,
and
so
what
annualized
energy
savings
just
means,
and
it's
it's
a
convention
in
the
energy
efficiency
world
like
I,
I
used
to
do
work
in
ohio
and
they
were
like
the
one
state
that
didn't
use,
annualized
energy
savings
to
measure
performance
relative
to
goals.
D
So
it
basically
means
that
when
you
are
when
you're
estimating
the
impacts
of
your
program
for
a
calendar
year
of
program
implementation,
you
treat
the
measures
that
you
installed
and
by
measure
I
mean
like
a
light,
bulb
or
an
air
conditioner.
You
treat
the
measures
that
you
installed
over
the
course
of
the
year
as
if
they
were
installed
january,
1st
and
and
you
you
know,
the
the
total
amount
of
savings.
For
you
know
the
calendar
year
that
begins
from
when
you
actually
install
the
device
is
the
same.
D
You
just
are
kind
of
moving
it,
so
it's
all
at
the
same
baseline
and
you
do
that
just
so
that
the
the
the
evaluators
don't
have
to
keep
track
of
when
exactly
in
the
year.
Everything
was
installed.
So
it's
actually
it's
just
a
administrative
simplification
that
makes
the
process
of
evaluating
safety
savings
just
like
tractable
and
easier,
and
it's
if,
if
the
center
picker
will
grant
me
the
license,
it's
standard
practice.
L
Yeah
okay
standard
practice,
we'll
use
that
we'll
use
that
so
basically
you're
using
an
algorithm,
basically
trying
to
figure
out
what
savings
you
accumulated
over
a
12-month
period,
no
matter
what
point
of
the
year
that
you
actually
initiate
that
savings
or
initiate
that
program.
So
basically
it's
just
this
is
not
where
you
use
my,
which
my
wife
will
be
able
to
calculate
fast.
As
a
math
teacher,
I
I
wouldn't,
but
I
I
totally
understand
what
you're
saying
now.
Okay,
thank
you
so
much.
I
appreciate
that.
A
All
right,
any
other
questions
all
right
see
none.
I
have
won
so
I
vividly
recall
the
rule
making
at
the
public
utilities
commission
to
set
in
place
energy
savings
goals.
A
You
know
there
was
a
lot
diligent
work
done
to
figure
out
what
that
goal
should
be.
Should
it
be
statewide,
should
it
be
per
utility,
can
you
explain
a
little
bit
about
why
that
process
isn't
working
or
how
we
already
know
it's
not
working,
given
that
we're
just
getting
started
with
these
kind
of
new
regs
in
place.
D
Chair
harris,
dylan
sullivan
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
I
I
I
knew
I
knew
this
was
gonna
come
up
and
I
knew
given
yeah,
given
your
position
in
those
dockets
and
and
your
your
your
work
at
the
time
that
this
is
something
we
we
would
be
discussing.
So
it's
it's
an
important
question.
You
know
we
changed
this
just
five
years
ago.
Why
do
it?
Why
do
we
need
to
change
it
again
now?
D
So
I
I
think
of
a
couple
of
things
I
mean
first,
I
I
think
the
the
sort
of
urgency
about
adjusting
climate
change
wasn't
the
same
in
2017
as
it
is
now,
even
though
you
know
we
were
doing
things
like
trying
to
pass
renewable
portfolio
standard
legislation,
then
I
think
the
the
climate
crisis
has
only
gotten
more
severe
since
then,
and
when,
when
nrdc
and
other
partners
did
our
giant
pathways
analysis
of
how
the
state
needs
to
ramp
up
things
to
to
meet
climate
goals,
energy
efficiency
and
and
kind
of
doubling
down
on
it,
and
also
directing
more
effort
to
low-income
customers
and
and
historically
underserved
communities,
really
popped
out
as
a
key
thing.
D
The
state
needs
to
do
in
order
to
to
reduce
emissions
and
also
just
to
make
the
state
more
resilient
in
the
face
of
in
the
face
of
climate
change.
So
you
know
when
you
have
a
heat
wave
if
you're,
if
your
building
has
a
highly
efficient
air
conditioning
system
and
more
insulation,
you're
less
at
risk
and
and
your
demand
spikes
less.
D
D
You
know,
unfortunately,
kind
of
buried
the
lead
on
the
need
to
prioritize
cost-effective
energy
efficiency.
So
there
wasn't
really
a
lot
of
policy
guidance
for
the
commission
when
it
was
setting
goals-
and
you
know
I
think
there
was
a
little
bit
of
guidance
on
you
know
all
cost
effective
energy
efficiency.
But
there
are
a
lot
of
different
definitions
of
all
cost.
D
Effective
energy
efficiency
and
nv
energy
had
a
potential
study
that
that
said,
you
know
this
amount
of
maximum
achievable
potential
and
this
amount
of
achievable
potential,
and
I
think
the
commission
was
hard
pressed
to
choose
among
those.
So
I
think
ellen
is
going
to
talk
about.
You
know
1.3
percent
and
kind
of
where
that
sits.
But
you
know
I
to
me
it's
it's,
that
there
wasn't
enough
policy
guidance
in
2017
and-
and
you
know
now,
we
know
that
we
really
need
to
ramp
up
if
we're
to
meet
our
long-term
goals.
N
Chair
harris,
if
I
may
add
to
the
comments
of
mr
sullivan
first
of
all,
I
think
the
legislature
and
the
pcn
really
deserves
a
lot
of
credit
for
the
work
that
it
that
occurred
in
2017
and
since
then,
if
we
take,
for
example,
just
a
historic
look
back
prior
to
the
adoption
of
that
legislation
in
2017
each
year
from
2012
to
2018
and
the
energy
was
actually
the
region's
lagging
major
electric
utility
for
first
year,
energy
savings
for
energy
efficiency
and
thanks
to
the
law
adopted
in
2017
in
more
recent
years,
they've
really
started
to
catch
up
with
some
of
their
regional
peers.
N
You
know
many
businesses
there
are
dozens
of
businesses.
That
weighed
in
on
a
collective
letter
in
support
of
this
bill
are
really
looking
for
regulatory
certainty,
that
energy
efficiency
programs
and
investments
and
a
signal
that
the
state
is
committed
to
affordable
electricity
over
the
long
run
as
part
of
the
long-term
policy
construct.
A
So
my
next
question
I
think
follows
in
a
kind
of
similar
vein.
Can
you
tell
me
a
little
bit
about
why
passing
a
new
bill
and
not
petitioning
the
public
chili's
commission
to
open
up
a
new
rulemaking
and
maybe
up
that
energy
savings
goal
or
reconsider?
A
Or
why
not
have
this
fight
in
the
irp
where
the
goals
are
set,
and
you
know
we
see
what
the
what
the
plan
is.
D
Oh
gosh,
dylan
sullivan
for
the
record
apologies,
so
I
think
a
reason
for
for
the
legislation
instead
of
just
you
know.
Some
other
process
is
that
we
also
realize
that
there
are
some.
You
know
fundamental
aspects
of
the
of
the
of
the
energy
efficiency
policy
framework
that
also
need
to
change.
D
So
an
example
is
the
the
low-income
carve
out
in
the
energy
kind
of,
even
though
that's
also
been
in
place
since
2017
last
year
was
the
first
year
that
they
took
it
seriously
and
and
and
started
developing
programs
to
implement
it,
and
you
know
I
struggle
to
think
that
we
would
get
to
this
10
percent
level
through
a
commission
process
when
the
minimum
in
law
is
is,
is
five
percent.
There
are
also
the
the
utility
business
model
aspects
of
the
bill.
D
I
think
in
section
section
seven
sorry,
the
last
part
of
the
bill
where
you
know
I
I
we
need
to
do
some
things
in
order
to,
I
think,
get
a
hope
of
of
beta.
I'm
sorry
that
that
sounded
bad,
but
to
to
get
kind
of
a
higher
level
engagement
of
engagement
from
nb
energy,
and
I
think
the
current
regulate
the
regulations
and
regulatory
structure
aren't
going
to
allow
us
to
do
that.
D
So
I
think
there
are
some
things
that
we
could
change
through
an
investigatory
docket
and
working
through
the
commission
process,
but
there
are
also
some
other
fundamental
aspects
of
the
utility
business
model
that
need
to
change.
If
we're
going
to
reach
higher
levels
of
savings.
N
N
There's
a
national
resource,
the
research
organization
that
studies
these
issues
at
the
state
level,
the
american
council
for
an
energy
efficient
economy,
and
they
have
found
that
the
states
that
are
truly
excelling
at
energy
efficiency
and
delivering
above
and
beyond
are
ones
that
have
both
these
requirements
in
statute
and
also
processes
at
the
commission
and
that
sweet
spot
of
the
combination
is
really
for
whatever
reason
leads
to
unlocking
of
energy
savings,
and
I've
been
involved
in
many
irp
processes
in
in
many
states,
and
this
is
not
to
comment
at
all
about
the
pcn
process.
N
But
I
think
a
typical
frustration
you
might
hear
from
consumer
and
efficiency
advocates
is
often
a
case
is
shown
that
energy
efficiency
is
the
least
expensive
investment.
And
yet
the
outcome
from
the
irp
process
is
not
to
seize
all
that
energy
efficiency,
investment
and
so
really.
The
combination
of
a
statute
like
this.
A
Seeing
none
bps,
if
you
could
please
open
the
line
for
testimony
in
support
of
sb
382.
K
K
M
M
M
M
setting
of
1.3
energy
savings
goal
proposed
by
fc
382,
would
bring
the
data
in
line
with
other
states
in
our
region.
Wra
commends
the
senate
growth
and
infrastructure
committee
on
providing
a
strong
definition
for
historically
underserved
community
and
low-income
households,
which
began
to
properly
address
the
disproportionate
emergency
vulnerable
groups
indoors.
M
M
This
would
reduce
electricity
bills
for
nevada,
nevada's,
most
vulnerable
populations
by
reducing
their
usage
through
conservation
measures
that
those
households
cannot
currently
afford
to
implement
on
their
own
wra
urges
members
of
the
senate
growth
and
infrastructure
committee
to
approve
scp-382.
Thank.
M
K
M
Hi
good
afternoon,
members
of
the
senate
committee
on
growth
and
infrastructure,
my
name
is:
will
pragman
with
battleborn
progress?
W-I-L-L
then
peter
r-e-g-m-a-n,
we
write
in
support
of
sb
382.
This
bill
would
allow
utilities
to
offer
programs
to
consumers
to
lower
their
energy
uses
and
power
bills.
Energy
efficiency
is
one
of
the
best
ways
to
lessen
overall
energy
usage
and
save
money
while
producing
the
same
quality
of
heating,
cooling
and
lighting
that
we
all
rely
upon.
The
bill
requires
nv
energy
to
increase
funding
for
low
income,
energy
efficiency
programs.
P
M
M
K
C
S-A-R-A-H-S-T-E-I-N-B-E-R-G
and
I'm
a
policy
principal
with
advanced
energy
economy,
awa
is
an
industry
association
comprised
of
businesses
dedicated
to
making
the
energy
we
use,
secure,
clean
and
affordable
and
includes
those
involved
in
energy
efficiency,
products,
software
and
programming.
Today
I
would
like
to
note
aj's
support
for
sb.
382
efficiency
delivers
a
range
of
benefits,
including
direct
bill
savings,
greater
good
resilience
and
reliability
and
improved
health
and
comfort
in
the
face
of
increased
ambient
and
extreme
heat.
The
sector
is
an
engine
of
economic
activity
offering
nevadans
over
11
000
jobs
in
2019.
C
modeling
that
aw
conducted
this
past
fall
found
that
a
hypothetical
public
investment
of
2.5
billion
into
energy
efficiency
would
add,
38
billion
to
the
growth
state
product
to
create
210
thousand
job
years
and
save
residential
and
commercial
customers
over
2.4
billion
dollars.
Annually,
sb
382
will
harness
this
opportunity
and
prepare
the
state
to
meet
growing
energy
demand.
We
support
codifying
an
annual
savings
target
of
1.3
as
a
floor.
C
This
target
is
in
line
with
what
utilities
are
achieving
across
the
region
and
creates
regulatory
certainty
that
allows
for
better
planning
of
both
short
and
long
term
efficiency,
investments
awa.
Also
supports
targeting
at
least
10
percent
of
energy
efficiency
program
expenditures
on
vulnerable
communities,
who
will
benefit
the
most
from
a
reduced
energy
burden
and
have
the
least
means
to
access
efficiency.
Upgrades.
C
Finally,
aj
supports
the
use
of
energy
efficiency
performance
incentives
to
encourage
the
utility
to
exceed
its
statutory
and
regulatory
energy
efficiency
obligations,
which
helps
to
better
align
the
utility
business
model
with
state
energy
policy
goals.
For
these
reasons,
I
ask
for
your
support
of
sb
382.
I
have
also
submitted
written
comments
into
the
record
to
this
effect,
but
please
don't
hesitate
to
reach
out
if
you
would
like
to
hear
more
information
from
our
member
companies.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and.
K
K
K
Q
Hello
and
good
afternoon
this
is
dr
mary
house,
spelled
m-a-r-y-h-o-u-s-e,
and
I
am
the
president
and
ceo
of
chr
inc
and
the
first
lady
of
mountaintop
faith
ministries.
I'm
here
today
to
support
senate
bill.
382
energy
efficiency
is
one
of
the
simplest
smartest
investments
we
can
make
to
help
struggling
families,
save
money,
reduce
harmful
air
pollution
and
meet
the
state's
needs
for
climate
goals.
You
won't
have
a
more
passionate
advocate
and
fierce
supporter
of
the
energy
movement
than
me.
Q
Our
church
is
powered
by
solar
energy
and
I'm
a
proud
owner
of
an
electrical
vehicle,
but
my
starting
point
towards
a
cleaner
and
healthier
lifestyle
started
with
reducing
the
energy
in
my
home,
my
office
and
my
place
of
worship.
I've
replaced
lighting
with
led
bulbs,
upgraded
to
smart,
thermostats,
filled,
leaks
and
repaired
ducts,
and
I
saw
the
cost
savings
as
a
result.
Q
It's
important
we
utilize
new
and
improved
technologies,
so
we
don't
get
stuck
in
the
past
and
continue
to
make
progress.
It
should
be
a
top
priority
for
our
state
legislators
and
leaders
to
help
homeowners
and
businesses
save
money
and
the
environment.
That's
why
I
support
sb
382,
which
will
ensure
that
nv
energy
invests
more
in
programs
that
serve
low-income
customers
to
make
energy-efficient
improvements.
Q
It's
these
families
who
spend
larger
percentages
of
their
income
on
utility
bills
and
whose
lives
can
literally
be
changed
by
accessing
modern
cost-saving
technology
that
improves
the
quality
of
life
and
eases
the
financial
burden.
Nevadans
shouldn't
have
to
choose
between
keeping
their
lights
on
and
making
rent.
I
would
love
to
see
even
more
focus
on
income
efficiency
programs,
but
sb
382
is
another
step
in
the
right
direction.
K
G
Hello,
my
name
is
brian
howard
b-r-y-a-n-h-o-w-a-r-d,
and
I
come
on
before
you
on
behalf
of
the
american
council
for
an
energy
efficient
economy.
G
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify,
on
behalf
of
senate
bill
of
382
ac,
triple
e
wishes
to
voice
its
support
for
the
legislation.
Ac
triple
e
is
a
non-profit
organization
that
conducts
research
and
analysis
on
energy
efficiency,
while
I've
provided
some
written
testimony.
I
did
want
to
summarize
a
few
of
our
key
points
from
from
that
document.
G
Energy
efficiency
is,
on
average,
the
least
cost
resource
available
to
electric
air
electric
utilities.
It
is
cheaper
than
adding
new
supply
and
typically
delivers
three
to
four
dollars
in
energy
cost
savings
for
every
dollar
spent,
as
consumers
and
businesses
struggle
to
recover
from
the
pandemics,
devastating
impacts.
Strong
energy
efficiency
targets
are
needed
now,
more
than
ever
to
help
customers
lower
their
energy
bills
senate
bill
382
would
make
improve
important
improvements
to
nevada's
efficiency
and
conservation
goals,
often
called
energy
efficiency
resource
standards.
G
G
The
higher
target
in
the
legislation
would
bring
nevada
in
line
with
its
neighbors
arizona,
colorado
and
california,
who
have
the
same
or
higher
energy
savings
targets.
Deeper
investment
in
historically
underserved
communities
in
low-income
households
is
needed
in
senate
bill.
382.
Would
aid
in
this
effort
in
2020
ac,
triple
e,
released,
updated
analysis
on
households
who
pay
more
than
six
percent
of
their
income
on
energy
bills,
which
we
identify
as
having
an
energy
burden?
G
This
research
examined
burdens
in
the
las
vegas
area
and
found
troubling
results
in
las
vegas
metropolitan
area.
Pre-Pandemic.
We
found
that
the
median
energy
burden
of
low-income
households
was
twice
as
high
as
non-low-income
households
and
a
quarter
of
low-income
households
had
an
energy
burden
five
times
higher
than
the
national
average
as
designated
by
the
bill.
At
least
10
percent
of
total
utility
expenditures
would
be
for
energy
efficiency
in
the
low-income
household
and
low-income
households
and
historically
underserved
communities.
G
G
Incentives
for
utilities
are
becoming
a
more
common
practice
across
the
country.
Indeed,
our
scorecard
found
that
nearly
30
states,
including
arizona
california,
colorado,
new
mexico
and
utah
offer
performance
it
said,
is
for
at
least
one
major
electric
utility.
For
all
of
these
reasons,
we
urge
the
passage
of
senate
bill
382.
G
K
R
R
E-M-I-L-Y-D-U-F-S
and
I'm
a
manager
of
state
policy
with
series
series
runs
the
bicep
network,
which
is
a
coalition
of
nearly
70
major
employers
leading
consumer
brands,
fortune
500s,
including
many
with
operations
in
nevada.
We
also
manage
a
separate
work
group
of
more
than
two
dozen
companies
focus
on
enhancing
opportunities
for
energy
efficiency
at
the
state
level.
Our
members
recognize
that
climate
change
poses
a
significant
risk
to
the
long-term
economic
success
of
the
business
community
and
have
set
goals
to
reduce
their
emissions.
R
Businesses
are
very
interested
in
finding
to
finding
ways
to
systematically
improve
their
emissions
performance
and
the
emissions
performance
of
our
electricity
and
gas
systems.
As
a
result,
they
support
policies
and
programs
that
can
help
them
and
their
supply
chains
eliminate
energy
waste
and
reduce
peak
demand.
In
fact,
I
submitted
a
letter
to
the
committee
that
was
signed
by
45
major
businesses,
institutions
and
associations
across
the
west
in
support
of
ambitious
building
decarbonization
policies.
R
This
includes
household
names
like
adobe
and
ben
and
jerry's,
as
well
as
major
businesses
and
institutions
with
facilities
in
nevada,
such
as
dignity,
health,
paypal,
ebay
and
ikea.
These
businesses
know
that
energy
efficiency
is
an
important
tool
to
facilitate
building
decarbonization
in
their
facilities,
given
the
imperative
to
take
immediate
action
to
combat
climate
change
and
help
the
state
recover
economically
from
the
covid
19
pandemic.
Strong
utility
leadership
on
energy
efficiency
is
needed
now
more
than
ever.
R
Investment
in
efficiency
is
good
for
businesses.
It's
a
simple
way
to
improve
their
bottom
line
and
when
we
do
more
with
less,
we
can
save
money,
increase
profits
and
create
more
jobs.
The
benefits
of
energy
efficiency
also
compound
across
the
supply
chain
efficiency
helps
suppliers
keep
costs
down,
so
businesses
can
offer
better
products
and
more
competitive,
more
competitive
prices
for
many
businesses.
It's
hard
to
invest
in
efficiency
projects
unless
they
pencil
out
in
one
to
two
years
and
many
times.
R
Efficiency
is
generally
understood
to
be
the
cheapest
way
to
meet
our
energy
needs,
and
when
we
invest
in
efficiency,
all
businesses
and
consumers
pay
less
than
it
would
cost
to
generate
or
procure
the
same
power
for
more
expensive
alternatives,
and
we
also
support
local
jobs
in
cleaner
air
and
water.
For
these
reasons,
series
encourages
you
to
support
sb
382.
K
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
My
name
is
elspeth.
Cordova
e-l-s-p-e-t-h,
cordus
c-o-r-d-u-a-
and
I
am
here
today
representing
the
sierra
club
and
our
more
than
40
000
members
and
supporters.
Statewide
sierra
club
strongly
urges
the
committee
to
support
senate
bill
382
energy
efficiency
benefits
all
rate
payers,
because
we
don't
have
to
spend
money
on
waste.
This
is
good
for
the
environment
and
saves
saves
customers.
Money.
C
Sierra
club
is
particularly
excited
about
the
bill
provisions
that
dedicate
additional
energy
energy
efficiency
program,
funds
to
low-income
customers
and
historically
disadvantaged
communities,
so
the
utility
will
focus
programs
on
those
who
need
it.
The
most
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
in
considering
this.
K
K
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
andrew
sierra
name.
First
name
spelled
a
and
d
rew
last
name
s-I-e-r-r-a
and
I'm
the
organizing
manager
for
the
nevada
conservation
league
senate
bill
382
is
a
priority
for
the
nevada
conservation
network,
a
diverse
coalition
of
over
20
of
our
state's
leading
conservation
and
environmental
groups.
M
Our
bit
ambitious
carbon
reduction
goals,
nevadans
overwhelmingly
support
bold
aggressive
action
that
confronts
the
climate
crisis,
including
energy
efficiency,
eighty-two
percent
of
nevada
voters,
support
initiatives
that
provide
assistance
for
homeowners
and
renter
renters
to
increase
energy
efficiency
of
their
homes
and
reduce
energy
use.
Nevadans
are
calling
on
legislators
to
prioritize
policies
to
help
plan
for
the
clean
to
plan
for
the
future
of
clean
energy
in
our
state.
We
strongly
urge
you,
you
urge
your
support
on
senate
bill
382.
Thank.
K
K
P
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
marie
steele
m-a-r-I-e-s-t-e-e-l-e,
and
I'm
here
today
to
testify
on
behalf
of
nb
energy.
Thank
you
to
chair
harris
vice
chair
brooks
and
the
committee
for
bringing
this
important
topic
forward.
We
look
forward
to
our
continued
conversations
with
you
all
and
the
interested
stakeholders
on
senate
bill
382..
P
We
wholeheartedly
support
energy
efficiency
and
the
important
role
it
plays
in
supporting
the
state's
climate
goals,
growing
our
clean
energy
economy
and,
most
importantly,
supporting
our
customers,
ability
to
save
money
and
reduce
their
carbon
footprint
by
reducing
their
energy
consumption,
especially
those
who
are
the
most
vulnerable
and
historically
disenfranchised
among
us.
Given
the
time
constraints,
I'll
describe
our
four
largest
concerns,
but
that
does
not
imply
that
we
are
in
agreement
with
other
matters.
P
While
we
do
agree
that
the
current
regulatory
treatment
of
the
energy
efficiency
and
demand
side
management
programs
does
not
align
with
the
program's
importance
to
our
climate
economy
and
customers,
the
two
options
put
forth
in
this
bill
are
not
the
only
two
alternative
rate
making
frameworks
available
to
policy
makers
and
the
public
utilities
commission.
We
are
strongly
opposed
to
one
of
those
two
options
presented
in
this
bill
commonly
referred
to
as
decoupling
and
the
presenting
stakeholders
have
been
made
aware
of
that.
P
Second,
there
is
uncertainty
on
how
other
energy
efficiency
legislation
may
impact
this
bill,
which
is
exacerbating
the
ability
to
define
the
financial
impact
of
customers
specifically
assembly
bill,
383,
the
appliance
efficiency
standard
put
forth
by
vice
chair
of
the
assembly
and
growth
infrastructure
committee
assembly
watch,
assemblyman
walk.
I
will
raise
in
this
hearing
for
senate
bill
382,
just
like
we
did
in
ab383.
P
Third,
we
believe
the
public
utilities
commission
already
has
the
authority
to
address
most
of
the
key
issues
presented
in
this
bill.
This
puts
the
burden
on
already
constrained
resources
at
the
public
utilities
commission,
as
discussed
already
senate
bill
150
in
2017,
gave
the
public
utilities
commission
authority
to
set
targets
and
regulations
should
they
need
to
be
reevaluated.
P
That
authority
already
exists.
Additionally,
the
public
utilities
commission
is
currently
working
on
regulations
to
enable
alternative
rate
making.
This
work
was
made
possible
by
senate
bill
300
put
forth
by
vice
chair,
brooks
last
session
and
is
unanimously
approved
by
both
houses.
A
broad
group
of
regulatory
experts,
utility
employees,
consumer
advocates,
large
commercial
customers,
environmental
advocates
and
industry
experts
have
spent
the
past
two
years
discussing
alternative
rate
making
that
aligns
to
the
shared
priorities,
objectives
defined
by
the
diverse
group
of
stakeholders
that
participated.
P
We
are
sad
that
we
missed
mr
sullivan
and
the
suckerman
in
those
workshops,
but
that
does
not
mean
that
we
get
to
negate
the
voices
of
the
parties
that
participated
last
and
perhaps,
most
importantly,
we
think
it
falls
short
of
addressing
the
full
opportunity
and
the
complexities
of
energy
and
climate
policy
for
the
built
environment,
whether
that
be
energy
efficiency,
demand,
response,
electrification,
building
codes,
etc.
P
To
realize
the
full
potential
of
the
opportunity
in
front
of
us
for
the
benefit
of
all
nevadans,
it
will
require
a
broader,
more
inclusive
conversation
that
enables
intentional
strategic
and
responsible
energy
planning.
We
have
also
expressed
that
preference
to
the
stakeholders,
which
is
not
reflected
here.
I
do
want
to
note.
We
understand
the
frustration,
regular
regulatory
processes
take
time
and
the
legislature
only
meets
every
two
years,
but
we
are
asking
you
to
utilize
the
tools
the
state
already
has
regarding
energy
efficiency
targets,
an
alternative
rate
making.
P
We
appreciate
all
the
comments
the
stakeholders
brought
forth
today
and
the
passion
and
the
expertise
of
the
bill
presenters
and
look
forward
to
continue
to
work.
This
committee
and
its
members
on
the
energy
policy
for
the
built
environment
and
its
importance
to
all
nevadans.
Thank
you,
chair
harris
vice
chair
brooks
and
the
members
of
the
growth
and
infrastructure
committee.
For
the
time,
the
opportunity
today
discussed
senate
bill
382.
K
M
Thank
you,
chair
harris
vice
chair
brooks
and
member
of
this
committee.
For
the
record.
I
am
progress.
Figueroa
consumer
advocate
and
chief
deputy
attorney
general.
Now
we
have
background.
I
have
been
involved
in
utility
matters
with
the
attorney
general's
office
since
2005
and
I'm
currently
the
executive
head
of
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection.
M
As
a
brief.
As
a
brief
overview,
the
consumer
advocate
and
the
bcp
are
charged
with
the
statutory
duty
to
represent
residential
rate
payers
and
complex
utility
proceedings
and
advocate
for
customers.
Interests
to
ensure
rate
paid
dollars
are
spent
frequently
and
effectively.
M
M
The
language
of
section
7
also
essentially
appropriates
hard
earned
ratepayer
money
to
incentivize
the
utility
to
do
what
it
already
has
a
duty
to
do,
which
is
to
follow
the
law.
The
language
is
not
necessary
and
allows
the
utility
to
over
earn,
while
following
the
law
under
the
idea
of
an
incentive
at
ratepayer's
expense.
M
This
is
problematic
because
it
can
lead
to
bad
policy
where
large
corporate
actors
are
rewarded
for
complying
with
the
law
as
a
proportion
of
income.
Our
underserved
and
low-income
communities
will
pay
the
highest
percentage
of
their
income.
As
section
seven
becomes
law
to
the
yield
to
the
utilities
for
utility
compliance.
M
K
K
A
D
Chair
harris
I'll
just
make
a
brief
closing
statement
for
the
record.
This
is
dylan
sullivan
from
the
natural
resources
defense
council,
ramping
up
energy
savings
programs
is
critical
to
addressing
climate
pollution
in
nevada
and
doing
so
in
an
equitable
manner.
This
bill
would
increase
electric
utility
energy
efficiency
program
savings
to
regional
norms.
It
will
increase
focus
on
the
households
and
communities
who
need
the
most
help.
D
It
maintains
some
existing
consumer
protections
in
the
form
of
the
cost
effectiveness
standards
and,
and
it
really
makes
it
in
the
utilities
business
interest
to
save
more
energy.
I
want
to
again
thank
chair,
harris
and,
and
vice
chair
brooks
for
granting
us
the
opportunity
to
work
on
this
bill.
Stakeholders-
and
I
also
want
to
thank
the
stakeholders,
came
to
the
table
on
the
bill.
Thank.
A
A
I
was
going
to
give
some
opening
remarks
on
this
one,
but
I
will
be
cheering
for
now
and
mr
logan,
but
hopefully
I
said
that
correctly
to
walk
us
through
bill.
Three.
O
Thank
you
very
much
chair
harris
and
thank
you
also
vice
chair
brooks
and
members
of
the
growth
and
infrastructure
committee
for
allowing
us
to
discuss
this
electric
bicycle
legislation
today.
My
name
is
alex
logan
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
people
for
bikes
coalition,
and
we
are
here
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
383,
which
is
legislation
that
would
amend
nevada's,
existing
law
for
electric
bicycles,
and,
I
think,
there's
three
important
takeaways
from
the
legislation.
That's
before
you
today.
O
It
would
clarify
some
key
operational
and
safety
rules
that
are
currently
not
addressed
in
nevada
law,
and
it's
it's
also
not
a
dramatic
change
from
existing
nevada
law.
It
would
maintain
the
sort
of
foundational
regulatory
system
that's
already
in
place
which
treats
electric
bicycles
as
bicycles.
So
there
are
many
good
things
in
that
law
that
don't
need
to
be
changed.
O
O
They
also
come
in
two
main
types,
and
that
is
a
pedal
assist
model
in
which
the
rider
must
be
pedaling
for
the
motor
to
engage
and
the
motor
will
shut
off.
If
you
stop
pedaling
and
a
throttle
assist
bicycle
where
you
could
have
a
switch
or
a
throttle
on
the
controller
that
would
enable
you
to
propel
the
bicycle,
regardless
of
whether
you're
pedaling,
though
they
often
have,
they
typically
have
a
pedal
assist
mode
as
well,
in
which
you
don't
need
to
be
holding
down
the
throttle.
O
O
We
see
a
significant
potential
for
electric
bicycles
to
be
increasingly
integrated
into
all
types
of
bicycle,
sails
and
all
across
the
range
of
products,
whether
they
be
your
beach
cruiser.
Your
your
commuter
bike,
your
your
mountain
bike
or
your
road
bike
that
they're
going
to
be
integrated
into
every
single
product
base.
O
O
2002
federal
statute
was
passed
to
regulate
their
product
safety
standards
and
the
fundamental
decision
that
needed
to
be
made
there
was
whether
electric
bicycles
would
be
treated
as
motor
vehicles
and
subject
to
the
authority
of
the
national
highway
traffic
safety
administration
which
governs
you,
know,
cars
and
motorcycles,
and
things
like
that
or
whether
they
would
be
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
consumer
product
safety
commission,
which
is
the
agency
that
regulates
the
safety
standards
for
bicycles
and
congress,
made
that
decision
and
determined
that
electric
bicycles
would
be
regulated
by
the
cpsc
and
they
would
be
regulated
under
the
same
safety
regulations
as
bicycles,
subject
to
any
other
changes.
O
Cpsc
might
want
to
make
so
that
that
was
sort
of
the
foundation
in
federal
law
to
say,
okay,
how
are
we
going
to
regulate
these
from
a
product
safety
perspective?
O
After
that,
a
lot
of
states
started
passing
electric
bicycle
legislation,
but
the
definitions
in
the
state
laws
were
very
disjointed.
Some
states
borrowed
the
language
from
the
cpsc
definition.
Some
states
modified
it
just
a
little
bit
in
a
way
that
was
meaningful.
Some
states
made
up
their
own
definition
and
had
completely
different
standards
on
the
wattage
and
the
speed
that
might
apply
to
an
electric
bicycle.
O
So
what
you
see
before
you
today
is
a
version
of
model
legislation
that
we've
been
working
on
for
about
six
years,
taylor
to
nevada.
Obviously
that
does
a
few
key
things
that
I
think
susan
will
go
through
in
detail
line
by
line
for
the
bill
or
I'll
walk
through
the
sections,
but
I'll
give
an
overview
from
a
higher
level.
O
The
first
and
most
important
thing
does,
is
it
defines
the
three
classes
of
electric
bicycles
that
are
predominant
in
the
market
today,
and
so
that
would
be
they're
broken
down
by
their
speed
and
they're,
broken
down
by
their
method
of
motorized
engagement,
so
a
class
one
would
be
a
pedal
assist
bicycle
when
you
have
to
be
pedaling
for
the
motor
to
engage
that
goes
up
to
20
miles
per
hour.
O
A
class
2
would
be
a
bicycle
that
has
a
throttle,
but
can
go
up
to
20
miles
per
hour
and
a
class
3
electric
bicycle
would
be
a
pedal,
assist
bicycle
that
can
go
up
to
28
miles
per
hour.
This
also
for
class
3
bikes
in
particular,
closes
important
ambiguity.
That's
currently
in
the
federal
law
and
that
the
top
motor
excuse
me,
the
top
pedal
assisted
speed-
is
actually
not
currently
specified
in
the
cpsc
law.
O
So
what
this
does
is
aligns
practices
with
what's
prevalent
in
europe,
a
class
three
electric
bicycle
in
europe
is
referred
to
as
a
speed
pedic
and
it's
capped
at
45
kilometers
per
hour,
and
it's
motor
assistance,
which
is
28
miles
per
hour.
So
this
aligns
us
with
international
standards
as
well
for
that
particular
product
again.
What
the
bill
does
mainly
is
update.
Nevada's
definitions
to
incorporate
this
three-class
system.
O
It
also,
most
importantly,
from
a
use
perspective,
provides
additional
guidance
to
nevadans
on
where
they
can
ride
their
bicycles,
which
is
not
specified
in
nevada
law.
The
current
law,
just
more
or
less
says
that
electric
bicycles
are
subject
to
the
same
rules
of
the
road
as
bicycles,
but
doesn't
actually
say
where
you
can
take
your
electric
bicycle
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
confusion,
often
amongst
people
who
feel
very
uncertain
about
whether
they
can
do
things
like
riding
a
bike
lane.
O
It
includes
some
additional
safety
provisions
for
the
higher
speed
class-
three
electric
bicycles
that
I
referenced
a
moment
ago,
and
then
it
references
the
correct
federal
standards,
a
problem
we've
seen
a
lot
of
states
is
that
when
they
define
electric
bicycles,
they
actually
reference
the
motor
vehicle
nitsa
standards
that
are
not
the
proper
standards
due
to
the
federal
law
and
the
cpsc
standards
are
the
appropriate
ones.
So
it
correctly
references
those
safety
standards
and
then
it
adopts
a
labeling
requirement
for
the
different
three
classes
of
electric
bicycles.
O
Again,
this
is
already
the
law
in
30
states
and
if
you
walk
into
a
bike
shop
tomorrow
in
nevada,
you'll
already
see
the
bicycles
labeled
in
this
manner,
because
we
don't
really
distinguish
between
which
states
an
e-bike
is
going
to
when
it
gets
imported
into
the
united
states.
It's
it's
a
u.s
bike,
it's
not
necessarily
a
nevada
bike
or
a
california
bike,
or
something
like
that.
So
you'll
already
see
bicycles,
labeled
in
this
fashion
on
the
market
today.
O
I
think,
with
that
I'll
sort
of
close
out
the
overview
of
why
we
think
this
bill
is
important
and
turn
it
over
to
susan
to
go
in
some
of
the
more
detailed
aspects.
But
again,
the
critical
pieces
of
this
are
harmony
with
the
laws
of
other
states
and
the
federal
government.
So
30
states
have
adopted
these
definitions
and
also
the
department
of
the
interior
at
the
federal
level.
This
is
the
system
they
use
to
regulate.
O
Electric
bicycle
use,
bureau
of
land
management
lands,
national
park
service
lands,
things
like
that
and
then
provide
some
additional
clarity
for
nevadans
explaining
where
exactly
they
can
take
their
regular
bike,
subject
to
the
ability
of
local
authorities
to
make
some
appropriate
decisions
on
non-motorized
areas
like
bike
paths
if
they
need
to
make
additional
changes
with
that
I'll,
be
happy
to
stand
for
questions
afterwards,
and
I
think
susan
would
you
like
to
or
madam
chair
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
you.
First
too
perhaps
go
to
susan.
S
A
Your
audio
is
a
little
little
wonky.
Is
it
just
me?
Are
other
people
having
some
issues?
Okay,
so
I
don't
know
if,
if
it's
you
know
it's
kind
of
got
like
a
vibrating
sound
to
it,
a
slight
echo.
Do
you
have
some
other
way
to
get
on
the
on
the
speaker
or
maybe
we
could
have
you
call
in.
A
It
is
not
so
test
right
now,
that's,
okay!
Here's!
What
we'll
do
miss
fisher!
The
committee
will
go
into
a
very
short
recess
at
the
call
to
chair
and
we'll
have
bps
jump
on
and
assist
you
with
connecting
your
audio
by
phone.
Okay,
we'll
be
in
recess.
A
K
A
No,
thank
you
all
so
much
for
being
patient.
The
senate
committee
on
growth
and
infrastructure
will
come
back
to
order
and
I
will
throw
it
back
to
miss
fisher
for
a
walk
through
of
the
bill.
Miss
fisher.
Please
thank.
S
You,
madam
chair,
before
I
start
on
that
I
do
want
to
say.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
committee
introduction
on
this
bill.
We
really
appreciate
your
willingness
to
introduce
this
bill
for
us,
as
a
committee
introduction,
so
existing
on
now
exempts
electric
bikes
from
licensing
and
registration.
It
does
not
require
a
driver's
license.
It
provides
that
electric
bikes
are
subject
to
the
same
traffic
laws
and
various
other
requirements
as
bicycles,
but
as
with
any
other
market,
the
electric
bicycle
market
has
evolved.
S
S
Section
four
just
tells
us
in
statute,
where
we'll
find
the
new
definitions
for
electric
bikes,
section
five
identifies
how
electric
bikes
are
to
operate,
for
example,
anywhere
where
traditional
bicycles
are
allowed.
So
if
a
local
governmental
entity
doesn't
allow
them
on
sidewalks,
now
they're
not
allowed
on
sidewalks
they're
allowed
in
bike
lanes,
if
they
don't
allow
them
in
normal
traffic
lanes,
they're
not
allowed
in
normal
traffic
lanes.
S
It
defines
a
shared
use
path.
Section
8
sets
the
e-bike
operator
at
age
16
or
older,
and
requires
an
approved
helmet
by
dot
and
allows
for
a
passenger
also
if
they
too
are
wearing
a
helmet
section.
Nine
puts
into
statute
regulations
adopted
by
the
u.s
consumer
product
safety,
commission
relating
to
equipment
and
manufacturing
requirements.
S
We
do
have
a
proposed
amendment
for
section
9
from
people
for
bikes,
which
is
on
nellis.
It's
meant
to
clarify
that
the
qpc
requirements
require
only
two
new
bikes
at
e-bikes
at
the
time
of
the
first
sale,
and
you
will
find
that
in
the
exhibits.
I
hope
section
10
lays
out
the
three
classes
of
electric
bikes
which
mr
rogerman
already
described,
so
I
won't
go
into
each
of
those
again
section.
14
is
current
statutory
language,
defining
recreational
activity
and
limits
liability
of
the
owner
of
a
property
where
recreational
activity
is
allowed
section
14,
subsection
4-h.
S
We
noted
also
today
that
tahoe
pyramid
trail
has
added
a
proposed
amendment.
They
have
asked
if
we
would
consider
it
amending
section,
5.3
line
4
to
add
where
we
talked
about
trails
and
shared
youth
paths
and
unpaid,
unpaid
paths
or
trails.
They
would
like
to
add,
except
for
occasional,
hydrological
controls
such
as
short
bridges
and
pervious
natural
materials,
meaning
if
there's
a
drainage,
culvert
or
if
there's
a
big
mud,
hole
and
they
put
gravel
or
something
in
it,
but
it
doesn't
doesn't
really
change
the
characterization
of
a
backcountry
trail.
S
We
don't
have
any
any
opposition
to
that.
We
would
consider
that
a
friendly
amendment
section
91b,
that
they
request
to
add
classification,
number,
larger
and
obvious,
and
that's
on
the
sticker
that
we
would
oppose
because
the
stickers
are
they're
determined
by
the
cpsc.
Of
course,
I
have
that
right.
I
always
mix
up
those
letters,
yeah
cpsc,
they
determine
the
size,
the
font
and
what
goes
on
that
and
we're
just
getting
nevada
in
line
with
what
we
already
have
to
guarantee
uniformity
in
30
other
states.
S
So
we
did
not.
We
would
ask
that
you
reject
the
second
one,
but
the
first
suggested
amendment
if
there
were
some
different
catching
materials
or
something
like
that,
we
don't
have
any
qualms
without
language.
If
you
were,
if
the
committee
wanted
to
consider
those,
and
with
that
now,
we
would
be
happy
to
try
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
miss
fisher.
I
will
turn
it
over
to
any
committee
members
who
have
any
questions.
Senator
pickard.
J
The
madam
chair
wouldn't
want
to
disappoint,
as
I
go
through
this
bill,
with
some
possible
exceptions,
section
eight
primarily
among
them.
J
I
don't
see
where
this
really
differs
significantly
from
existing
law,
except
to
include
what
the
federal
government
has
decided
to
do
in
terms
of
their
regulation,
which
is,
frankly,
is
something
I
tend
to
resist,
because
when
the
feds
then
change
it,
it
forces
our
hand
or
we're
out
of
compliance
and
then
section
8
where
we're
not
allowing
people
under
16
years
of
age
to
operate
these
things
I
have
a
number
of
these
in
my
neighborhood
and
kids
are
riding
it
and
I'm
unaware
of
any
problems.
J
O
Yes,
absolutely
thank
you
senator
pickard
to
to
get
to
the
the
second
question
straight
away.
Can
you.
O
The
the
age
limit
is
specific,
only
to
class
three
electric
bicycles,
which
I
think
is
probably
less
likely
that
there
are
a
lot
of
kids
riding
around
the
higher
speed
pedal
x,
which
are
really
designed
to
be
commuting
machines
frankly,
almost
to
car
replacement
due
to
their
higher
speeds.
So
it
wouldn't
apply
to
the
lower
speed
class,
one
in
class
two
that
I
think,
would
be
more
likely
to
be
used
by
younger
folks
and
and
frankly,
more
appropriate
too.
D
J
Okay
and
but
we
haven't
been
seeing
or
have
we
been
seeing,
you
know
I
don't
want
to
use
hyperbolic
terms.
I
almost
said
mass
casualties
and
under
the
context,
I
don't
want
to
use
that
term,
but
if
we've
been
seeing
significant
numbers
of
of
injuries
and
fatalities,
given
that
eight
miles
an
hour,
I
mean
the
context
for
this
question
is
I
remember
when
I
was
a
teenager
riding
my
bike
down
this
long
hill.
J
It
was
about
three
miles
all
downhill
and
I
pegged
my
odometer,
which
was,
I
think,
60
miles
an
hour
more
than
once,
and
I
survived
it.
Some
might
wish
that
had
come
out
differently,
but
I
just
failed
to
see
why
28
miles
an
hour
is
so
significantly
faster
than
20
miles
an
hour
that
we
have
to
ban
people
from
using
it
unless
there's
significant
data
out
there
that
these
things
have
been
killing
15
year
olds.
I
just
don't
see
the
the
the
justification
for
it.
O
Thank
you
senator
picker.
This
is
alex
logan
from
the
people
for
bikes
coalition.
Again
I
do
not
have
any
data
demonstrating
that
class
3
e-bikes
pose
a
different
safety
risk
in
terms
of
injuries
or
fatalities,
or
anything
of
that
nature.
We
do
have
data
on
average
speeds
for
the
different
types
of
e-bikes
relative
to
a
a
traditional
bike
that
does
not
have
a
motor
and
for
reference
there,
a
class
one
e-bike
has
a
typical
average
speed
of
three
kilometers
per
hour.
O
They
didn't
provide
me
a
figure
here,
but
it
is
approximately
looking
at
the
graph
12
to
13
kilometers
per
hour
more
so
it
is
a.
It
is
noticeable
relative
to
the
class
one.
J
All
right,
I
appreciate
that.
Maybe
you
can
share
that
data.
What
you
have
with
the
committee-
I
just
you
know
I
I
tend
to
be
conservative
and
resist
additional
rules
and
regulations.
Unless
there
is
a
demonstrated
need-
and
I
I'm
sorry-
I
just
don't
see
it
but
anyway
susan
fisher
is
a
fantastic
lobbyist.
I'm
sure
she'll
bend
my
ear
now
that
I've
said
that
and
we'll
go
from
there.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
bps
if
we
can
go
ahead
and
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
383.
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
A
Okay,
miss
fisher
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
you
for
any
closing
comments.
If
you'd
like.
S
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
just
very
briefly,
susan
fisher
for
the
record.
I
did
reach
out
very
early
to
dmv
with
the
proposed
language
and
then
also
with
our
proposed
amendment.
They
did
not.
I
won't
represent
any
position,
one
way
or
the
other,
but
the
only
thing
that
they
said
was
they
didn't
have
any
problem
with
it.
S
I
reached
out
also
to
clark
county
and
through
the
the
coalition
of
cities,
to
city
of
reno
directly
to
city
of
reno,
but
also
through
the
coalition
city
of
clark,
city
of
henderson
and
north
las
vegas
and
city
of
las
vegas,
and
I
have
not
heard
any
any
comments,
one
way
or
the
other
oppose
neutral
or
otherwise
or
support.
So
there's
no
issues.
A
You're
very
welcome.
Thank
you
we'll
go
ahead
then,
and
close
the
hearing
on.
Could
I
ask
a
quick
question,
madam
chair
of.
A
L
Trying
to
get
back
to
the
the
bottom
of
the
difference
between
the
class
two
class,
three,
maybe
class
one-
is
there
a
significant
price
difference
between
something?
That's
a
class
two
and
a
class
three
or
class
one
class
two
in
class
three
is
that
is
that
why
maybe
you're
not
seeing
the
typical
12
13
year
old,
driving
around
in
the
class
3.
O
Yes,
thank
you
senator
hammond.
This
is
alex
logan
with
the
people
for
bikes
coalition.
I'd
say
that,
to
the
extent
there's
a
correlation
there,
it's
pretty
loose
because
you
could
easily
see
ten
or
twelve
thousand
dollar
high
entry,
road
and
mountain
bikes
that
are
class
one
and
there's
a
slight
tendency.
I
think
for
class
three
e-bikes
to
cost
a
little
bit
more
because
you'll
typically
bigger
on
those
bikes,
especially
for
commuting
purposes
and
the
battery
is
actually
an
incredibly
costly
component
that
needs
to
be
manufactured
to
a
very
high
standard.
O
So
that
is
an
issue
that
can
drive
up
the
prices
more
and
can
can
occasionally
do
that
for
the
class
three
e-bikes.
If
you
were
strictly
looking
to
probably
buy
the
most
budget-friendly
e-bike,
it
probably
would
be
a
class
two
e-bike,
but
it's
def.
It's
not
uniformly
true
that
those
are
less
expensive
than
the
other
classes.
L
Thank
you.
I
don't
want
you
to
take
any
more
time.
I
just
was
trying
to
figure
out
there,
because
I
know
that
the
discussion
between
you
and
senator
pickard
was
about
you
know
speed,
and
you
know
why
that
that
age.
You
know
that
all
of
a
sudden
you're
limiting
it
from
16
year
olds
on
up
and
and
then
sort
of
limiting
under
16
from
purchasing
or
writing.
I'm
sorry
not
personally,
but
writing
the
class
3..
So
I'm
just
trying
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
you
know
some
other
differences.
A
We
are
waiting
for
one
member
to
return
from
presenting
a
bill,
and
so
the
committee
will
be
in
a
very
brief
recess
until
the
call
of
the
chair.
When
we
come
back,
we
will
knock
out
the
work
session.
Then
I
promise
I'll.
Let
you
all
go.
We
are
in.
A
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
much.
The
committee
will
come
back
to
order.
We
are
on
our
last
order
of
business
today
and
that
is
a
work
session
of
one
two,
three
four
five
bills:
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
miss
scully,
to
start
off
with
the
rundown
of
senate
bill,
60.,
miss
goalie.
T
T
T
T
The
dmv
did
confirm
on
the
record
that
that
amendment
was
acceptable
to
them.
The
second
amendment
was
proposed
after
the
hearing
by
dmv
who
realized
that,
because
the
eight-year
rolling
reissue
program
was
included
in
their
executive
budget,
that
they
were
not
in
a
position
to
modify
the
program
at
this
time,
so
their
amendment
would
effectively
just
reinstate
the
existing
language
applicable
to
the
rolling
reissue
program.
There
is
a
fiscal
note
on
file
for
the
bill,
and
that's
all
I
have
thank
you.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
miss
scully.
I
see
we
have
a
question
from
sandra
pickard.
J
Really
just
comment,
madam
chair
don't
mean
to
hold
us
up
too
much
just
wanted
to
say.
Thank
you.
I
appreciated
the
auto
dealers
association's
amendment
being
adopted.
I
agree
with
them
and
so
I'll
be
supporting
the
bill.
Thank
you.
A
A
I'll
just
note
at
this
point
that
we
are
are
amending
with
all
of
the
amendments
that
are
reflected
in
the
work
session
document.
Seeing
no
discussion
I'll
ask
the
secretary
to
please
call
the
role.
J
C
C
A
All
right
all
right,
we'll
see
if
we
can
get
senator
spearman
connected
to
the
meeting
and
we
will
move
on
to
senate
bill
232.
In
the
meantime,.
T
T
T
A
All
right,
thank
you,
miss
scully.
At
this
time
I
will
accept
a
motion
to
do
pass.
A
B
L
A
Yes,
the
motion
passes
and
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
sandra
goykichia.
A
M
A
T
T
T
In
the
context
of
the
complete
streets
provisions
that
are
applicable
to
the
counties
and
regional
transportation
commissions,
the
bill
requires
the
integration
of
bike
lanes,
routes,
facilities
and
signage
into
plans
for
the
construction
or
maintenance
of
roads
to
the
extent
feasible,
with
respect
to
ndot
counties
and
regional
transportation
commissions.
The
bill
also
expands
the
definition
of
the
users
to
be
considered,
incomplete
streets
projects.
T
J
Hey
madam
chair
and
I
appreciate
the
deletion
of
sub
seven
of
section
two
I
just
I
I
can't
help
but
wonder
that,
with
the
restoration
of
the
three
foot
passing
requirement,
I
I
just
what
have
we
ultimately
changed
in
substantive
law?
I
don't
see
that
we've
really
made
a
significant
change.
A
A
A
J
I
appreciate
that
I
just
having
been
involved
in
several
master
plan
developments
where
the
complete
streets
concept,
although
wasn't
known
as
that
at
the
time,
but
the
idea
of
including
bike
lanes
and
and
infrastructure
for
bicycles
is
in
place,
particularly
in
the
city
of
henderson,
which
is
the
bicycling
capital
of
the
world.
J
It
would
seem,
I'm
concerned
that
this
is
going
to
hamper,
that
I
reached
out
after
our
conversation
to
a
representative
of
of
henderson
and
didn't
get
a
return
call
back,
so
I
think
I'll
be
a
no
not
because
you
haven't
bent
my
ear,
but
I
want
to
give
you
some
more
opportunity
to
do
that
so
I'll,
be
in
no
with
the
opera
or
with
the
right
to
reserve
or
reserving
the
right
to
change
that
on
the
floor.
J
I'm
just
not
convinced
we
need
it
and
I
think
it
might
hamper
the
local
governments
from
doing
what
they
think
is
appropriate
in
their
districts
and
trust
me.
The
driving
schools
are
already
teaching
this
stuff.
All
of
my
kids
understood
the
rule.
Well,
so
again
I
just
I
don't
see
the
justification,
but
I'm
going
to
let
you
bend
my
ears
more.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
You
know
I
will
senator
picker
any
anyone
else.
Senator
hammond.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
you
know,
because
I
I
haven't
talked
to
you
enough
yet
I'll
I'll
be
the
same
for
right
now
and
then
talk
to
you
a
little
bit
more
because
I'm
trying
to
understand
more
of
these
bills
are
coming
so
fast,
but
I'd
love
to
know
a
little
bit
more
and
have
a
conversation
with
you
about
it.
A
Anything
else
vice
chair
brooks:
are
you
just
getting
ready
to
to
chat?
Okay,
all
right
at
this
time
I
will
go
ahead
and
accept
an
amendment
or
I'm
sorry,
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
amended
chair
all
right.
We
got
a
motion
from
vice
chair
brooks.
I
hear
a
second
from
senator
spearman
any
discussion
on
the
motion
and
I'll
I'll
remind
members.
The
yes
with
reservation
is
also
an
option.
A
S
Okay,
senator
pickard.
J
A
A
Thank
you
all
right,
miss
skully
back
to
you
to
run
through
senate
bill
362.
Please.
T
T
J
Only
why
miss
goalie
decided
to
characterize
this
as
a
controversial
bill.
No,
I'm
kidding,
I
don't
have
a
question.
Thank
you
was
my
hand
up.
Sorry.
It
was.
A
All
right
can
we
get
I'll,
accept
a
motion
to
do
pass
senate
bill
362.
L
A
T
T
T
A
Thank
you
so
much
miss
scolie.
Any
questions
from
committee
members
senator
hammond,
I'm
going.
J
Senator
pickard,
please
go
ahead.
Thank
you,
man,
I'm
sure
I
just
I
agree
with
senator
hammond,
I'm
more
comfortable
with
this.
I
just
I
need
to.
I
was
hoping
to
hear
back
from
the
department
of
corrections
as
to
why
they
do
what
they
do
currently,
because
they
were
glaringly
absent
from
this
conversation,
and
I
would
have
thought
that
if
they
care
they
would
speak.
J
But
where
we're
talking
about
an
agency
of
the
state,
I
had
hoped
to
hear
from
them
before
we
worked
it,
but
I'll
be
a
yes
today
with
the
reservation
to
change.
If
they
convince
me
otherwise,
but
if
they
don't
come
to
the
table,
then
it'll
be
a
yes.
A
All
right,
thank
you
I'll
just
state
for
the
record.
All
of
the
department
of
corrections
facilities
currently
are
charging
under
this
cap
for
the
rates
that
we
have
they're
already
they're,
using
centurylink
as
a
provider
and
are
already
in
compliance
with
that
that
federal
cap.
J
A
J
And
I
wasn't
even
thinking
about
ccsd
so
or
wrong
one.
Well,
maybe
it
applies
yeah
clark,
county
detention,
so
maybe
I'll
talk
to
them
as
well.
I
just
haven't
had
a
chance
to
get
a
hold
of
them.
So
thank
you.
Q
Chair
I'm
going
to
support
this
bill
because
I.
C
Q
A
All
right,
thank
you,
senator
spearman.
Anyone
else.
A
It
was
we
need
to
get
you
some
of
that
I'll.
Let
you
pick
your
own
theme,
okay,
anyone
else
on
this
one
vice.
E
Chair
brooks
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
amend,
to
do
pass.
A
A
Seeing
none
will
the
secretary
please
go
ahead
and
call
the
role
senator.
A
Yes,
that
motion
passes
unanimously.
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
for
387
to
myself
as
well
all
right.
That
concludes
our
work
session.
We
will
now
move
on
to
public
comment.
Bps.
Anyone
brave
enough
to
hang
in
there.
K
A
A
There
you
go
all
right
on
that
lovely
note.
We
will
be
adjourned.
Our
next
committee
meeting
will
be
april
7th
at
3,
30
pm
see
you
all
then
have
a
good.