►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much.
I
will
go
ahead
and
give
the
secretary
the
nod
that
we're
ready
to
begin
recording
on
her
end.
A
B
C
A
I
am
here
there
are
two
members
present,
so
we
will
open
up
as
a
oh.
We
have
three
members
present
all.
A
Not
a
problem
at
all,
thanks
for
arriving,
we
now
have
quorum,
so
we
are
ready
to
get
started,
we'll
go
ahead
and
mark
members
present
as
they
arrive,
and
I
will
try
my
best
to
give
a
little
verbal
indication
for
the
secretary
to
note
all
right.
As
always,
we'll
start
with
a
couple
of
reminders.
Please
be
courteous
and
respectful
with
others
during
the
meeting.
Even
if
you
disagree
with
another
person's
position
for
those
participating
on
zoom,
please
be
sure
to
mute.
A
Your
microphone
when
you
are
not
speaking
first
on
the
agenda
today
is
senate
bill
18,
which
revises
provisions
governing
penalties
for
certain
violations
relating
to
public
utilities,
I'll
go
ahead
and
welcome
my
former
colleagues,
garrett,
weir
and
stephanie
mullin.
To
present
the
bill.
Please
proceed
when
you're
ready.
E
Sb18
would
adjust
the
fine
amounts
under
nrs
703
0.154
from
1
000
to
200
000
a
day
for
each
day
of
the
violation
and
for
from
200
000
to
2
million
dollars
maximum
for
any
related
series
of
violation.
These
amounts
match
our
current
authorities
under
the
federal
pipeline
safety
regulations,
and
this
is
mostly
a
housekeeping
adjustment.
We
have
worked
with
the
nevada,
propane
dealers
association
on
this.
E
The
requested
fight
amount
under
nrs
703.380
is
proposed
to
increase
from
1
000
to
100
000
per
day
for
each
day
of
the
violation
not
to
exceed
10
million
for
any
related
series
of
violations.
And,
finally,
the
current
fine
amounts
under
nrs
704.640
is
set
at
500
and
the
request
is
to
increase
this
amount
to
50
000.
E
The
commission
proposes
to
increase
the
administrative
fine
amounts
for
several
reasons.
First,
the
fine
amounts
are
very
dated.
The
legislature
established
the
current
maximum
fine
amounts
under
nrs
704,
154
and
703.380
in
1981
and
in
1979
for
nrs
704
640.,
while
perhaps
appropriate
40
years
ago.
Those
amounts
are
no
longer
sufficient
to
create
the
necessary
disincentive
for
violating
important
statutes,
regulations
and
orders
that
ensure
the
safety,
reliability
and
affordability
of
utility
service
throughout
the
state.
E
The
commission
is
increasingly
being
tasked
with
enforcing
a
transition
to
innovative
approaches
that
differ
from
how
things
have
been
done
for
a
very
long
time.
Change
is
often
met
with
resistance
and
the
regulator
responsible
for
enforcing
the
change
needs
to
be
equipped
with
adequate
authority
to
ensure
compliance.
E
Second,
there's
a
proven
track
record
of
increased
funding
authority
resulting
in
decrease
in
the
amount
of
seriousness
of
violations
in
2019
nevada,
experienced
its
lowest
gas
excavation
damage
rate
in
recorded
history,
nevada
has
seen
a
steady
decline
in
the
number
of
gas
damages
since
the
2015
legislative
session.
When
the
commission's
finding
authority
was
increased
since
2008,
the
commission
has
collected
and
deposited
over
3.2
million
dollars
in
fines
to
nevada
state
general
fund.
Over
the
last
biennium
alone,
the
commission
has
collected
over
1.1
million
dollars,
unlike
pucs
and
many
other
states.
E
E
Now
we
understand
that
concerns
have
been
raised
by
some
of
the
companies
who
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
enhanced
fining
authority,
and
we
plan
to
work
with
them
on
revised
language,
providing
further
protection
against
disproportionate
penalties.
However,
ultimately,
the
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
empower
the
pucn
to
impose
fines
that
are
concerning
to
those
companies.
E
E
That
said,
we're
hopeful
that
we
can
agree
on
meaningful
changes
to
ensure
that
the
punishments
fit
the
crime.
In
conclusion,
the
commission
requests
your
support
of
sb18
to
provide
an
important
tool
to
ensure
the
safety,
reliability
and
affordability
of
utility
service
and
to
also
ensure
the
effective
implementation
of
public
policies
adopted
by
the
nevada
legislature.
E
A
Thank
you
I'll,
go
ahead
and
kick
it
off
with
a
question
of
my
own,
let's
say
last
year:
how
often
was
the
maximum
fine
sought
by
by
the
public
utilities,
commission.
E
Stephanie
mullen
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
It's
a
great
question.
Actually,
since
the
legislation
was
changed
in
2015,
we
have
never
reached
the
maximum
fining
authority
under
the
federal
pipeline,
which
was
the
two
million
dollar
maximum
that
I
discussed.
E
We
did
levy
a
fine
of
approximately
500
000
last
year
and
prior
to
that,
the
max
was
approximately
300
000
and
that
was
sometime
around
2016.
A
And
do
you
have
the
same
information
for
these
fines
that
were
seeking
to
increase
today.
E
Stephanie
mullen
for
the
record,
we
do,
unfortunately,
the
way
we
collect
the
fines
that
we've
levied
since
2008
is
docket
specific
and
not
by
finding
authority.
However,
I
do
know
that
it
is
not
often
that
we
hit
that
hundred
thousand
dollar
mark,
but
I'm
happy
to
provide
detailed
information
for
you
at
a
later
date.
D
Thank
you,
chair
harris
and,
and
thank
you,
miss
mullen
and
mr
weir
for
presenting
this
today.
This
builds
upon
chair,
harris's
question
that
she
just
asked,
and
so
is
is,
is
the
reason
that
you,
you
hadn't
maxed
out
on
any
of
these
fines?
D
Is
it
because
the
daily
was
too
low
and
and
that
they
just
whoever
the
violator
was,
was
able
to
kind
of
fix
their
issue
or
or
is
it
a
settlement
or
how
is
it
that
no
and
I
totally
understand
the
justification
for
the
fines
that
you're
asking
for
I'm
just
curious?
If
you
haven't
maxed
out,
does
that
mean
that
the
daily
is
too
low
or,
or
you
know
or
is
there
just
not
a
problem.
F
Thank
you
senator
brooks
for
the
record
garrett
weir.
I
I
think
it's
a
combination
of
factors,
the
daily
amounts.
With
the
revised
I
mean
there
are
restrictions
that
that
the
commission
follows
for
that
revised
enhanced
ability,
which
we've
our
staff
does
believe,
is
sufficient
as
a
deterrent
for
pipeline
safety,
but
like
with
regard
to
the
the
regulations
or
the
the
statutes
in
703
380,
the
the
finding
authority
that
we're
attempting
to
increase
fairly
dramatically
through
this
bill.
F
There
there's
not
only
are
the
limitations
there.
I
mean
you
know
we're
not
going
to
go
above
that,
but
we
face
compaction
issues
where
I
think
the
commission
struggles
with
determining
what
to
find
an
offense.
Where
say
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
is
the
maximum
is
appropriate,
but
we
don't
want
to
send
a
message
that
that's
as
egregious
a
violation
as
something
where
there's
loss
of
life
or
some
sort
of
terrible
outcome.
F
So
you
know
that
it's
really
a
struggle.
You
hope
to
have
that
larger
range
to
assess
an
adequate
penalty
when
when
something
is
bad,
but
not
the
worst
possible
type
of
violation,
and-
and
so
that's
really
why
we're
seeking
that
range?
Where
we
could,
you
know
you
might
see
more
fines
that
could
be
in
that
hundred
thousand
dollar
range,
if
that's
an
appropriate
amount,
but
you
know
it
would
be
relative
to
a
finding
authority.
That's
much
greater.
D
Now,
could
you
walk
me
through
a
chair?
Can
I
follow
up
with
another
question?
Did
you
walk
me
through
how
how
do
you
get
to
the
max?
Can
you
like
one,
can
one
violation
get
the
max
fine
right
now?
If
that's
what
you
love
it,
or
does
it
have
to
be
not
more
than
the
daily
fine
per
offense
and
over
time
in
aggregate
to
achieve
the
max,
or
can
you
just
go
straight
to
the
max,
based
upon
the
type
of
violation.
D
G
F
Garrett,
we're
through
chair
harris
to
senator,
brooks
the
that's
a
great
question
and
and
the
limitation
right
now
it
is
the
maximum
daily.
So,
depending
on
the
number
of
days
that
for
a
related
offense,
I
mean
we
are
restricted
by
that
daily
amount.
So,
where
you
would
see
you
know
the
ability
to
reach
that
maximum
as
if,
if
basically
an
offense
or
a
violation,
goes
undiscovered
for
a
long
period
of
time.
F
F
So
it's
in
fact
that
might
be
the
more
important
cap
frankly,
because
a
lot
of
the
the
most
egregious
types
of
violations
would
perhaps
you
know
not
have
occurred
over
a
long
period
of
time,
but
but
things
that
are
systemic,
like
a
failure
to
to
take
to
do
the
take
the
kinds
of
actions
that
the
commission
requires
in
in
an
order
that
looks
at
a
period
of
several
years,
I
mean
that
that's
where
you
end
up
getting
into
those
large
numbers.
H
H
Sure
and
director
mullen
I'm
just
picking
up.
You
answered
all
my
questions
when
you
called
and
thank
you
by
the
way
for
for
you
and
mr
ware
calling
in
advance,
because
you
saved
the
committee
a
bunch
of
time
and
heartburn
having
to
listen
to
me.
But
you
did
say
one
thing:
that
kind
of
tripped
me
up
a
little
bit.
H
You
started
out
by
saying
that
the
current
limitations
to
the
fines
were
set
40
years
ago,
and
then
you
mentioned
something
in
2015
that
I
thought
you
said
when
these
were
updated.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding
we're
looking
at
a
change
over
40
years.
Not
a
change
over
five.
Is
that
correct.
E
Yes,
stephanie
mullen
for
the
record
through
you
chair,
harris
to
senator
pickard.
That
is
correct.
The
statute
that
I
was
referring
to
was
some
of
our
federal
pipeline
statutes
and
it's
in
nrs
704.595,
which
was
updated
in
the
2015
session.
F
For
the
record,
if
I
may,
madam
chair
garrett,
weir
just
to
add
further
clarification,
the
the
revisions
in
704
595
that
they
provided
the
exact
finding
authority
that
we're
now
seeking
for
pipeline
safety.
The
commission
actually
has
not
been
invoking
its
authority
under
the
section.
That's
addressed
section
one
of
this
bill
because
we
have
the
necessary
finding
authority
elsewhere.
So
that
section
of
this
build,
though,
is
really
a
housekeeping
measure.
A
A
Okay,
seeing
none,
we
will
go
ahead
and
open
it
up
for
testimony
bps.
Please
start
with
testimony
in
support
of
sb.
A
G
B
Thank
you,
chair
harris
vice
chair
brooks
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
mike
roberson
and
I'm
utility
analyst
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection.
We
represent
over
1.1
million
residential
multi-family
and
small
business
rate,
ratepayers
and
dockets
before
the
public
utilities
commission
of
nevada.
We
thank
the
committee
for
this
opportunity.
Divorce
voice,
its
support
of
sb18.
B
We
specifically
support
sb18s
increase
to
the
maximum
administrative
fines.
The
pucn
can
assess
against
a
public
utility
that
provides
any
inaccurate
or
misleading
information.
In
a
case
before
the
pucn.
It
is
imperative
that
the
information
presented
to
the
pucn
is
complete.
Accurate
and
timely,
wise
deceit
and
deception
have
no
place
in
our
public
hearings
as
lawmakers
yourselves.
Each
of
you
understands
that
clear
and
more
accurate
information
not
only
contributes
to
a
thorough
and
adequate
analysis,
but
also
ensures
proceedings
are
conducted
with
the
integrity
and
transparency
that
nevadans
rightfully
expect
and
deserve.
B
C
D-Y-L-A-N-S-U-L-L-I-B-A-N
chair
harris
vice
chair,
brooks
and
members
of
the
committee
good
afternoon,
I'm
villain
sullivan,
I'm
a
senior
scientist
at
the
natural
resources,
defense
council
we're
a
nonprofit
environmental
organization.
We
have
around
25
000
members
and
online
activists
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
suki
view
from
from
reno.
Today,
nrdc
supports
sb18
for
two
main
reasons.
C
C
We
spend
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars,
for
example,
hiring
experts
to
help
us
understand
what
a
utility
company
is
proposing
and
what
can
be
done
within
law
and
policy
to
improve
it.
Accurate
information
is
key
to
the
proper
functioning
of
the
regulatory
process
if
utilities
intentionally
misrepresent
costs
or
misstate
what
they're
actually
doing
or
plan
to
do.
We
can't
properly
respond
and
this
bill
would
ensure
that
utility
companies
have
an
incentive
to
provide
accurate
information
to
the
commission
where
it
is
needed
to
make
good
decisions.
C
Second
reason:
to
a
large
extent,
nevada
is
addressing
climate
change
through
our
utility
sector.
Electric
utilities
are
subject
to
the
renewable
portfolio
standard.
We
have
energy
efficiency
and
energy
storage
targets,
we're
probably
going
to
have
more
in
the
future.
C
In
summary,
this
well-crafted
legislation
gives
regulators
the
tools
they
need
and
ensures
that
the
regulatory
process
has
good
information.
Thank
you.
B
I
Support
of
the
bill,
I
don't
have
anything
more
to
add
beyond
what
my
colleague
mr
sullivan
had
had
mentioned,
so
I
will
just
leave
it
at
that.
Thank
you.
G
G
B
B
And
although
we
appreciate
the
amendment
proposed
by
the
public
utilities,
commission
and
some
of
the
modifications
to
the
original
draft
that
were
included
in
that
amendment
and
just
want
to
state,
the
commission
has
been
very
open
to
working
with
us
and,
as
ms
mullen
stated,
we'll
continue
to
work
together
in
development,
hopefully
of
some
additional
language
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
with
the
proportionality
of
the
administrative
fines
proposed
in
the
bill.
B
G
G
B
B
We
do
recognize
the
pulse
issue,
that's
been
trying
to
be
addressed
by
the
puc
and
we
do
believe
we
will
be
able
to
find
a
resolution
to
a
revised
fine
structure.
I
would
like
to
thank
the
puc
and
their
time
for
their
conversations.
They've
had
with
us
they've
been
very
open
and
transparent,
and
we
look
forward
to
the
continued
dialogue
with
their
staff.
Thank
you,
pierre
harris.
G
G
B
Chair
harris
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
barry
duncan
b-a-r-r-y-d-u-n-c-a-n
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
tax
payers
association,
the
nevada
taxpayers
association
is
to
post
the
language
in
sb18
is
currently
drafted
with.
That
said,
we
stand
ready
to
continue
working
on
an
amendment
that
meets
the
needs
of
the
puc,
as
well
as
the
regulated
entities.
B
G
I
D
I
I
M-A-T-T-M-O-R-R-I-S
representing
the
nevada
resort
association.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
I
just
echo
the
comments
that
have
already
been
made
by
my
colleagues
expressing
concerns
over
senate
bill
18,
as
currently
drafted,
certainly
want
to
thank
the
puc
and
executive
director
stephanie
mullen
garrett,
weir
for
being
open
and
transparent
and
working
with
us
on
a
potential
language
that
could
clarify
some
of
the
broad
language
in
senate
bill
18.
I
G
J
J
Envy
energy
supports
the
concept
behind
senate
bill
18
before
you
today
to
update
and
modernize
administrative
fines
that
can
be
imposed
by
the
public
utility
commission
as
the
state
of
nevada's
largest
regulated
utility.
We
fully
understand
the
importance
of
the
commission's
enforcement
responsibilities.
J
J
At
nb
energy
we've
been
very
fortunate
to
not
have
faced
very
often
the
prospect
of
a
fine
from
the
commission.
Aside
from
a
potential
fine
reputational
impact
can
be
also
a
significant
deterrent
to
prohibited
conduct,
something
very
important
to
our
entire
company.
J
We
believe
maybe
a
fairer
approach
would
be
to
use
the
average
inflation
rate
over
the
years
and
then
apply
that
calculation
to
true
up
the
numbers
to
2021
values,
for
example,
of
the
average
inflation
rate
between
two
to
three
percent
is
applied
then,
and
you
ground
the
numbers
up
for
ease
of
application.
You
know
we,
you
can
see
a
thousand
dollar
fine
becomes
five
thousand
hundred
thousand
dollar
prime
becomes
five
hundred
thousand,
and
the
two
hundred
thousand
dollar
claim
nears
mid
700
000
range.
J
We
believe
that
approach
can
work
to
meet
the
objectives
stopped
by
the
commission,
while
making
sure
that
the
structure
of
fines
is
fair
and
in
line
with
inflation
we
wanted
to.
J
We
have
discussed
this
proposed
legislation
with
the
commission's
general
counsel
and
director
mullen
and
they've,
been
very
accessible
and
have
taken
many
of
our
concerns
into
account
like
to
thank
them
for
that
cooperation
and
transparency
we'd
like
to
continue
to
work
with
both
of
them
and
their
colleagues
of
the
commission
to
reach
a
consensus
as
we
move
forward
that
meets
their
objectives.
Thank
you,
chair,
harris
and
available
to
answer
any
questions.
G
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
just
ask
miss
mullen
another
question.
While
I've
got
her
on
sb18,
would
you
mind
clarifying
the
status
of
the
amendment
that
you
that
that
you
proposed
and
is
on
alice.
E
Chair
harris
through
you,
this
is
stephanie
mullen
for
the
record.
I
believe
garrett
weir
might
be
able
to
better
address
that
question
garrett.
If
you're
free.
F
Thank
you,
chair
harris
you're,
weird
for
the
record.
The
currently
we
are
comfortable
with
the
bill,
as
amended
by
our
proposed
amendment.
However,
we
are
more
than
willing
to
entertain
suggestions
and
to
work
with
parties,
as
we
are
currently
doing
to
ensure
that
there
is
a
proper
proportionality
of
penalties
imposed,
taking
into
account
things
like
the
impact
of
a
violation
as
well
as
willfulness,
making
sure
that
the
punishment
fits
the
crime.
A
A
59.
I'll
go
ahead
and
welcome
you
back
mr
ware
and
miss
mullen
to
present
on
that
bill.
Whenever
you
are
ready.
F
F
Just
at
the
beginning,
I'd
like
to
to
make
clear
that
this
bill
is
not
proposing
to
change
the
existing
state
of
law
in
nevada
regarding
judicial
review
of
uc
decisions,
it's
simply
intended
to
clarify
what
has
been
viewed
as
ambiguous
language
in
appeals
that
we've
had
of
cases
in
recent
years
and
we're
trying
to
avoid
unnecessary
litigation
that
uses
state
and
other
private
resources.
F
We
hope
to
provide
clarity
to
give
guidance
regarding
what
is
the
types
of
cases
that
are
eligible
for
judicial
review
as
or
the
types
of
proceedings
that
are
eligible
for
judicial
review,
as
well
as
the
briefing
schedule
that's
applicable
to
judicial
review
of
pc
decisions.
So
basically,
there
are
two
clarifications
that
we're
proposing
through
this
bill.
The
first
would
clarify
that
contested
cases.
F
Decisions
and
contested
cases
are
that
the
judicial
review
is
limited
to
those
decisions
and
it
wouldn't
apply
to
proceedings
that
are
not
contested
cases
that
change
to
contested
case
in
in
place
of
the
more
broad
term
proceeding
is
it
conforms
with
the
existing
law
in
nrs
233b
130,
the
judicial
review
provisions
that
are
applicable
to
every
other
or
nearly
every
other
administrative
agency
in
the
state.
F
Next,
we
are
seeking
clarification
regarding
the
expedited
briefing
schedule
applicable
to
these
types
of
appeals,
the
to
provide
some
context.
The
reason
that
commission
appeals
of
commission
decisions
or
the
judicial
review
of
commission
decisions
was
exempted
from
the
process
applicable
to
all
other
state
agencies
was
to
expedite
that
process,
because
there
are
real
risks
of
rate
impact
harm
to
customers
from
prolonged,
protracted
litigation
where
decisions
of
the
commission
remain
unresolved
for
a
period
of
time.
F
Specifically,
if
a
if
the
case
lingers
on
appeal
before,
ultimately,
the
commission's
decision
being
reversed,
let's
say
for
on
a
decision
that
the
commission
made
to
disallow
the
recovery
of
costs
by
a
utility.
F
That
decision
would
not
just
result
in
the
utility
being
able
to
recover
those
costs
that
the
commission
had
previously
said
were
unjustified,
but
it
would
also
entitle
the
utility
to
seek
the
recovery
of
the
time
value
of
that
money
that
it
hadn't
collected
over
during
the
tendency
of
the
appeal,
so
the
faster
that
these
cases
are
resolved,
the
less
risk
there
is
of
ratepayer
impact
beyond
just
reversing
the
commission's
decision.
Potentially.
F
So.
With
that
in
mind,
there
are
a
number
of
provisions
within
nrs
703
373.
The
judicial
review
statutes
that
govern
the
commission's
appeals
of
commission
decisions.
Briefing
timelines
are
shortened
the
time
for
reports
your
day.
Numbers
are
shorter
than
they
are
for
review
pursuant
to
nrs233b.
F
So
it's
it's
very
clear
that
the
legislature
was
pursuing
a
policy
objective
of
expediting
this
review
and
one
of
those
things
that
one
of
those
policy
considerations
that
we
believe
the
legislature
already
made
was
to
truncate
the
briefing
schedule
for
these
proceedings
to
where
there's
still
due
process,
where
you
have
a
the
petitioner
seeking
judicial
review
and
any
other
parties
who
want
to
support
that
who
also
want
to
challenge
the
commission
decision,
they
would
file
an
opening
brief
and
then
all
of
the
parties
who
are
respondents
in
the
case
who
want
to
defend
the
commission's
decision.
F
F
Certainly
it
is
less
briefing
before
the
court,
then
is
contemplated
for
review
of
other
agencies
decisions.
But,
as
I
mentioned,
that
was
a
policy
consideration
that
we
believe
the
legislature
previously
decided.
They
balanced.
F
On
the
one
hand,
the
completeness
or
the
thoroughness
of
the
written
record
for
the
court
versus
the
potential
impacts
to
rate
pairs
of
prolonged
proceedings
and
believe
that
it
was
the
appropriate
balance
to
truncate
the
briefing
as
described
so
we're
just
wanting
to
provide
clarity
regarding
that
policy
decision
that
we
believe
was
already
made
by
the
nevada
legislature,
and
with
that
I
am
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
All
right
before
I
open
it
up
for
questions,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
all
of
the
members
have
the
amendment
for
this
bill
as
well
in
front
of
them
so
that
they
are
working
on
that
version
and
not
the
printed
version,
and
I
don't
see
anyone
saying
they
don't
have
it
so
I
will
assume
they
do
and
I'll
turn
to
sander
pickard.
For
his
question.
H
Thank
you
ma'am
sure
and
mr
rear.
Thank
you
again
for
your
presentation.
Now
you
covered
most
of
I
think
the
questions
I
had
before
the
one
thing
and
I'm
looking
at
the
amendment
where
you
change
from
brief
to
memorandum.
This
is
on.
I
guess
it's
section,
one
sub
seven
and
I
I
I
don't
object
to
necessarily
the
change
in
language.
F
Officer,
thank
you,
chair
harris
through
you
to
senator
picker
for
the
record
garrett
weir
that
that's
a
very
good
question.
I
I
think
the
language
would
preclude
the
a
general
responsive,
further
responsive,
pleadings
being
filed.
F
I
think
a
request
for
briefing
on
a
discrete
issue.
I
don't.
I
don't
believe
that
we
would
likely
challenge
something
like
that.
I
think
the
the
existing
language
I
mean
the
intent
would
be
to
expedite
this
process.
I
mean
my
my
proposal
would
be
that
that
in
that
instance,
that
the
judge
asked
those
questions
at
hearing
and.
F
And
maybe
even
have
a
preliminary
order
or
discussion
with
parties
to
prepare
them
for
that
discussion
taking
place
during
hearing,
but
as
far
as
written
briefing
you
know,
additional
pleadings
would
extend
that
timeline.
So
we
would,
we
probably
would
need
to
change
the
language
if
we
wanted
to
contemplate
a
discrete
briefing
it
just
the
concern
there
is
that
that
could
ultimately
not
save
the
time
that
we're
wanting
to
save.
H
And-
and
I
understand
that
I
just
balk
at
taking
the
ability
of
a
court
judicial
officer
anyway,
to
not
be
able
to
get
the
briefing
he
needs,
particularly
if
he's
trying
to
build
a
written
record.
A
G
G
G
G
G
G
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
matt
morris
m-a-t-t-m-o-r-r-I-s,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
resort
association.
We
are
opposed
to
seneville
59
in
its
current
form
and
again
we
appreciate
very
much
the
bill.
Sponsors
willingness
to
work
with
us.
We've
had
some
productive
conversations
about
some
of
our
concerns
with
sb-59
and
really,
to
put
it
succinctly,
it's
really
what
we
see
as
a
separation
of
powers
issue.
I
G
B
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
stephen
cohen,
for
the
record,
I
share
some
of
the
concerns
noted
during
the
presentation
and
q
and
a
I
did
submit
a
proposed
amendment,
unfortunately
just
a
little
while
ago
to
the
committee
manager.
So
it
may
not
appear
on
nellis
yet,
but
I
stand
ready,
willing
and
able
to
work
with
the
committee
and
or
sponsor
to
address
the
concerns
with
that
manager.
Thank.
B
A
Sb59,
okay:
we
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
testimony
and
I'll
turn
it
over
to
you
all.
If
there's
any
additional
comments
you'd
like
to
make
before
we
close
the.
F
Hearing
you
chair
harris,
but
just
one
brief
comment
addressing
for
the
record
garrett
weir,
that
there
was
a
a
comment
regarding
a
scenario
where
a
party
or
does
not
intervene
in
a
puc
case.
That,
ultimately,
is
a
contested
case,
but
you
know
some
concern
about
the
ability
to
seek
judicial
review.
If
the
party
doesn't
participate,
when
there
was
inadequate
notice
and.
C
F
Know
in
our
opinion,
that
isn't
a
scenario
that
would
be
affected
by
what
we're
proposing.
If
a
party
fails
to
intervene,
you
know
there
can
be
discussions
about
whether
there's
adequate
notice
or
not
separately,
but
you
have
to
have
been
an
actual
party
to
the
contested
case.
What
is
that
issue
here?
You
know
the
nature
of
the
case
being
contested
or
not
wouldn't
change.
F
It
would
still
have
been
a
contested
case
so
really
there
that
the
issue
becomes
whether
notice
was
adequate
and
there's
a
separate
process
for
adjudicating
that
issue.
A
Okay,
miss
mullen,
I
see
you're
unmuted.
Did
you
wanna.
E
I
stephanie
mullen
for
the
record
chair
harris.
No,
thank
you
so
much
for
having
us
today.
I
have
nothing
else
to
add
all.
A
J
G
G
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
mr
weir
miss
mullen.
I
trust
that
you'll
continue
to
work
with
some
of
the
parties
who
are
affected
by
these
bills
and
please
stay
in
contact
with
the
committee.
As
those
discussions
develop
and
I
believe
that's
all
of
our
business.
For
the
day
we
will
be
back
on
monday
february
22nd
at
3
30
pm
and
we
are.