The council went from opposing rate increases to emphasizing a positive partnership with the energy company

Following an announcement that NV Energy was planning to increase the base rate Reno customers would pay for electricity and gas, the Reno City Council planned to oppose the idea on behalf of its constituents. A resolution to oppose the proposed rate increase was scheduled for Wednesday’s Reno City Council meeting.

However, following a Monday phone call between NV Energy officials, a Sierra Club representative and two council members, the resolution to oppose the rate hike instead became, in comparison, something of a love letter to the utility company, which seeks to increase revenues by more than $100 million per year at a cost to its customers. 

Toiyabe Chapter Director of the Sierra Club Olivia Tanager said she participated in the meeting but wasn’t involved in the changed resolution and doesn’t support it.

The Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) held consumer sessions in June to gain feedback from utility customers, who overwhelmingly opposed the proposed increases. 

If approved, the fixed base rate would increase from $16.50 to $45.30 per month starting Oct. 1, while the company said consumption-based rates would decline. NV Energy officials said the change would increase consumer costs for electricity by around $9.84 per month, providing NV Energy with an additional $94 million per year. 

Natural gas costs would increase about $4.75 per month, which would provide “less than $98 million” in additional revenue, according to Council member Naomi Duerr, who attended the Monday meeting and was behind the changes in the resolution. 

The initial resolution opposing NV Energy, which was provided to the public as part of the agenda packet, was not discussed.   

Instead, while the resolution was a part of the agenda, staff reworked it and provided it to the board — but not the public — before the item was discussed. Duerr read the resolution out loud, but a hard copy was not made available to the public.

Council member Jenny Brekhus asked if a copy included redlined changes so she could see all that had been altered in the resolution. She was told there was no redlined copy. The new resolution was later put online, which can be viewed here.  A major change is in the resolution’s title. 

“I certainly know that companies are entitled to increases, and I think that’s appropriate. They’re in the business to make money.”– Reno City Council member Naomi Duerr

The original resolution was called, “Resolution of the Reno City Council to oppose the increase to the basic service charge.” In the revision, the word “oppose” was removed, instead titled “Resolution of the Reno City Council related to the provisions … before the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.” 

Subsection D. was also entirely removed. It stated: “Whereas, NV Energy proposes to increase its Basic Service Charge to all customer classes to meet its increased revenue requirement.” 

Each section following similarly removed any reference to being opposed to NV Energy’s proposed policy. 

For example, “City Council formally opposes NV Energy’s proposal to increase the Basic Service Charge to its customers” was changed to “The City Council formally encourages the PUCN to consider the public comment it has received as it issues its decision.” 

The initial resolution was entirely to oppose NV Energy’s proposals on behalf of citizens, stating that an increase would negatively impact residents and the environment, as a fixed versus a consumption-based cost would remove any incentive for customers to conserve energy or install solar technology. 

They also initially found that “there is no guarantee a bill will be reduced because volumetric charges are based on market pricing for fuel.” 

“[We] were upset by the fact that this backroom deal was cut between the utilities and council,” Tanager said. “We didn’t support the resolution being watered down and we were disappointed by that outcome.”

The new resolution removes almost all mention of NV Energy, except the passage stating, “The City Council hereby re-affirms its longstanding partnership with NV Energy to work collaboratively to find solutions that further the clean energy future and support policies beneficial to low-income residents and seniors.” 

Instead, the new resolution encourages PUCN on various platitudes, such as promoting fairness to customers and adopting conservation platforms. 

Duerr, who sponsored the resolution, said this was an “opportunity for the community to come together with NV Energy.” 

“I certainly know that companies are entitled to increases, and I think that’s appropriate,” Duerr said when asked about the changes to the resolution. “I mean, they’re in the business to make money. At the same time, we’ve got to advocate for our residents, all of us, as a body, and I think what we’re seeking is some middle ground.” 

Immediately after reading the new version of the resolution, it appeared the council tried to pass it quickly and move on, making a motion to approve despite Brekhus stating she wanted to speak to staff. It was also pointed out that there was public comment on the item first, and a motion would have to wait. 

Ryan Bellows, vice president of NV Energy government relations, said the focus has been on the basic service charge. While the basic service charge has increased, the company is also asking for a decrease in the consumption charge, which would, he claimed, keep customers’ bill costs, on average, the same. 

“We know energy is critical to the lives of customers we serve. Our goal is to provide reliable, safe, affordable energy to the customers,” Bellows said. “By the end of the year, bills will actually be lower if this proposal is approved.” 

Bellows said that NV Energy supportorted the new version of the resolution. 

Tanager said there was no evidence to support Bellows’ claim that prices would decrease, stating that almost all of the analyses she has seen show customer cost increases across the board. 

“The only figure I’ve seen citing a decrease to bills has shown a decrease of $1 at current rates of energy costs,” Tanager said. “Should energy costs increase, which we expect them to and is projected, costs will increase and people will feel the weight of this basic service charge increase, especially low-income and fixed-income people that we’re fighting for.” 

Brekhus took issue with the changes to the resolution, calling it “watered-down” and lacking background information. 

“The resolution before opposed the rate increases; this one before us is watered-down… it’s a little bit of a sleight-of-hand at the table,” Brekhus said. 

There was no further discussion, and the resolution passed. PUCN will hold a hearing on the proposed increase Aug. 12 – 16. 

Update: This story has been updated to clarify that the Sierra Club’s Olivia Tanager was not involved with drafting the updated resolution that was approved during the meeting.