BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF NEVADA

1
2
3
4

IN THE MATTER of the Emergency Petition of

The Alliance For Solar Choice for a Declaratory
Order that Senate Bill 374 Requires Continuous and
Uninterrupted Net Energy Metering be Offered to
Customer Generators in Nevada

)
)
)
)
)

Docket No. 15-07021

5
COMMENTS REGARDING AND ANSWER TO
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER

Nevada Power Company

and Sierra Pacific Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

7
8

Pursuant to the July 17, 2015 Notice of Petition for a Declaratory Order, Nevada Power

Company d/b/a NV Energy (Nevada Power) and Sierra Pacific Power Company d/b/a NV

10

Energy (Sierra Pacific and, together with Nevada Power, NVE or the Companies)

11

submit these Comments Regarding and Answer to the Emergency Petition for a Declaratory

12

Order (the Petition) filed by The Alliance For Solar Choice (TASC). The Petition requests

13

an order regarding the meaning of Senate Bill (SB) 374. Specifically, TASC asks the Public

14

Utilities Commission of Nevada (Commission) to issue a declaratory order requiring the

15

Companies to continue to offer net energy metering under the currently effective net metering

16

tariff until such time as the Commission approves a new net metering tariff. This specific

17

request from TASC should be rejected.

18

I.

19

INTRODUCTION
A.
TASC stated that, under SB 374, no more than 235 MW of customergeneration would be served under existing net metering rules

20
21

One objective of SB 374 is clear as expressed by TASC to legislators and the public,1

22

SB 374 was designed to provide the Commission with wide latitude to establish a smooth

23

transition between current net metering rules (NEM1) and new, sustainable net metering

24

rules to become effective on or before December 31, 2015 (NEM2). According to TASC, SB

25
26
27
28

Assembly Commerce and Labor, May 25, 2015. Written minutes of the hearing are not available from the
Legislative Counsel Bureau. However, the hearing was videotaped. Mr. Uithovens remarks begin at minute 11:42
at the following link: http://nvleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=14&clip_id=5022. See also, the joint
press release issued on May 25, 2015 by TASC and NVE, attached hereto as Answer Exhibit A.

374 defined the existing 3 percent net metering cap to be 235 megawatts,2 which is the

maximum amount of net metering permitted under the current net metering rules until

December 31, 2015.3 SB 374 identifies the single, specific scenario under which NEM1

would remain in place after NVE has accepted applications for 235 megawatts under NEM1:

only if the Commission fails to finalize NEM2 rules by December 31, 2015.4 The Petition

seeks relief that is inconsistent with the text of SB 374 and TASCs description of the

legislation. Equally important, the relief requested by TASC would not provide for a smooth

transition from NEM1 to NEM2.

B.

Nevada Power Company

and Sierra Pacific Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

NVE will propose a transition mechanism in its July 31, 2015 filing

10

In contrast, the Companies July 31, 2015 filings will propose a mechanism for

11

efficiently transitioning from NEM1 to NEM2 consistent with the latitude afforded the

12

Commission under SB 374 to craft and implement a NEM2 program. First, consistent with SB

13

374, the NVE Companies will continue to interconnect customer-generators under NEM1 until

14

it accepts and approves applications from 235 megawatts of customer-generators. Second,

15

again consistent with SB 374, thereafter the NVE Companies proposal will be to continue

16

accepting applications from customers requesting the interconnection of renewable distributed

17

generation and the installation of a net meter. Third, consistent with SB 374, the filing will

18

include a marginal cost of service study and a new NEM2 tariff, providing the Commission the

19

data to evaluate NEM2 rules. Fourth, consistent with SB 374, the Companies will request

20

permission from the Commission to begin billing customers under the proposed NEM2 tariff at

21

an appropriate time before December 31, 2015, 5 subject to refund in the event that the final

22

NEM2 tariff provides NEM2 customers with a more advantageous rate.

23
24
2

25
26
27
28

Answer Exhibit A.
Id.
4
Id. See also, Subsection 5 of section 4.5 of SB 374 (requiring that, for the period beginning January 1, 2016, the
companies must offer net metering under existing rules if the Commission has not issued an order approving new
net metering rules).
5
The Companies are making the system changes necessary to begin billing NEM2 customers, with the goal of
being in a position to start billing under NEM2 rules and rates as soon as September 15, 2015.
3

Nevada Power Company

and Sierra Pacific Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

The Companies forthcoming proposal is consistent with SB 374 and furthers Nevadas

energy policies. Under the proposal, customer-generators may continue to submit

interconnection and net metering applications and the renewable distributed generation

industry may continue to install such systems, without interruption. The proposal provides an

organized process for transitioning from NEM1 to NEM2, without interruption to the sales and

fulfillment processes. The proposal thus will achieve TASCs stated objectives in a manner

that is consistent with legislation that TASC supported.6 Ultimately, the transition to NEM2

will allow further growth in distributed generation, while ensuring that customers without these

systems will not continue to subsidize net metering.

10

C.
Consistent with the preference established by Section 4.5 of SB 374, NVE
will propose a just, reasonable and fair billing regime for NEM2 customers that
eliminates the unreasonable shifting of costs to customers who do not choose to
install rooftop solar systems.

11
12
13

Subsection 3 of Section 4.5 of SB 374 establishes a preference for the NEM2 billing

14

regime. The preference established by the law is for a three-part rate that consists of a basic

15

service charge, a demand charge, and an energy charge. These charges will be based on the

16

specific costs that NVE incurs to provide electric service to customers who install intermittent,

17

renewable generation. Pursuant to SB 374, the basic service charge will reflect marginal fixed

18

costs incurred to provide safe and reliable service to customer generators. These costs include

19

back-office systems (e.g., accounting, billing, and customer service systems), employees,

20

meters and the terminals, transformers, and wires that are closest to the customers premise.

21

These costs do not vary based on the amount of electricity a customer consumes. Pursuant to

22

SB 374, the demand charge will reflect the maximum load requirement that a customer-

23

generator places on the system, including the need to accommodate energy delivered by the

24

customer-generator.7 The demand charge will reflect the Companies investment in the

25

26
27
28

Assembly Commerce and Labor, May 20, 2015. Written minutes of the hearing are not available from the
Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Lyndon Rives remarks regarding the industrys concern regarding the transition
between
NEM1
and
NEM2
begin
at
hour
3:17:00
at
the
following
link:
http://nvleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=14&clip_id=4959
7
That is, the demand charge will reflect the cost of provide the specific service that a customer-generator receives,
which includes both stand-by service and energy receipt service.

Nevada Power Company

and Sierra Pacific Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

generation, transmission, and distribution facilities that are needed to ensure the delivery of

reliable service to customer-generators. Again, pursuant to the SB 374, the energy charge will

reflect the volume of energy consumed by a customer. Energy costs, such as fuel and

purchased power, typically vary based on consumption.

The three-part rate is neither new nor novel. The Companies and utilities across the

country have offered three- and multi-part rate structures to commercial customers. Indeed, the

Companies have used a three-part rate structure to bill commercial accounts for more than six

decades. A three-part rate design better reflects the cost of providing electric service, is well-

established and provides a fair and reasonable way to recognize the cost of serving customer-

10

generators.

11

In this vein, NVEs July 31, 2015 filing will further the policy of SB 374. The filing

12

will propose just, reasonable and fair rates that reflect the cost of providing service to

13

customers who choose to install variable distributed generation. Not only will the proposal

14

eliminate the unreasonable shifting of costs from customer-generators to other customers, but

15

the filing will propose rules that fairly compensate customer-generators for any capacity and

16

energy benefits associated with their systems. In summary, the filing will seek to establish a

17

sustainable environment for renewable distributed generation one that treats all customers

18

fairly and one that recognizes that the inherent subsidy utilized to promote distributed

19

generation is no longer needed to ensure the growth of renewable distributed generation.

20

II.

21

THE COMPANIES WILL CONTINUE TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FROM

CUSTOMER-GENERATORS AND REQUESTS TO INSTALL NET METERS
AFTER THE 235 MEGAWATT LIMITATION SUPPORTED BY TASC IS
REACHED.

22
23
24
25
26

Subsection 1 of section 2.3 of SB 374 provides:

Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, each utility shall, in
accordance with a tariff filed by the utility and approved by the
Commission, offer net metering to customer-generators who submit
applications to install net metering systems within its service territory
after the date on which the cumulative capacity requirement described in
paragraph (a) of subsection 1 NRS 704.773 is met.

27
28
4

While subsection 2 of section 2.3 allows the Commission to establish enrollment limitations

under the NEM2 tariff, NVE does not anticipate asking for a capacity limitation on NEM2 in

its July 31, 2015 filing.8 Accordingly, the Companies will propose to continue to accept

applications requesting interconnection of on-site renewable generation and the installation of

net meters after the 235 megawatt-limitation on NEM1 described in the statute is reached.

NVE also will ask the Commission to allow it to begin billing NEM2 rates at an appropriate

point before December 31, 2015.

III.

SB 374 ALLOWS THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER AND

HOW TO TRANSITION BETWEEN NEM1 AND NEM2

Nevada Power Company

and Sierra Pacific Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

9
10

The Petition asks the Commission to issue an order requiring the Companies to offer

11

net metering under existing rules until the Commission approves the NEM2 tariff. As

12

explained above, the Companies will provide a solution in their July 31, 2015 filing. The only

13

matter at issue is how the Companies will bill new customer-generators after the 235

14

megawatt-limitation. That matter is intended to be resolved by the Commission in accordance

15

with the process outlined in SB 374.

16

Subsection 1(a) of Section 2.95 of SB 374 provides that until the 235 megawatt cap is

17

reached, customer-generators will be charged under the NEM1 rules.9 Then, subsection 1(b) of

18

Section 2.95 requires the Companies to offer net metering in accordance with a new net

19

metering program and tariffs (NEM2) filed with and approved by the Commission.10 To move

20

from NEM1 to NEM2, section 4.5 of SB 374 requires the Companies to file cost of service

21

studies and NEM 2 tariffs with the Commission. To facilitate the transition from NEM1 to

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Subsection 2 of section 2.3 provides, in relevant part, the Commission . . . [m]ay close to new customergenerators a tariff filed pursuant to subsection 1 and approved by the Commission if the Commission determines
that closing the tariff to new customer-generators is in the public interest.
9
Subsection (a) provides, In accordance with the provisions of this Section, NRS 704.774 and 704.775, to the
customer-generators operating within its service area until the date on which the cumulative capacity of all net
metering systems for which all utilities in this State have accepted or approved completed applications for net
metering is equal to 235 megawatts.
10
Subsection (b) provides, After the date on which the cumulative capacity requirement described in paragraph
(a) is met, in accordance with the tariff filed by the utility and approved by the Commission pursuant to section
2.3 of this act.

Nevada Power Company

and Sierra Pacific Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

NEM2 in a transparent manner, the Companies will ask the Commission to permit billing of

the NEM2 rates at an appropriate point before December 31, 2015.

Because the date upon which the 235 megawatt limitation will be met was (and is)

uncertain, the May 20, 2015 version of SB 374 provided a bridge between the NEM1 and

NEM2 programs in the form of a temporary tariff to be applied in the event the cumulative

capacity of all net metering systems reached 235 megawatts prior to the final approval of

NEM2 tariffs. This approach was opposed by representatives of the largest competitors of the

solar industry.11 The final version of SB 374, which was expressly supported by TASC,

exchanged the temporary tariff transition mechanism described in earlier iterations of the bill

10

for a transition process to be determined by the Commission, should the Commission

11

determine that transition process is necessary.12 In the final version of SB 374, the Commission

12

is charged not only with approving the NEM2 tariff, but with establishing the mechanism for

13

transitioning between NEM1 and NEM2 in the event that the cumulative capacity of all net

14

metering systems reaches 235 megawatts before the final approval of the NEM2 tariff. In the

15

final version of SB 374 the Commission will make these assessments based on information

16

filed first by the NVE Companies on July 31, 2015, along with the information it receives from

17

participants in that proceeding, concluding no later than December 31, 2015.

18

TASCs proposal is inconsistent with the process and time table set forth in SB 374 for

19

determining whether and how, in the event that the cumulative capacity of all net metering

20

systems reaches 235 megawatts before the final approval of NEM2, to transition from NEM1

21

to NEM2. TASC asks the Commission to require NEM1 to continue even after the 235

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11

Assembly Commerce and Labor, May 20, 2015. Written minutes of the hearing are not available from the
Legislative Counsel Bureau. Mr. Lyndon Rives remarks describing the industrys opposition to the temporary
tariff
transition
mechanism
begin
at
hour
3:17:00
at
the
following
link:
http://nvleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=14&clip_id=4959
12
Subsection 1 of Section 4.5 provides that in lieu of the temporary tariff approach opposed and rejected by the
solar industry, the Commissions consideration of the process for transitioning from NEM1 to NEM2 will begin
with the filing on July 31, 2015 of the NEM2 tariff and a cost of service study. Subsection 2 of Section 4.5
describes the minimum terms of the NEM2 tariff. Subsection 3 of Section 4.5 describes the role of cost of service
analysis to be used in determining rates for service in the NEM2 tariff. Subsection 4 of Section 4.5 describes the
review that the Commission will undertake in approving, modifying or not approving the NEM2 tariff, and
provides that the Commissions review will be completed no later than December 31, 2015.

megawatt-limitation is reached, which is prohibited by subsection 5 of section 4.5 of SB 374.13

The relief requested by TASC is unnecessary, prohibited by SB 374, and inconsistent with

TASCs public statements describing SB 374.

IV.

TASCS ASSERTION THAT SB 374 REQUIRES NEM1 TO REMAIN IN

EFFECT UNTIL NEM2 IS APPROVED IS CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN
LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, THE NEM1 TARIFF AND TASCS
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE 2015 LEGISLATURE

Nevada Power Company

and Sierra Pacific Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

6
7

TASC asserts that SB 374 provides that NEM1 will remain in effect and apply to all

new net metering applications, including net metering applications received after the 235

megawatt cap is reached. TASC argues that, in the absence of any new tariff, the applicable

10

tariff is the existing NEM tariff that has been filed by the Companies and approved by the

11

Commission.14 This argument is inconsistent with the plain language of SB 374, which

12

defines the single situation under which NEM1 rules will become effective after the 235

13

megawatt cap is reached.

14

TASCs argument also is inconsistent with the plain language of the NEM1 tariffs.

15

Those tariffs expressly provide that [t]his Rider will close when the cumulative generating

16

capacity of Net Metering Systems operating in Nevada equals three percent of the total annual

17

peak capacity of all Utilities in Nevada. As stated by TASC, SB 374 defines the existing 3

18

percent net metering cap to be 235 megawatts.15 By their own terms, the NEM1 tariffs close

19

when the Companies accept and approve applications from customer-generators for 235

20

megawatts.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13

Subsection 5 of section 4.5 of SB 374 provides:

Except as otherwise provided in subsection 6, if for any reason the Commission does not
approve a tariff as required by subsection 4 on or before December 31, 2015, and
notwithstanding the amendatory provisions of this act to the contrary, for the period beginning
January 1, 2016, and ending on the date on which the Commission approves a tariff pursuant to
section 2.3 of this act, a utility shall offer net metering to customer-generators in a manner
consistent with the provisions of NRS 704.773, 704.774 and 704.775 as those sections existed
before the effective date of this act.
(Emphasis added)
14
TASC Emergency Petition, p. 10, lines 18-19.
15
Assembly Commerce and Labor, May 25, 2015. Written minutes of the hearing are not available from the
Legislative Counsel Bureau. Please refer to Mr. Uithovens introduction of the final version of SB 374 beginning
at minute 11:42 at the following link: http://nvleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=14&clip_id=5022.

Finally, TASCs position is inconsistent with TASCs description of the operation of

the final version of SB 374. On May 25, 2015, TASC representative Robert Uithoven appeared

before the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor to support the ultimate version of SB

374, a consensus version to which TASC expressly agreed. On behalf of TASC, Mr. Uithoven

introduced the compromise legislation and stated unequivocally that the current net metering

program and tariff would apply only up to the 235 megawatt cap.
In a sense this amendment will one, define the existing 3 percent net
metering cap to be 235 MW. This 235 MW will be the maximum amount
of net metering permitted under the current net metering rules until
December 31st of this year, 2015. The amendment will also require that
the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada design a future net metering
tariff with wide latitude for the Commission to structure that new tariff.
And finally the amendment will require the Commission to finalize the
new tariff by the end of this year December 31, 2015. Should the
Commission not meet this deadline the existing net metering tariff will
remain in place until the Commission finalizes the new tariff.16

7
8
Nevada Power Company
and Sierra Pacific Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

9
10
11
12
13

A few moments later Assemblyman Nelson asked Mr. Uithoven you said you know

14

what you are agreeing to . . . if you bump up to that [235-MW limitation], youre going to live

15

with that right?17 Mr. Uithoven stated that there was disagreement between the parties

16

presenting the compromise version of SB 374 as to whether 235 megawatts represented three

17

percent of load, and when the cap would be reached. Mr. Uithoven then stated, We are

18

confident in our agreement, and we are here testifying in favor of the agreement we made with

19

NV Energy. Finally, Mr. Uithoven agreed that, if a tariff were in place, then the limitation

20

would be academic.18 The compromise that resulted in the final version of SB 374 did not

21

eliminate the need to establish a plan for transitioning between NEM1 and NEM2: it left the

22

responsibility for establishing the transition plan to the Commission.19

23
24
25
16

26
27
28

Id. (emphasis added).

Id.
18
Id.
19
If the Commission does not have the power to establish a transition plan, then, as TASC stated, 235 MW is the
maximum amount of net metering that will be installed under NEM1.
17

V.

NVE DID NOT MISLEAD THE LEGISLATURE, THE INDUSTRY, OR THE

PUBLIC

Nevada Power Company

and Sierra Pacific Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

2
3

NVE did not mislead the Legislature, the industry, or the public with respect to when

the 235 megawatt-cap would be reached. During the 2015 legislative session, the renewable

distributed generation industry and NVE disagreed about when the three percent cap on

installed net metering capacity, which had been in place since 2013, would be reached. Even

though the industry acknowledged that it was experiencing massive growth,20 and believed

the cap might be reached before December 31, 2015, the industry also stated that reaching the

limitation was unlikely.21 Notwithstanding this understanding, the industry agreed that no more

10

than 235 megawatts of customer-generators would be served under NEM1, indicated that it

11

understood its agreement, and committed to live with its agreement.

12

NVE presented its estimate to the legislature based on both the then existing rules,

13

which focused on installed capacity, as well as the growth rates applicable in 2014 and early

14

2015. The concept of a cap based on reserved or pipeline capacity was not established until

15

SB 374. The previous version of NRS 704.773 established a three percent net metering cap for

16

operating projects, not reserved projects. Thus, NVE had systems in place to report operating

17

capacity. NVE first attempted to calculate pipeline capacity for reserved projects during the

18

week of April 27, 2015. As the discussion evolved through the session, NVE continued to

19

refine the calculation procedure for pipeline projects in order to provide the best estimate

20

possible. Throughout the entire process, NVE provided these numbers based on the best

21

available information it had at the time.

22

The 17.5 megawatt counting error that was discovered and reported to the industry by

23

NVE on or about June 22, 2015 consisted entirely of pipeline projects. Over the last several

24

months, the pipeline has been fluid and rapidly growing. NVE had robust reporting systems in

25

place to report operating capacity.

26
20

27
28

Testimony of Lyndon Rive, http://nvleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=14&clip_id=4959

Id. at approximately 3:24:45 (lets just say in the unlikely event the industry hits the cap in call it October) &
3:36:30.

21

Nevada Power Company

and Sierra Pacific Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

The Petition references the information provided by NVE as part of Docket 14-06009.

There, NVE provided a projection based on installed capacity, not pipeline capacity, and the

plain language of that response denotes this fact. The same reporting systems were not in place

for pipeline capacity because this capacity had not previously been a part of any reporting

requirement for compliance. This new pipeline reporting process was being developed

concurrently with the discussions occurring around SB 374. It is consequential to note that

prior to the deliberations around SB 374, the projected number of projects and associated

energy was of virtually no consequence. The notion that NVE hid numbers that heretofore had

no meaning or consequence is incorrect.

10

The Petition also references the legislative testimony and an exhibit provided on May

11

20, 2015. This exhibit provides an update to the forecast of operating capacity provided in

12

Docket 14-06009. Again, the update revised the forecast of operating capacity using the then-

13

current installation rate. This rate was lower than the installation rate forecasted in Docket 14-

14

06009 operating capacity forecast. NVE considered this reasonable; in large part because

15

industry leaders had indicated that it could not sell systems any faster.22 The actual operating

16

capacity additions from January through April are denoted on that forecast.

17

NVE provided information regarding projects in the pipeline in the footnote,

18

indicating that a reservation capacity could be hit in March 2016. The 6.8 megawatts per

19

month growth rate assumption is stated. The assumption was based on historical information

20

and supported by the chart shown in the exhibit.

21

Forecasts necessarily are based on assumptions, and assumptions may prove to be

22

wrong. But NVE presented the assumptions used to create the forecast attached to the Petition

23

a clear and transparent manner for Legislators and stakeholders. The Petition highlights the

24

nature of the difference between the forecast growth and actual growth rates seen over the

25

previous several weeks. The error that was later found plays a minor role in when the cap will

26
27
28

22

See id. at approximately 3:33:50.

10

Nevada Power Company

and Sierra Pacific Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

be hit in comparison to this growth rate.23 The forecast assumption of May 20, 2015 was 6.8

megawatt per month, spelled out by NVE and part of the public record for TASC members to

consider. The point is that the 17.5 megawatt counting error is not material to the forecast

discussion. Given the current rate of applications being received by the Companies, with or

without the 17.5 megawatt of additional capacity, the industry will hit the 235 megawatt limit

well before that date the NEM2 tariff is required by statute to be put in place by the

Commission.

Finally, NVE has no control over the sales rates of the industry.24 The industry controls

the pace at which sales grow and, as it acknowledged during the 2015 Legislation session, has

10

the option of plateauing and avoiding the cliff.25 Instead, the industry has rushed forward

11

making sales at approximately 20 megawatt per month. Any assertion that NVE acted in a

12

deceptive or misleading manner is short on the facts. The industry has actual knowledge of the

13

current and future growth rate. That knowledge should have been a critical factor in deciding

14

whether or not to support SB 374 and agree that no more than 235 megawatt of customer-

15

generators would be served under NEM1 in light of the clearly stated assumption that NVE

16

based its forecast on 6.8 megawatts per month.

17

VI.

CONCLUSION

18

The relief requested by TASC bypasses the procedure established in SB 374 pursuant

19

to which the Commission will determine whether and how to transition from NEM1 rules to

20

NEM2 rules. The relief requested by TASC is contrary to the plain meaning of the statute,

21

Nevada Power and Sierra Pacifics NEM1 tariffs, and TASCs testimony before the 2015

22

Nevada Legislature and public statements. The emergency petition filed by TASC on July 8,

23

2015 is procedurally deficient. The emergency petition filed by TASC should be rejected.

24
25
23

26
27
28

The difference between the industrys actual growth rate from May 1, 2015 on, and its historical growth rate of
6.8 MW of additions per month eclipses the 17.5 MW error in a few weeks
24
The industry, which controls the level of sales and sales growth, called its recent growth massive.
http://nvleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=14&clip_id=4959 at approximately 3:18:30.
25
Id. at approximately 3:33:00

11

Dated this 22nd day of July, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

NEVADA POWER COMPANY

SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY

4
5
6
7
8
Nevada Power Company
and Sierra Pacific Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

/s/Elizabeth Elliot
Elizabeth Elliot
Associate General Counsel
Nevada Power Company
6100 Neil Road
Reno, NV 89511
775-834-5694
belliot@nvenergy.com

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12

ANSWER EXHIBIT A

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing NEVADA POWER COMPANY D/B/A NV

ENERGYS AND SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY D/B/A NV ENERGYS

COMMENTS in Docket No. 15-07021 upon the persons listed below by the following:

5
6
7
8

Tammy Cordova
Public Utilities Comm. of Nevada
9075 West Diablo Drive Suite 250
Las Vegas, NV 89148
tcordova@puc.nv.gov

Staff Counsel Division

Public Utilities Comm. of Nevada
1150 E. William Street
Carson City, NV 89701-3109
pucn.sc@puc.nv.gov

Eric Witkoski
Michael Saunders
Attorney Generals Office
Bureau of Consumer Protection
10791 W. Twain Ave., Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89135-3022
bcpserv@ag.nv.gov
msaunders@ag.nv.gov

Attorney Generals Office

Bureau of Consumer Protection
100 N. Carson St.
Carson City, NV 89701
bcpserv@ag.nv.gov

Sierra Pacific Power Company

and Nevada Power Company
d/b/a NV Energy

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Jacob Schlesinger (TASC)

Keys Fox & Wiedman LLP
1400 16th St. 16 Market Sq. Ste. 400
Denver, CO 80202
jschlesinger@kfwlaw.com

18
19
20
21
22

DATED this 22nd day of July, 2015.

/s/ Janice Baldarelli
Janice Baldarelli
Legal Assistant
Nevada Power Company
Sierra Pacific Power Company

23
24
25
26
27
28
1