Question 3: The best choice for Nevada’s energy future

By Jon Welling­hoff

In a recent op-ed in this pub­li­ca­tion enti­tled “Ques­tion 3: A bad and risky path for Nevada’s ener­gy future,” for­mer NV Ener­gy CEO Michael Yacki­ra repeat­ed the false nar­ra­tives being pushed by his for­mer employ­er regard­ing Ques­tion 3, the Ener­gy Choice Ini­tia­tive.

The truth is, the only enti­ty for which Ques­tion 3 is “bad and risky” is NV Ener­gy.

Con­sid­er the mes­sen­ger: Mr. Yacki­ra was the ben­e­fi­cia­ry of a $21.2 mil­lion wind­fall after the sale of NV Ener­gy in 2013. As a wise man once said “It is dif­fi­cult to get a man to under­stand some­thing, when his salary depends on his not under­stand­ing it.”

Mr. Yacki­ra would have you believe that ener­gy choice is so “bad and risky” in fact that the approx­i­mate­ly one-third of Amer­i­cans who live in the 17 states that offer some form of ener­gy choice are doing it all wrong by sim­ply hav­ing the right to choose their ener­gy provider.

In fact, ener­gy choice has giv­en tremen­dous ben­e­fits to the states that have smart­ly enact­ed it. As the for­mer gen­er­al coun­sel to the Pub­lic Util­i­ties Com­mis­sion of Neva­da and as the longest serv­ing chair­man of the Fed­er­al Ener­gy Reg­u­la­to­ry Com­mis­sion (FERC), I’ve seen first­hand the work­ings of util­i­ty monop­o­lies and ener­gy choice states. It’s why I reject the false nar­ra­tives ped­dled by NV Ener­gy and its allies.

Click here to read the full arti­cle

Back to all posts
Translate »