Sunday, November 25, 2012

What has come to light, is that NVE, with the approval of the NV PUC, is charging $10.00 a month for meter reading services for both those with the 'smart meter' and those with their original analog meter. By looking at any NV Energy electric bill, on the front side there will be an entry or charge designated as a Service Charge. On the reverse side the definition of a Service Charge, references meter reading, postage, admin. fees, etc.

The problem is that the smart meter doesn't require a meter reader. Therefore, 99% of NVE's ratepayers (those who have smart meters) should be getting a $10 credit each month. Those who still have the analog meters (which do require a meter reader) don't need to pay an additional service charge. They are already paying for the meter reading service and will be double charged if the NV PUC decides that there will be an opt out fee associated with not having a smart meter.

The numbers just don't add up; or do they? NVE has stated numerous times that they are replacing 1.4 million service panel meters statewide. The spreadsheet depicts the revenue generation stream for NVE in both the north and south over a 5 year period, which is the total time frame we are talking about until NVE is eligible again for cost recovery of the smart meters. [1]

The total revenue generated from the $10.00 monthly fee in the south and the $9.25 fee in the north is $504.7 million spanning the initial installation process in 2010 to the next rate case hearing in 2015. This is a staggering figure generated before the fees will be adjusted again and completely alleviates any NVE investment debt, because the ASD (Advanced Service Delivery) is completely paid for by NVE customers.

It's no wonder NVE didn't ask for cost recovery. They knew that by not asking for it, they could continue to charge all customers, including those with smart meters, a monthly meter reading fee, whether it was warranted or not. This would ensure that the repayment of the ASD would occur much more quickly to enhance benefits to stockholders without going through the GRC approval process forcing them to wait for a smaller incremental cost reimbursement.

This is exactly why Nevada taxpayers pay the salaries of the NV PUC; to protect the ratepayers from super monopolies such as NVE who have executives like CEO Michael Yakira with his astronomical salary of $7.7 Million,[2] his Senior V.P Paul Kaleta at $2.7M and a total of $15.6M for other key executive compensation.

Furthermore, How can this not be a conflict of interest for the Governor of this state, who received a $10,000 NVE campaign donation in his 2010 bid for governor, when HE himself appoints the NV PUC? There is money to be made here. Big money, and the ratepayers of this financial giant are getting charged far beyond any conceivable scope of fairness or equitability!

NV PUC needs to hold NVE accountable for the huge profit they are making from their ratepayers. Along with the need to stop rubberstamping requests from NVE. Any 'adjustments' from the NV PUC are minor, to give the appearance/illusion of 'review and fairness' on their part.

1. http://www.pucwatchdogs.com/NVEAnalysis.xls

2. http://www.lvrj.com/multimedia/SWEET-16-The-highest-paid-executives-in-Las-Vegas-150312495.html