Sheldrew, postponement was warranted because a press release issued by the State Consumer Advocate may have raised additional issues that need to be considered by the PSC: "Since the [PSC] and many of the other parties have not had an opportunity to analyze or respond to the contents of the press release, we must allow additional time for all parties to review and comment."Sheldrew added that SPP already had expressed concern that the premature and incomplete release of details of the proposed settlement might provoke negative reaction in the financial community. Sheldrew noted that commissioners in other states were concerned over how the merger savings would be distributed between Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, and California.
The settlement is the third presented to the Nevada PSC. The Consumer Advocate had signed the first two, which were sent back to the parties for renegotiation when the PSC expressed a need for additional consumer protections. Sheldrew stressed that the present proposal may also be sent back by the PSC to ensure that Nevada ratepayers are adequately protected.
Articles found on this page are available to Internet subscribers only. For more information about obtaining a username and password, please call our Customer Service Department at 1-800-368-5001.