Nevada 2018 Question 3
Power bills are a part of any homeowner or renter’s monthly costs. Question 3 effects almost everyone above the age of 18 and even some ages lower for low-income houses who have to save up money to use the power bill every month. By voting yes on question 3, rates will go down for everyone and the mid to high-income houses more power options will become available; furthering the technology in the power industry. Some may argue that in other states rates did not go down and went up, but in different states, prices went down.
With any piece of technology whether it is energy, computers or agricultural technology; competition makes progress go faster. Take the smartphone market as a perfect example. You have Apple and Samsung as the top 2 companies that most everyone has. You also have smaller companies that are less popular but are cheaper like Windows or One+. The same can be applied to the energy market. There will eventually be 2–3 big companies that will have a lot of the market, be able to make the most advancements in technology, and charge higher rates, still less than NV Energy, and even make money. You will also have some lower companies that won’t be able to make so many advancements in technology but will be able to charge way less for their energy.
There is, however, the problem with rolling blackouts because of non-reliable energy companies. However, with any advancements comes a price. For lower rates and new technology, this might be the price we have to pay. Currently, Nevada uses 20% renewable energy. If Question 3 passes then by 2025, that figure will increase by 25%, and then in just another 5 years it’ll grow by 50% stated in the Las Vegas Revenue Journal. While this new technology is being developed and tested, there will most likely be blackouts, but in just 6 years we will have a 25% increase which means the technology will be reliable enough to start putting it in on a mass scale for high to high mid-income houses and by 2030 for the rest of Nevada’s citizens.
NV Energy CEO has stated that if Question 3 passes he will close NV Energy, forcing people to choose a different energy company. Closing NV Energy will also cost about 2,500 Nevadans their jobs. While this is bad, there is always going to be a market for energy anywhere in the world, meaning there will still be companies looking for people to hire. With multiple companies, they will also be able to offer higher wages to try and get the most skilled people to work for them, ultimately giving people better jobs.
Get Logan Simons’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
There is also the point concerning the job market that with more companies hiring, there will be more jobs created. Not only will the 2,500 people get their jobs back with higher wages, but there will also be more jobs for people getting into the energy field.
In the business world, almost everyone faces competition. This is because monopolies are illegal unless granted to the company by the government. NV Energy has been in business for over 150 years. For most of it, they have had a monopoly over the power market and without a pass on question 3 who knows how much longer that will go on for.
A monopoly has its positives and negatives and with a government granted monopoly their rules that the company has to follow to make sure there are some positives. However, with a monopoly, there is no competition to drive rates down, no push for new technology and no reason to give reliable service. NV Energy does provide reliable service most of the time, but until 2016 when Question 3 was first proposed and voted yes on, they didn’t make any progress in their technology.
NV Energy, conveniently after Question 3 was voted yes on once, started 6 projects all focusing on new technology and specifically reliable and clean energy sources. One main argument to vote yes on Question 3 is because other companies can compete to create this new form of energy. Over the 150 years NV Energy has been in business they have made some advancements, but only enough to one stay in business and two to meet the minimum requirements to keep their government-granted monopoly.
Imagine if Apple got a government granted monopoly back in 2007 for all smartphones when the iPhone 2g came out. No other company could create smartphones because it would be breaking the law. A few significant things would be different. One Apple would have raised their prices way more than they already are. Two they would have no drive for new technology, and we would be close to the iPhone 6 concerning hardware, a 2014 phone. Lastly, their software would not be as far as it is today. Apple is currently on iOS 12, but without competition, there wouldn’t be a push for new technology, and they would only be at iOS 8. Not to mention that each iOS wouldn’t be as stable or secure as they are.
A yes on Question 3 will have some downs in the next few years, but that is a small price to pay for a breakup of a monopoly, better service all around, new technology with clean and efficient energy, more jobs with higher wages and lower energy costs for all Nevadans.
