Senate Bill 417 would allow natural gas utilities to apply to the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) for an alternative rate‑making plan — a regulatory approach that differs from traditional periodic rate cases — mirroring authority previously granted to electric utilities.

Supporters (utility representatives) said the measure gives the PUCN an optional tool for utilities to pursue predictable rate structures, reduce administrative rate‑case frequency and lower transactional costs that otherwise appear in customer rates. Scott Leedom spoke for utilities and said the bill preserves PUCN authority and includes an earning‑sharing mechanism and public notice/education requirements.

Garrett Weir, general counsel for the PUCN, told the committee the commission's fiscal estimate totaled $511,904 for the 2025‑27 biennium, primarily personnel costs (a part‑time regulatory accountant and a full‑time regulatory economist) and rulemaking expenses (workshop/hearing transcripts, publishing and consumer sessions). Weir said the PUCN is funded by a utility revenue assessment (mill assessment) rather than the general fund and, based on projected revenues and current reserves, the commission did not anticipate an immediate ratepayer impact from the assessment for this biennium.

Assembly members pressed on staffing and the mill assessment mechanism and the PUCN explained the commission would request the positions through its budget and that the commission’s reserves and projected revenues support the estimate without changing the current assessment rate in the near term.

Supportive testimony included NV Energy and construction/unions. Consumer‑advocate and environmental groups raised concerns that formula rates can produce unintended cost shifts and urged caution; hospital and business groups generally supported predictability. The committee did not record a vote on the bill in this hearing.

Why it matters: Alternative rate‑making can change how costs and investments are recovered and how the regulator evaluates utility risk and returns. The bill would add a discretionary tool for natural‑gas utilities and requires PUCN rulemaking and oversight.

Discussion vs. decision: The hearing was informational and fiscal; no committee vote was recorded.

Ending: The commission said any approved plan must meet public‑interest tests and that its fiscal estimate would be addressed in department budget processes; members asked follow‑up questions about assessment mechanics and legal interplay.