The data security agreement (DSA) requires ESCOs to hold cybersecurity insurance in the amount of $5 million per cybersecurity incident. The requirement is effective December 1, 2018, and is a change from an original proposal of twice as much cyber insurance.
Utilities in the United States have adopted new responsibilities, and their century-old business model is struggling to accommodate growing policymaker and customer demands.
With more than $63 million dollars spent, Nevada Energy successfully maintained its monopoly status, denying the citizens of Nevada the right, 5 years in the future, to take control of their energy spend and future. Question 3 went down by roughly a 2-1 margin, despite the fact that, 2 years before, it had been approved by a nearly 3-1 margin.
In response to the defeat of Question 3 in Nevada, the Retail Energy Supply Association (RESA) has issued a call for energy choice and accountability in the state.
A landmark campaign ended in a landmark defeat on Tuesday as Nevadans voted by more than two-thirds to defeat ballot Question 3. The constitutional amendment, which would have ended NV Energy’s monopoly on the state’s electricity market and created a competitive energy market, had previously passed in 2016, with more than 75 percent of voters approving the measure.
This is the third and final part of a three-part series examining the potential impacts if Nevada approves Question 3 on November 6, 2018.
This is the second of a three-part series analyzing some of the critical issues as Nevadans vote on whether to open their retail electricity market to competition or maintain the current monopolistic structure. The first piece looked at the economic benefits, or lack thereof, each side is claiming in trying to make its case. With the variability of fuel costs and demand, the straightforward question of whether competition will result in higher or lower rates cannot be answered with a firm yes or no, despite the claims by both sides. One thing this initial analysis revealed, however, is that the soft economic benefits, e.g. job creation as new market participants enter Nevada, will only be realized if Question 3 is approved.
Understanding whether Question 3 will be a boon or a bust for Nevada requires answering several key questions. Energy Pages’ legal editor, Phillip Golden, answers the hard questions with a critical look at the debate in the first of a three-part series of articles covering Nevada’s Question 3. Nevada is considering restructuring its electricity market
In the spring of 2018, a major electronic data interchange (“EDI”) provider in the utility industry was hacked by outside parties. While the attack apparently did not impact the operations of physical power and natural gas infrastructure, nor was any confidential information obtained illegally, this breach rippled throughout the energy world, with the largest impact occurring in New York. Because of this seemingly isolated incident, New York became a first mover in establishing cybersecurity rules and protocols for the energy sector. Unfortunately, while the entire industry agrees on the need to protect critical infrastructure and data, the rushed and hackneyed process in New York led to a suboptimal public policy outcome that may have impacts in other states as well.
California has put multiple major energy policies into law this year: SB 100 and its new 100 percent clean energy mandate, SB 700 and its extension of behind-the-meter energy storage incentives, and wildfire utility relief bill AB 901. So it was easy to overlook another piece of legislation, signed into law last week, that will expand the state’s competitive energy market, known as direct access.