Latest news with #RondaChurchill
Newsweek
10-07-2025
- Climate
- Newsweek
Millions of Americans Advised to Stay Indoors in 4 States
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of Americans have been advised to stay indoors across four states on Thursday amid soaring summer temperatures. The National Weather Service (NWS) has issued heat-related alerts in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon, warning of "dangerously hot conditions" in parts. Temperatures are forecast to reach as high as 120 degrees Fahrenheit in parts of California. A heat warning sign in the Death Valley National Park, California, in 2023. A heat warning sign in the Death Valley National Park, California, in 2023. Ronda Churchill/AFP via Getty Images Why It Matters Extreme heat can lead to heat-related illnesses, especially in older adults, young children and those with chronic medical conditions, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Symptoms may include heavy sweating, muscle cramps, dizziness and nausea. The CDC said more than 700 people die each year in the U.S. because of extreme heat. Additionally, rising temperatures can worsen ground-level ozone pollution, which presents additional health risks. What To Know The NWS issued extreme heat warnings for southeast California and southwest Arizona on Thursday. These warnings mean "extremely dangerous heat conditions are expected or occurring." Temperatures up to 120 degrees are forecast in the Coachella Valley, San Diego County deserts, and San Gorgonio Pass near Banning, the NWS said. "Drink plenty of fluids, stay in an air-conditioned room, stay out of the sun, and check up on relatives and neighbors," the service advised. In Arizona, the NWS said afternoon temperatures could soar to 116 degrees in central La Paz County, Parker Valley, Kofa, Yuma, southeast Yuma County, and the Gila River Valley. In New Mexico, a less severe heat advisory is in place for the Middle Rio Grande Valley including the Albuquerque metropolitan area, the west Central Highlands, and the Northwest Plateau. Temperatures between 100 and 104 are expected in these areas, the NWS said. An extreme heat watch is also in effect for southwest Oregon and northwest California. This is issued when dangerous heat is possible. What People Are Saying The NWS forecast office in Albuquerque, New Mexico, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday: "Dangerous heat will still impact many lower elevation locations on Thursday, especially within northwestern and central New Mexico where a heat advisory is in effect from 12pm to 7pm." The NWS office in Eureka, California, wrote on X, Tuesday: "Hotter weather is forecast to return on Thursday and Friday. Interior heat risk is forecast to increase during the weekend and persist into early next week." What Happens Next The extreme heat warnings are currently in force until 8 p.m. on Thursday. New Mexico's heat advisory is in force until 7 p.m. Regular forecast updates are issued by the NWS on its website.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NV Energy asking to raise rates by more than twice as much as needed, say experts
(Photo: Ronda Churchill/Nevada Current) The Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection says NV Energy requires less than half of the $224 million rate hike it's asking the Public Utilities Commission to approve for Southern Nevada customers, and criticized the utility for attempting to charge ratepayers for lavish spending on lodging and limos for company gatherings. The 9% proposed rate hike is expected to cost the average customer an additional $15 to $20 a month. An expert witness testifying on behalf of the BCP, Mark Garrett, says NV Energy, based on a formula used to determine its revenue requirement, needs a rate hike of $106 million to provide service to its customers in the south. The utility is asking the PUC to include in the rate hike the cost of constructing Greenlink, a massive transmission line project, while it is still under construction and not benefitting ratepayers. Greenlink's cost has ballooned from just under $2.5 billion to more than $4.2 billion, and could increase even more, depending on the outcome of President Donald Trump's trade wars with Mexico and Canada. The increase related to Greenlink alone would hike rates by $60.6 million, or about $3.60 a month, for a little more than two years. The company argues that including the cost of construction while in progress, which is usually not permitted because it requires customers to pay for a service not yet provided, will generate cash flow, and help maintain credit ratings. In 2021, NV Energy's then-CEO Doug Cannon told state lawmakers that 'Nevadans will not be asked to pay for this investment until at least five to six years down the road.' Cannon left the company last month, following the revelation that the utility overcharged some 80,000 customers, some going back as far as 20 years. 'The company is faced with meeting the demands of growth, addressing system reliability, resource adequacy, legislative goals and mandates, and operational needs as it relates to sufficient levels of staffing, technology, and insurance – all of which necessitates investments above those currently reflected in the existing revenue requirement,' NV Energy vice president and chief financial officer Mike Behrens said in testimony submitted to the PUC, justifying the utility's rate requests. Behrens testified that including the costs of constructing Greenlink, while work is in progress, would help avoid a bond rating downgrade and higher interest rates on future debt. Garrett, on behalf of the BCP, recommended the cost of constructing Greenlink not be included in the upcoming rate case. 'The company has not demonstrated a financial need,' Garrett countered, and said the claim that charging customers now for constructing the project would save money 'is inaccurate.' While including the cost of construction in progress in the base rate would save the company $35 million in interest, it would cost customers $52.7 million in higher rates, and 'makes no economic sense for ratepayers,' Garrett testified. NV Energy is also seeking to recoup $16.4 million in affiliate expenses incurred by the company or its affiliates, such as Berkshire Hathaway Energy, its holding company. Among the expenses is an invoice for just under $1.3 million for Red Rock Resort, including $14,940 for incidentals, $152,156 for 'guest room attrition,' $575,068 for banquet food and beverages, $17,140 for internet, $78,482 for audio/visual services, and $3,248 for luggage porters. Nichole Loar of the BCP recommended the PUC disallow all $16.4 million in affiliate expenses – including: Chauffeured transportation services; Washington, D.C. office building and related labor; 'Excessive lodging charges' at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, D.C. and the J.W. Marriott in Phoenix; Lobbying expenses; Outside counsel; Corporate airfare; Alcoholic beverages; Entertainment; and Charitable donations 'The utility needs to be reminded they operate with a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (given by the PUC), which is a privilege to serve as a monopolistic entity, not a right,' Loar testified. 'The recent proposed increases are placing vulnerable demographics at a heightened risk for heat-related illnesses, such as heatstroke,' Las Vegan Angel DeFazio of the National Toxic Encephalopathy Foundation said in a news release following a consumer input session last week on the proposed increase. She noted that seniors and others on fixed incomes are challenged to cover essential expenses, such as food and medicine, and pay for energy, especially during the summer months when bills skyrocket. The PUC is expected to hold hearings on the proposed rate hike in September. If approved, rates would increase on Oct. 1.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Housing vouchers, already scarce, would be even harder to get under Trump's budget bill
An estimated 15,300 people in Nevada rely on housing choice vouchers, formerly known as section 8 vouchers, which provide rental assistance subsidies provided for low-income people, seniors and people with disabilities. (Photo: Ronda Churchill/Nevada Current) More than 15,000 households in Nevada rely on federal funded housing vouchers with thousands more waiting years to access vital rental assistance. Representatives from the local housing authorities worry many would be locked out of vouchers and other assistance under President Donald Trump's proposed budget, which calls for billions of dollars in cuts to housing programs. 'Based on our current average monthly subsidy in our Housing Choice Voucher Program, we've estimated that for every million-dollar reduction in housing assistance, it would be approximately 93 fewer households that we would be able to serve,' said Dr. Hilary Lopez, the executive director for the Reno Housing Authority. An estimated 15,300 people in Nevada rely on housing choice vouchers, formerly known as section 8 vouchers, which provide rental assistance subsidies provided for low-income people, seniors and people with disabilities, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The number doesn't include other types of specialized vouchers, such as emergency solutions housing vouchers designed to pay rent for people and families at risk or experiencing homelessness. Another 2,500 people live in public housing throughout the state according to the data from the CBPP. Trump's budget requests, which have been formed into the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' were passed overwhelmingly by House Republicans in late May and are currently being debated in the Senate. The proposal, which aims to slash Medicaid and food assistance programs, would reduce the Department of Housing and Urban Development's budget by more than 40% amid a national housing and homeless crisis. The cuts to homeless assistance dollars include a $27 billion reduction in funding to the State Rental Assistance Block Grant, which funds housing vouchers. The recommendations released by the White House in May said the proposed cuts 'would encourage States to provide funding to share in the responsibility to ensure that similar levels of recipients can benefit from the block grant.' If these proposed cuts are approved it 'would be staggering in both scale and impact,' Renee Willis, the president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said in a press call last week. 'Rather than preserving and strengthening the federal rental assistance program that serves as a lifeline for these communities, the budget proposed consolidating HUD's five largest rental assistance programs into a single state-run block grant,' Willis said. 'It also imposed a two-year time limit on assistance.' She added that the budget proposal is not only 'misguided but fundamentally unjust' but that it 'abdicates the government's responsibility to address poverty and housing stability.' While the full scope of these cuts, or the state and local impact of reductions, has yet to be determined, social service providers and local governments fear any cuts to HUD funding would reduce Nevada's already fragile social safety net to tatters. The Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority declined to answer questions about the proposed budget cuts as well as how it currently used federal funding dollars. 'While federal funding changes are uncertain at this time, we remain laser focused on our mission to provide safe, sanitary and affordable housing to eligible residents within our jurisdictions – housing that will provide an environment that fosters independence, self-sufficiency and community pride,' Lewis Jordan, executive director of the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority said in a statement. Bill Brewer, the executive director for the Nevada Rural Housing Authority, said he is still waiting to see what the final budget will look like. Any amount would mean less people in rural areas being served. 'Worst case scenario, if we took a 40% cut to our vouchers, then we would be looking at cutting about 500 households off of assistance out of our approximately 1,275 voucher holders,' he said. 'If it was just 12% or 10%, then we're still looking at losing 120 to 130 households' The Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority currently oversees the lion's share of housing assistance, around 12,000 vouchers for low income residents. Reno Housing Authority, which provides assistance throughout Washoe County, allocated around 2,094 housing choice vouchers last year. Nevada Rural Housing Authority oversaw about 1,100 vouchers, not including specialized housing assistance. Reno Housing Authority relies on two main federal funding sources: $32 million from the federal government to provide housing vouchers along with $3 million to administer public housing. 'It does fluctuate on an annual basis and really depends upon federal appropriations,' Lopez said. Of the more than 2,000 households – roughly 3,600 people – that rely on housing choice vouchers in the Reno area, Lopez said close to three-quarters of clients who receive housing choice vouchers are seniors or disabled households. The breakdown is similar for the 600 households living in a public housing unit. Average income for those relying on housing vouchers is roughly $18,000, according to the authority's 2025 annual report. Nevada's housing shortage and skyrocketing rent prices have made it difficult for the authority to meet the demand for services, Lopez said. 'Over the last several years, we've seen those rents consistently rise,' Lopez said. 'What that means is that the average rental subsidy that we're providing has also been increasing over time and that also impacts the number of clients that we can assist.' The rural authority gets about $12 million for its housing choice vouchers, which funds its 1,077 vouchers throughout the rural areas. Additionally it received last year $786,340 for Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers, which provides assistance for 76 veterans experiencing homelessness. Similar to the Reno authority, Brewer said roughly two-thirds of housing voucher recipients are elderly or disabled. 'They're not the kind of folks that can go out and get a job and take care of themselves,' he said. 'They're already living on Social Security or supplemental Social Security, and they simply can't afford a $1,500 a month rent payment. That's all the money they get in most cases.' Demand for housing assistance is growing. Reno's authority has about 4,000 people waiting to apply for housing vouchers while the rural authorities have 2,248 applicants waiting. 'What we try to do for households on our wait list, we try to serve them within anywhere from about 18 to 36 months,' Lopez said. The waitlist in rural Nevada opened last year and 'within a week's time, we had about 5,000 applicants on there,' according to Brewer. 'We had to close the list.' 'It will take us at least two years, if not longer, to work through that list,' he added. 'I think we still have a couple thousand names on there that we will work through.' Nevadans wait an average of 38 months, more than three years, to receive housing vouchers, according to 2021 data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In addition to housing choice vouchers, communities across the country, including those in Nevada, also began receiving funding for emergency housing vouchers through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 signed by President Joe Biden. Funding for that is expected to be depleted by the end of 2026. Willis from the National Low Income Housing Coalition said Trump's current budget request doesn't provide additional funding for these emergency vouchers and could 'put more than 60,000 households at risk of losing their assistance and being pushed into homelessness.' The rural authority received $455,616 for Emergency Housing Vouchers, which support 36 people. Washoe County previously told the Current 137 people rely on emergency housing vouchers in the county. In a 'normal year,' Brewer said the rural authority would just roll people relying on emergency housing voucher holders 'onto a regular Section 8 voucher.' He doesn't know if that would be possible if the proposed cuts are passed. 'If our voucher program overall is cut, we won't have any room to bring those people on to the (housing choice) vouchers,' he said. 'They'll simply lose their support.'
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Democracy at gunpoint: Why Nevada needs Assembly Bill 105
(Photo: Ronda Churchill/Nevada Current) Imagine this: a scorching sun baking the dusty air as armed militia stand guard outside a polling station, rifles at the ready. Families lingering at the edges, wary of being turned away – or worse. The heat only intensifies the tension that crackles in the breeze, while the sight of people with guns near the voting booths imparts an unsettling sense of danger. Here's the thing: you don't have to rely on your imagination here. This scene isn't unfolding in a distant war-torn landscape; this was Phoenix, Arizona, during the 2022 midterm election, where armed Americans in tactical gear stood next to a ballot drop box. A similar scene unfolded in Las Vegas, Nevada, where two armed men paced outside of a ballot tabulation center. The presence of firearms in close proximity to voters has become a troubling reality here at home, a reality we often think only happens far from American soil. Such intimidation tactics can sow fear and deter citizens from exercising their most fundamental democratic right: the right to vote. Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui is addressing this problem in Nevada by introducing Assembly Bill 105. This legislation aims to ensure that Nevadans can cast their ballots without fear of violence or harassment. Specifically, this bill would: Prohibit the possession or presence of firearms within 100 yards of election sites, which include any polling place or central counting place. Create exceptions for law enforcement officers carrying out official duties, security personnel, firearms stored in cars, and people whose homes or businesses are within 100 yards of election sites. Establish a gross misdemeanor for individuals who violate this prohibition. Upgrade to a felony any knowing violation of the prohibition when it is done with the specific intent to disrupt, interfere with, or monitor the administration of the election, the counting of votes, or any person who is voting or attempting to vote. In 2023, Jauregui introduced similar legislation (AB 354), which passed along party lines and was subsequently sent to Gov. Joe Lombardo, who vetoed it as part of a trio of other common-sense gun laws. Assembly Bill 105 recognizes the simple truth: voting is safer when firearms are not present. In fact, many states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington – already regulate the carrying of firearms at polling places. Additionally, firearms are prohibited in courthouses and other sensitive government buildings, reinforcing the principle that certain environments necessitate stricter standards for public safety. By keeping polling places free from the intimidation factor that firearms can present, Nevadans will be able to vote with confidence, free from the looming threat of violence. After all, polling places are where Americans exercise their most powerful democratic privilege: the freedom to cast a ballot and have their voice heard. AB 105 is a measured, necessary step toward safeguarding that right for everyone.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill seeks to ensure full refunds when utilities overcharge customers
Last week state utility regulators disclosed that over several years NV Energy overcharged more than 80,000 customers over $17 million, with only 20,000 receiving partial six-month refunds that amount to a fraction of what customers overpaid. (Photo: Ronda Churchill/Nevada Current)) Lawmakers are looking to pass a law that would require utilities to fully refund energy customers who are overcharged, closing loopholes that have allowed utilities to withhold full refunds from wronged customers. Assembly Bill 452, sponsored by Democratic Assemblymember Tracy Brown-May, would ensure customers receive full refunds with interest for overcharges, address high utility bills by shifting some cost volatility back to utilities, and extending regulatory timelines for rate case reviews. The bill comes after years of customer complaints detailing partial refunds by NV Energy which is only required to reimburse customers up to six months prior to the data the error is discovered in certain cases. Last week the bill became more relevant than ever after state utility regulators disclosed that over several years NV Energy overcharged more than 80,000 customers over $17 million, with only 20,000 receiving partial six-month refunds that amount to a fraction of what customers overpaid. Following the disclosure, NV Energy's president and CEO stepped down amid a call from regulatory staff at the Nevada Public Utilities Commission for an investigation into whether NV Energy used an inapplicable rule to cap refunds at six months. Several advocacy groups said the disclosure that the statewide electric utility overcharged tens of thousands of customers for years only highlighted the need for the bill's passage. 'It is outrageous that NV Energy would harm so many customers like this and not report it or fully repay them,' said Audrey Peral, program director of Chispa Nevada in a statement. 'Nevada lawmakers must pass Assembly Bill 452 quickly to protect utility customers from these kinds of abuses. Hard-working families can't keep paying the price for NV Energy's wrongdoing.' Under the bill, 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the Commission determines that a utility has charged a customer more than any applicable rate or tariff allows, the utility shall refund to the customer, with interest, the full amount of any overcharge.' The bill passed the Assembly on a 35-7 vote in April, with some bipartisan support. Under legislative deadlines, the bill would need to pass the Senate Friday. The bill is also supported by the Nevada Bureau of Consumer Protection, which said in a letter to lawmakers the bill would ensure 'a full and equitable refund to ratepayers who are unfairly overcharged.' However, the bill has been strongly opposed by NV Energy, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy. Ryan Bellows, the vice president of government and external relations at NV energy, told lawmakers last week that the statewide electric utility complies with Nevada Public Utilities Commission approved rules on customer refunds. 'The rule is that it's a six month payment back to the customer. We are currently communicating with the commission on this issue, on how to address and improve and correct this rule going forward,' Bellows said, adding that any changes to the rule is best left to utility regulators. The Nevada Public Utilities Commission disputes NV Energy's interpretation of the rules on customer refunds, telling lawmakers the issue is currently being examined by the Commission's consumer complaint resolution division. Garrett Weir, general counsel for the Nevada Public Utilities Commission, said the bill and 'the proposed change to statute would certainly clarify' the rules on customer refunds. NV Energy also opposes other aspects of the bill, especially language that would direct utility regulators to potentially adopt a fuel cost-sharing structure so ratepayers are not left covering the full cost of fuel price spikes caused by global events or weather disasters. 'It's our position that the adoption of fuel cost sharing would lead to increased costs for customers,' Bellows said. The bill would ask utility regulators to investigate how to best navigate energy price spikes and to study if fuel cost sharing is in the best interest of Nevadans and the utility. State energy regulators would submit a report on their investigation to the Interim Committee on Growth and Infrastructure by July 1, 2026. Nevada law prohibits utilities from profiting from fuel and purchased power costs, however in Nevada every dollar NV Energy spends to purchase fuel is passed fully through to customers. Fuel accounts for about one-third of NV Energy customer costs. Bellows argued revisions to price spike policies are unnecessary because NV Energy does not mark up purchases and the Public Utilities Commission has the authority to deny cost recovery for any purchases deemed imprudent. 'I would tell you that the purpose of this bill is really to prevent us from utilizing natural gas to serve our customers and to build out Nevada's energy infrastructure for economic development,' Bellows said. NV Energy is heavily reliant on out-of-state natural gas sources, which have seen sporadic but sharp price fluctuations in recent years. In 2022, the price it paid for natural gas — which accounts for more than half of Nevada's power supply — spiked by 70% in January 2023, according to NV Energy. Several unions and trades groups echoed concerns about the bill's potential negative impact on economic development and job opportunities, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Building and Construction Trades Council of Northern Nevada, and the National Electrical Contractors Association. Nevada residents who spoke in favor of the bill's language to investigate a potential cost-sharing structure highlighted the financial strain on families and seniors due to rising energy costs. 'I hear from families and seniors who are stretched to their breaking point by high energy bills. They're cutting back on life saving air conditioning, skipping meals, rationing medicine, and they're still falling behind. For those living on low income and fixed income, the cycle of high bills is relentless and dangerous,' said Mary House, co-founder of a local faith-based nonprofit community organization called Caring, Helping & Restoring Lives. Conservation groups and energy advocates emphasized the bill's potential to reduce high utility bills, promote clean energy, and ensure consumer protection. The bill is supported by Advanced Energy United, Western Resource Advocates, the Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, and the Sierra Club.
