No Solar Tax Pac v. Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness (Ballot Issue)
70146
| Nev. | Aug 4, 2016Background
- Nevada amended net metering law in 2015 (Ch. 379) to shift rate-setting authority to the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN), allow tariffs for net metering beyond a statutory cap, and give the PUCN tools to balance costs among customers. The PUCN subsequently set new net‑metering tariffs and charges.
- No Solar Tax PAC submitted a referendum petition seeking repeal of portions of Ch. 379 related to the cap, the tariff, and the PUCN’s authority to set net‑metering rates.
- Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the petition was not a proper referendum and that its description of effect was defective and misleading. The district court agreed and enjoined the petition from the 2016 ballot.
- No Solar Tax PAC appealed, challenging the district court’s interpretation of Nevada’s initiative and referendum provisions (Article 19). Citizens defended the judgment alternatively on grounds that the petition exceeded referendum power and that the description of effect violated statutory requirements.
- The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo (ballot matters) but resolved the appeal on the description‑of‑effect ground without reaching the constitutional Article 19 questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition’s 200‑word description of effect complied with NRS 295.009(1)(b) | The description accurately identified that voters would approve/disapprove new PUCN rates and charges and would preserve historical net‑metering implementation. | The description was misleading and argumentative: it referred to administrative rates (not in the statute), omitted that repeal would remove PUCN authority to set rates, misstated the cap effect, and used non‑statutory, loaded language. | Held: Description was inaccurate, misleading, and argumentative, thus defective and invalid. Judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the petition was properly a referendum rather than an initiative | No Solar Tax PAC: the petition repeals specified statutory language and thus is a valid referendum. | Citizens: the form and description show the petition functions as an initiative or otherwise exceeds referendum power; description fails statutory standards. | Court did not decide the constitutional referendum/initiative issue because the defective description alone required affirmance. |
| Whether the description needed to state every hypothetical consequence | No Solar Tax PAC: description need not list every effect; it was adequate to inform signers. | Citizens: description omitted material, non‑hypothetical consequences (removal of PUCN authority; change to cap). | Held: While not every effect must be listed, the description must accurately set forth main consequences; here it failed to do so. |
| Whether argumentative or nonstatutory language invalidates the description | No Solar Tax PAC: language was persuasive but acceptable. | Citizens: use of terms like “green energy” and claims of “unaffordable”/“cost prohibitive” made the description argumentative and misleading. | Held: Argumentative, nonstatutory language rendered the description invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nevadans for Nev. v. Beers, 122 Nev. 930, 142 P.3d 339 (2006) (standard of review for declaratory and injunctive relief in ballot matters; description‑of‑effect purpose)
- Miller v. Burk, 124 Nev. 579, 188 P.3d 1112 (2008) (court decides constitutional questions only when necessary)
- Stumpf v. Lau, 108 Nev. 826, 839 P.2d 120 (1992) (description must inform petition signers of the nature and effect of the proposal)
- Herbst Gaming, Inc. v. Heller, 122 Nev. 877, 141 P.3d 1224 (2006) (overruling aspects of prior precedents on other grounds)
- Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Comm. v. City Council, 125 Nev. 165, 208 P.3d 429 (2009) (description must be straightforward, succinct, nonargumentative and state main consequences)
- Sanchez v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 125 Nev. 818, 221 P.3d 1276 (2009) (appellate court may affirm district court for correct result on different grounds)