Nevada

New law sets up minor guardianship process in case of deportations

Published

6 months ago

June 19, 2025

New law sets up minor guardianship process in case of deportations

A new Nevada law gives families who may get split up because of a deportation order a chance to choose a temporary guardian for their child.

Assembly Bill 540 was signed into law last week and is already in effect. It allows a parent or guardian of a minor to nominate another person to be their court-appointed guardian if no parent is around because of a federal immigration order.

Assemblymember Cecelia González, D-Las Vegas, said the bill came out of listening sessions with the Latino community before the beginning of the 83rd legislative session, which ended earlier this month. She said some community members were nervous about what would happen if they were deported, but their children with citizenship or legal status stayed in the country.

“We came up with this bill to make sure that the most vulnerable, which would be these children of undocumented parents — what do we do to make sure they’re not falling through the cracks?” González said Tuesday.

Before the law was passed, guardianship was most often sorted out when a loved one or friend petitioned the court for guardianship after a separation already occurred, said Cristian Gonzalez Perez, the supervising attorney at the nonprofit advocacy group Make the Road Nevada. Temporary guardianship also exists for six month periods through a less formal agreement that does not require court approval and instead can be set between the parents and guardian.

The new law follows a similar process available in adult guardianship cases. Gonzalez Perez said it allows people act proactively.

“You can avoid issues where, say, you have a really involved family, and they all want to try to petition for the guardianship,” he said. “To avoid squabbles between family members, the court can now look at to see who the parents prefer to be the main guardian.”

AB 540 passed unanimously in the Assembly and 16-4 in the state Senate. Republican Sens. Carrie Buck, John Ellison, Ira Hansen and Robin Titus opposed, and Democrat Melanie Scheible was absent from the vote.

During the May 31 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Hansen said he thought the existing law was sufficient.

”We already have this in law,” he said before the committee vote. “This is political theater, trying to make the efforts to enforce immigration laws into something way beyond what they’re attempting to do.”

The law includes a form for the parents to submit with nominations, which could be added to the Nevada Lockbox, an electronic registry run by the Secretary of State.

González said she was conscious that some people in that situation may be afraid to interact with the government for fear of it impacting their immigration case or speeding up a deportation order.

“I hope that people utilize it, but I’m also aware of when a government is tearing your family apart, you’re not going to go ask them for help,” González said. “I think it’s going to take a lot of education on our end, as Latino elected officials and just as trusted messengers of our community to really educate the community about how you can utilize this and how this is another tool in the toolbox in the event that that unfortunate day comes.”

Gonzalez Perez said the new law could lead to a decrease in temporary guardianships, which are sometimes recommended at community sessions that go over immigration processes and rights. He encouraged people to not be afraid of the state government running the lockbox and court-appointed guardianship process.

“Instead of having that in place, you can then have the nomination ahead of time, which will just who’s going to be the nominee, rather than having something informally in place that might not be necessary at the moment,” he said.

Contact McKenna Ross at mross@reviewjournal.com. Follow @mckenna_ross_ on X.

Source link

Nevada

Nevada nonprofit, BCP challenging PUCN over NV Energy’s daily demand charge

Published

11 hours ago

December 13, 2025

Press Room

Nevada nonprofit, BCP challenging PUCN over NV Energy’s daily demand charge

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — A Nevada nonprofit organization and the Attorney General’s Bureau of Consumer Protection are challenging the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada in court after the organization approved new NV Energy policies.

Vote Solar is a nonprofit advocacy group that focuses on state policies affecting solar and clean energy solutions.

WATCH | Darcy Spears breaks down challenge against PUCN

Nevada nonprofit, BCP challenging PUCN over NV Energy’s daily demand charge

According to their petition for judicial review, they are questioning the PUCN’s decision to approve two separate policies:

A new daily demand charge for residential and small business customers in Southern Nevada
A new 15-minute net metering policy for rooftop solar customers in Northern Nevada

In the petition, Vote Solar officials claim the PUCN’s final decisions are:

In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions
In excess of the statutory authority of the Commission
Made upon unlawful procedure
Affected by other error of law
Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the record
Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion

“The PUCN’s decision is a major step backward for Nevada’s clean energy future,” said Chauntille Roberts, Regional Director at Vote Solar. “Nevada deserves energy policies that protect consumers, expand access to solar, and move our state forward—not backward.”

The Attorney General Office’s Bureau of Consumer Protection has filed a separate petition for judicial review.

“The demand charge rate structure (if permitted to be implemented), the 15-minute NEM netting methodology, and the approved affiliate charges result in rates that are unjust, unreasonable, and unlawful in contravention of NRS 704.040, and undermine the Commission’s fundamental duty under NRS 704.001 to provide utility ratepayers with just and reasonable rates,” the filing states in part.

The filing also states commissioners approved $2.7 million worth of affiliate charges that ratepayers would cover.

“The Commission’s decision concerning affiliate charges is belied by the record as the evidence in this docket demonstrates that NPC failed to provide any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, sufficient to support the recovery of an aggregate of $2.7 million,” the filing states. “Not only is the $2.7 million in affiliate charges unsupported by actual charges, it is also unreasonable and an unsupported monetary number, resulting in the Commission’s decision being arbitrary and capricious.”

No future court hearings have been scheduled for that case, as of Friday morning.

Channel 13 has reached out to NV Energy and the PUCN to see if they would like to comment on the petition.

NV Energy sent the following statement to us.

“NV Energy believes the changes that were approved and reaffirmed by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada are consistent with state law, and we will be following this filing closely.
The demand charge more accurately captures the cost of energy delivery. It also helps to fix inequities between rooftop solar and non-rooftop solar customers. Because of the current billing structure, rooftop solar customers pay less than non-rooftop solar customers for the cost of service, shifting costs to non-rooftop solar customers.
Between 2018 and 2024, the total cost shift born by non-rooftop solar customers in Southern Nevada is $424 million. The total subsidy in Southern Nevada in 2025 is expected to grow by an additional $80 million, based on expected growth for the rest of the year.
The recently approved demand charge helps fix the inequities caused by the current system, and helps ensure that customer bills more accurately reflect the cost it takes to provide them with service.”

NV Energy Spokesperson

As of the time this article was published, we have not heard back from the PUCN.

In September, the PUCN approved the new rate model, which has sparked controversy among many Southern Nevadans who claim this will make their energy bills continue to go up.

“It’s painful. I just wanted to express concern as a private citizen that corporate America is going to do what it’s going to do to maintain profits and dividends,” Las Vegas local Joel Tauber told us in October.

“Why can a monopoly, a utility monopoly, dictate how I live in my residence,” retiree Jody Rodarmal told us in September. “If you believe there’s not going to be any increase, then why go to a new style of billing?”

SEPTEMBER 2025: NV Energy’s new billing structure sparks concern among Las Vegas residents

NV Energy’s new billing structure sparks concern among Las Vegas residents

How would the daily demand charge work?

According to NV Energy, the daily demand charge will be calculated by taking the highest amount of energy used in a 15-minute period each day and multiplying it by the current kilowatt-per-hour rate.

That charge will then be added to your bill. For the average customer, NV Energy estimates this will amount to roughly $20 per month.

WATCH: Ryan Ketcham explains NV Energy’s new daily demand charge

NV Energy is adding a ‘daily demand charge’ to power bills. What does that mean for consumers?

In past statements to Channel 13, NV Energy officials have stressed the rate increase requests are intended to recoup the costs of projects it undertakes to shore up the power grid.

However, there have been questions about that over the last year after scandals involving overcharging customers and trying to pass on the costs of things like luxury hotels, travel, and liquor to ratepayers, including a $1.2 million tab at Red Rock Resort.

According to NV Energy, Nevada customers already pay a lower average rate than the rest of the country. Through June 2025, the company says its rates were 22% lower than the U.S. average and 60% lower than in California.

Do you have a concern or question about something happening in the valley? Email Darcy.Spears@ktnv.com.

Source link

Nevada

DOJ sues Nevada for allegedly withholding voter registration information

Published

23 hours ago

December 12, 2025

Press Room

DOJ sues Nevada for allegedly withholding voter registration information

The Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit against Nevada on Friday, alleging that the state failed to provide statewide voter registration lists when requested, according to a news release.

Colorado, Hawaii, and Massachusetts were also sued, bringing the total to 18 states now facing lawsuits from the Justice Department. The department’s Civil Rights Division filed the complaints.

Francisco Aguilar, Nevada secretary of state, was charged with violating the Civil Rights Act after he responded on Aug. 21 to a letter from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, saying there was no basis for her request for certain voter information, asserting privacy concerns, according to the lawsuit.

According to the complaint, Aguilar provided a link to the state’s computerized voter registration list. However, the version shared contained incomplete fields, including registrants’ full names, dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers.

Aguilar’s Aug. 21 letter said his office would follow up, but the attorney general never received the list containing all the requested fields, the lawsuit said.

According to the news release, Congress assigns the attorney general primary responsibility for enforcing the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act, both enacted to ensure that states maintain accurate and effective voter registration systems.

The attorney general also has authority under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to request, review, and analyze statewide voter registration lists, according to the release.

“States have the statutory duty to preserve and protect their constituents from vote dilution,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in the release. “At this Department of Justice, we will not permit states to jeopardize the integrity and effectiveness of elections by refusing to abide by our federal elections laws. If states will not fulfill their duty to protect the integrity of the ballot, we will.”

Contact Akiya Dillon at adillon@reviewjournal.com.

Source link