Nevada

No regulatory ‘shortcuts’ for mining exploration in Nevada

Published

2 years ago

March 11, 2024

Press Room

No regulatory ‘shortcuts’ for mining exploration in Nevada

Karl Marlowe
| Reno Gazette Journal

Re: “Lawmakers need statewide lithium plan, says conservation group,” Feb. 20:

As a retired exploration geologist, I’ve noted multiple articles on the recent lithium boom to be misleading. Most recently, the article by the Nevada Current’s Jeniffer Solis presents a very misleading picture of the lithium “boom,” leaving the reader to believe that legislative and regulatory reforms are needed. Although there are certainly places where resource extraction should be prohibited, the vast majority of these are already withdrawn as wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, cultural sites and other off-limits sites.

The article begins by stating that there are more than 80 proposed lithium projects in Nevada, failing to note the status of any project. Currently one new lithium mine is under construction, and one project is in the process of mine permitting. A small number are conducting early-stage drilling under BLM and state permits. Most are simply lithium prospects staked by small companies or individuals. Many never reach the initial drill stage, and very few prove viable beyond initial drilling.

As exploration geologists, we don’t get to choose where a mineral deposit occurs; we follow geological clues to find the very few deposits that can be extracted economically. The Tonopah area is a lithium exploration hot spot due to the favorable geologic environment. The Town of Tonopah was built on silver-gold deposits discovered there in the early 1900s, and this geological environment is also favorable to host other deposits including copper, molybdenum and lithium.

Oversight from multiple agencies

Solis claims that “according to the Association of State Geologists, the United States lacks an effective process for gathering, organizing, compiling or publicly sharing geologic data that would help in the identification of valuable mineral deposits.” While there is much room for improvement, multiple agencies with appropriate expertise are charged with these tasks.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is the principle federal agency with that responsibility; Congress recently appropriated funds for that purpose. The Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology (NVBMG) and Nevada Division of Minerals cooperate with the USGS and several State entities (including UNR, UNLV, and DRI) to conduct detailed geologic evaluations which better define prospective areas and historic mine sites for valuable resources (metals, geothermal).

In addition to the geological surveys, the USGS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Nevada Division of Wildlife are charged with ecosystem management and protection of threatened and endangered species. All of this data is public and available via the UNR library, USGS and NVBMG and other websites. Regulators, mining companies and the general public rely extensively on this data to begin the more rigorous search for resources of interest, in addition to environmental or cultural concerns.

Federal and state permitting begins before the first exploration disturbance can occur. For initial exploration projects with minimal disturbance (less than five acres), this is typically a 15-day review of the project and its potential impacts on biological, cultural and other resources; protective measures are stipulated. If the initial work produces encouraging results, additional permitting requires detailed biological, cultural and other surveys conducted by independent experts. Results of these studies are compiled into environmental assessments or environmental impact statements under the direction of the BLM or U.S. Forest Service and multiple state agencies. Under an exploration plan of operations, disturbance remains limited and timing of activities may also be significantly restricted. These more advanced permits typically require a minimum of 18 months to prepare prior to allowing additional disturbance. Assuming that exploration successfully defines a viable project, mine permitting requires additional studies and review, tacking a minimum of 18-24 months to the timeline for a small, minimal impact operation.

No ‘shortcuts’ exist

Permitting of exploration and mining projects is increasingly difficult throughout the West, due in part to lawsuits filed by activist groups, including Patrick Donnelly’s Center for Biological Diversity. The CBD claims to support domestic mining so long as it is “done in the right places and with the right techniques. We oppose business-as-usual mining, dewatering of open pits, pit lakes, excessive water consumption, extinction of species or severe degradation of habitat, and regulatory shortcuts …”

There are no regulatory “shortcuts.” As noted above, the permitting process begins with identification and avoidance of sensitive areas during exploration and appropriate mitigation prior to mining. Mitigation may include permanent avoidance of certain areas.

A reality check is in order for minerals to drive a “green transition,” as lithium is not the only critical metal needed. Mining of copper, nickel, cobalt, manganese will all need to be dramatically increased as well for production of batteries and other resource intensive items. Ultimately, the solution to determining where responsible mining occurs is through appropriate geological, biological and cultural studies. Appropriate funding and prioritization of the state geological surveys is critical to this objective.

Karl Marlowe is a recently retired mineral exploration geologist and lifelong outdoorsman.

Have your say: How to submit an opinion column or letter to the editor

Source link

Click to comment

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