LAS VEGAS, Nev. (KOLO) – Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo is expressing concern over a California bill that could result in higher gas prices in Nevada.

On Tuesday, Lombardo sent a letter to California Governor Gavin Newsom sharing concern over the unintended consequences of SBX1-2. Lombardo says the bill could also raise gas prices for California and Arizona.

The legislation would:

• Authorize the California Energy Commission to set a maximum gross gasoline refining margin and impose a penalty for refiners that exceed it.
• Provide new data collection authority and create a division to monitor petroleum markets and flag potential market manipulation.
• Require an assessment of transportation fuel demand and discussion of methods to ensure a reliable fuel supply as the state transitions away from petroleum-based fuels.

You can read more about the legislation here.

Lombardo wrote the following:

“Since 88 percent of Nevada’s fuels are delivered via pipeline and truck from refineries in California, it’s no surprise that California’s fuel policies significantly impact the costs and availability of fuel for Nevada’s residents and businesses.

“As my administration has followed this issue, it seems that the new state agency the legislation created is getting closer to announcing a profits cap structure. While we have no details on what this might look like, I’m concerned that this approach could lead to refiners either constraining supplies of fuels to avoid a profit penalty or even leaving our shared fuels market entirely. Either scenario would likely lead to limited supplies and higher fuel costs for consumers in both of our states.

“Should this happen, I am sure Californians and Nevadans would share a demand for answers and relief from higher fuel costs and the impacts those costs could have across the economy.

“Before proceeding with a profits cap, I would request an assessment of potential impacts of this approach across the West, including not only California, but Nevada and Arizona too. To assist with this, my Office of Energy stands ready to immediately engage in proactive conversations with the California Energy Commission.

“Thank you for your consideration of this request. I’m hopeful that your administration will work to mitigate unintended consequences of SBX1-2, so that we can spare hard working Californians and Nevadans from further pain at the pump.”

Lombardo’s letter comes ahead of a Utilities & Energy Committee hearing Wednesday that would update the committee on the implementation of the legislation.

Copyright 2024 KOLO. All rights reserved.

Consumers are increasingly seeking organic food, whether it’s at their local grocery store, corner café or favorite restaurant. As the demand for organic produce by consumers, grocery outlets and restaurants continue to rise, a new program will help guide Nevada producers through the process to become certified organic producers. The University of Nevada, Reno’s Desert Farming Initiative has launched the “Grow Organic Nevada” Program that will enlist the help of producers who are already certified organic to help mentor other producers seeking to become certified organic.

“You get a plan written and use it. It’s not as hard as people want to make it,” said Rob Holley, who owns and operates his own certified organic farm in Dayton, Nevada, and will coordinate the program. “The organic system plan requires recordkeeping, but it’s just a documented extension of what that farmer or rancher is already doing. They are farther along than they think. There’s a lot of resources out there, and then the mentors can help streamline that process for those who are interested.”

Holley’s family has been farming in Dayton for more than 50 years. When Holley decided to seek organic certification for Holley Family Farms in 2011, he said he worked very closely with a couple of other producers and the Nevada Department of Agriculture who helped them through the process. He says it’s been worth it.

“Since becoming organic in 2011, we’ve seen a continued increase in sales and demand for our product,” he said.

Indeed, organic has gone mainstream. According to the USDA, conventional grocery retailers have overtaken natural food stores as the most popular outlet for organic food, with 55.6% of sales in 2021. And, certified organic U.S. land for growing crops or livestock increased from 1.8 million acres in 2000 to 4.9 million acres in 2021. But, in Nevada, there are only 37 certified organic producers, and only 12 of those grow what we typically consider to be produce (vegetables, fruit, nuts, etc.), while 22 grow hay/grain/forage for livestock, and three raise livestock for meat production.

To encourage producers to take the plunge into organic, the new program is providing $500 to producers seeking to become certified organic and accepted into the program. Those seeking a mentor can request a mentor online.

To encourage producers who are already certified organic to serve as mentors, mentors receive $3,000 for 40 hours of service, providing one-on-one guidance through the process and sharing their organic farming expertise, as well as participating in regional organic-focused community events. Mentors can earn more for mentoring multiple transitioning producers and are also provided with supplemental training in interpersonal skills and organic practices. Those interested in becoming a mentor should have at least three years of direct experience managing organic production and certification, as well as a strong understanding of the process to become certified organic. Producers interested in mentoring, also apply to become a mentor online.

The funding stipends for producers and other program costs is being provided through grant funds of over $500,000 through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Transition to Organic Partnership Program, a network assembled by the USDA’s National Organic Program to support transitioning and organic producers with mentorship and resources. There are six designated regions for the program, and Nevada falls under the West/Southwest Region, which is led by the nonprofit California Certified Organic Farmers. The nonprofit organization has contracted the University to run the program in Nevada.

Jill Moe, director of the Desert Farming Initiative, which is a program of the University’s Experiment Station unit in the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources, said that when she learned of the Transition to Organic Partnership Program, she immediately saw it as a perfect fit for the Initiative and its goals to support local producers, advance climate-smart farming practices and promote food security in the state. She said that Holley, with his longtime farming experience and other professional experience, is also an excellent fit to lead the program.

“Rob is graduate of the University and has worked with us on projects as a successful producer for decades,” she said. “But, besides that, he has more than 30 years of management experience and professional positions working for state and local partner agencies with goals that align with the goals of our College.”

Holley has served as district manager at the Dayton Valley Conservation District, park ranger at the Nevada Division of State Parks, and forester in Elko at the Nevada Division of Forestry. He says he’s excited to get the new program off the ground.

“I’m already receiving requests to get involved, from both mentors and mentees,” he said. “But, I really want to reach out to those producers who are underserved or not necessarily already in the loop, and to the tribal communities as well,” he said. “There’s a pretty broad net to cast across our state, and I intend to reach both small and large producers, in every corner of our state.”

For more information on the Grow Organic Nevada Program, contact Holley at 775-784-6556.

Grow Organic Nevada is supported through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Transition to Organic Partnership Program, which is a program of the USDA Organic Transition Initiative and is administered by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service National Organic Program.

In a May 14, 2024 Order, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reversed a lower court’s holding that former Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden did not have to arbitrate his claims against the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell arising out of his October 2021 forced resignation. Gruden now faces the prospects of pursuing an arbitration process ostensibly – but not necessarily – controlled by Goodell.

The District Court Goes For Gruden

Gruden was forced to resign after the revelation of emails in which he engaged in what the NFL described in a legal brief as “racist tropes and misogynistic and homophobic slurs.” At the time, Gruden was in the fourth year of a 10-year, $100 million contract, the largest contract ever for an NFL coach.

Notwithstanding the fact Gruden and the Raiders quickly reached a confidential settlement concerning Gruden’s departure, in November 2021, Gruden sued the NFL and Goodell (but not the Raiders) in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, alleging principally that the defendants had intentionally and tortiously interfered with Gruden’s contract with the Raiders by allegedly leaking the problematic emails.

In January 2022, the NFL filed separate motions to dismiss the case and to compel the matter to arbitration. In its motion to compel, the NFL relied on two provisions of Gruden’s employment agreement. First, Gruden agreed generally to be “bound by the Constitution, Bylaws, and rules and regulations of the NFL.” Based on this provision, the NFL argued that Gruden is bound by Section 8.3(E) of the NFL Constitution, which provides the Commissioner authority to arbitrate a dispute “that in the opinion of the Commissioner constitutes conduct detrimental to the best interests of the League or professional football.” Second, Gruden’s contract contained an arbitration provision requiring that “all matters in dispute between Gruden and [the Raiders], including without limitation any dispute arising from the terms of this Agreement, shall be referred to the NFL Commissioner for binding arbitration, and his decision shall be accepted as final, conclusive, and unappealable.”

On May 26, 2022, the District Court denied both motions ruling from the bench. The court held that the NFL’s first argument on the motion to compel failed because, as pointed out by Gruden, invoking this authority would supposedly require Goodell to predetermine the outcome of the arbitration. Second, the court determined that the NFL’s reliance on the arbitration provision contained in Gruden’s contract was misplaced because it only covered disputes between Gruden and the Raiders, which are not a party to the litigation. The District Court’s opinion was later expanded on in an order written by Gruden’s counsel and signed by the District Court, a process permitted by Nevada’s rules.

The Nevada Supreme Court Reverses

The Nevada Supreme Court, in a 2-1 decision, determined that the District Court made numerous errors in its decision. First, the Court held that Gruden failed to prove that his settlement with the Raiders extinguished the relevant arbitration clauses because he did not offer the settlement agreement as evidence in the case and because arbitration clauses are presumed to survive contract termination. Second, the Court determined that Gruden’s contract incorporated the NFL Constitution by reference because Gruden agreed to be bound by it and because it was available to him. Third, the Court found that Gruden’s claims were within the scope of Section 8.3(e) because “[w]hether judged from the perspective of Gruden’s emails becoming public or the NFL Parties’ alleged leaking of those emails, the conduct-detrimental to the NFL or professional football requirement appears satisfied.” Fourth, the Court rejected Gruden’s argument that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable, finding that he “was the very definition of a sophisticated party” in negotiating his employment agreement. Fifth, concerning substantive unconscionability, while the Court expressed some concern about Goodell potentially serving as the arbitrator in a matter in which he is a defendant, “it is not clear that Goodell will act as arbitrator.” Moreover, the Court noted, “issues of arbitrator bias are reviewable post-arbitration.” Finally, the Court rejected Gruden’s argument that the arbitration agreement is “illusory” because the NFL can amend it unilaterally, noting that the NFL’s ability to do so is restrained by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract.

For all of these reasons, the Court reversed the District Court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to grant the NFL’s motion requesting that the case be compelled to arbitration.

Justice Linda Marie Bell, writing in dissent, argued that the arbitration agreement did not apply to Gruden because he is no longer an employee of the Raiders. Additionally, Justice Bell believed that incorporation of the NFL Constitution into Gruden’s contract was procedurally unconscionable because Gruden had no choice but to accept it and, at 447 pages, it dwarfed the terms of Gruden’s 7-page employment agreement.

Gruden’s Call

It will soon be up to Gruden to decide whether to file an arbitration with Goodell pursuant to the provisions of the NFL Constitution. Goodell is unlikely to preside over the arbitration, out of the concern that any decision he makes could then be vacated by a court on the ground of bias. Goodell has historically taken one of three routes in these situations: (1) he designates internal NFL counsel to preside over the matter (often General Counsel Jeff Pash); (2) he designates an outside attorney who formerly worked for the NFL or one of its clubs to be arbitrator (Harold Henderson and Bob Wallace, for example); or (3) in high-profile matters where judicial scrutiny is likely, he designates a respected arbitrator or attorney to serve. The most likely choice would be an attorney or arbitrator with labor and employment expertise and some NFL ties but not so much as to create a strong impression of bias.

The last option is what Goodell chose in 2022 when the NFL appealed an arbitrator’s decision to suspend Cleveland Browns quarterback DeShaun Watson for six games, much less than the 14 games the NFL wanted. Goodell had the right under the collective bargaining to hear the appeal but instead appointed Peter Harvey, a former Attorney General for New Jersey and NFL consultant as arbitrator. The parties settled for an 11-game suspension before any appeal was heard.

Gruden is more than two years into this legal battle and, given his pugnacious reputation, is unlikely to drop the case now. Moreover, given the judicial scrutiny Commissioner Goodell’s involvement has already received, it is more likely that Gruden will be able to have his claims fairly considered by a neutral (or near neutral) party.