An under-the-radar nonprofit backed by data center giant Switch lost a motion that would have required NV Energy to release any information about attorneys it has hired to analyze a pending ballot question poised to fundamentally reshape Nevada’s energy landscape.

Nevada’s Public Utilities Commission — an appointed 3-member board with authority over state utility services, including NV Energy — ruled against a Smart Energy Alliance motion on Tuesday seeking to compel the state’s primary utility to release the names of any attorneys or advisers it's hired to assess or analyze the effects of the Energy Choice Initiative, a 2018 ballot question that would turn Nevada into a retail energy state with no single utility providing electric service.

The commission ruled against the motion primarily because of a lack of “relevance,” as it came as part of NV Energy’s general rate case — the state-mandated publicly open process where the utility proposes electric rates for the next three years which must be approved by the commission.

“The pending Energy Choice Initiative is currently not law, and its relevance to these proceedings is tangential and limited, at most, to its possible influence on creditors and the amount of uncertainty it may cast on future planning efforts,” the commission wrote in the order. “SEA has failed to establish how the identity of lawyers that Nevada Power Company may have previously or currently retained regarding the Energy Choice Initiative would be relevant or admissible in these proceedings.”

It’s the latest filing targeting NV Energy made by Smart Energy Alliance, a nascent nonprofit formed in July that’s filed several motions throughout the general rate case, including a request to dismiss the general rate case entirely over alleged misuse of “impact fees” charged to large electric customers who apply to leave NV Energy as a customer in return for a hefty exit fee.

The nonprofit has no public-facing side, such as a website or social media account, but revealed in a July filing that its members include Switch and  Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, a Portland-based nonprofit with members including Microsoft, Intel, Shell Oil and Boeing.

Switch in particular has a long history with NV Energy over the subject of exit fees — the company paid a $27 million exit fee to leave as a customer after suing them and the PUC for $30 million in damages in 2016.

An attorney for the group, Tyler Pepple, said in an interview that they would look into requesting the same information in other avenues and dockets outside of the general rate case.

"Fundamentally we want to make sure that NV Energy isn’t charging customers for consultants it’s hiring to study ECI," he said.

In a motion filed on Oct. 10, SEA filed a motion asking the utility to comply with a request to identify all “consultants, advisers, or other professionals” hired by the utility to give opinions on the pending Energy Choice Initiative ballot question, which would change Nevada’s Constitution and require the state transition into a retail electric service model by 2023.

NV Energy is officially neutral on the ballot question, but utility CEO Paul Caudill told The Nevada Independent earlier this month that it was “increasingly” difficult for the company to stay on the sidelines.

In an email response attached to the motion, an attorney for the utility said that the decision on whether or not to retain the service of legal professionals would fall under the category of non-shareable privileged information.

In a response, NV Energy defended the information’s privileged status, and called it “irrelevant” to the general rate case.

“Any additional information that Nevada Power can provide SEA is privileged pursuant to attorney-client privilege,” an attorney for the utility wrote in an Oct. 18 filing. “Specifically, as noted as an exception to the common rule, disclosure of the identity of any professionals retained, or not retained, by Nevada Power will be prejudicial to its interests, and as it would expose the nature of a legal issue, is privileged.”

In a reply, SEA asked the commission to reject the utility’s attempt “to gum up what should be an open and clearly established discovery process,” and said that attorney-client privilege shouldn’t extend to the names or any identifying information of outside legal counsel the utility may have hired.

A spokeswoman for NV Energy declined to comment on the PUC’s order.

Disclosure:  Switch and NV Energy are major donors to The Nevada Independent. A complete list of Indy donors and sponsors can be viewed here.