Political ads are everywhere this time of year, but at least one — funded by a seemingly innocuous group — isn't focused on a candidate or policy.

Instead, a bright and cheery ad that aired hundreds of times across Southern Nevada throughout September told viewers they "need a break" and that "NV Energy's switch to daily demand will give most Nevadans exactly that," putting a positive spin on the utility's contentious daily demand charge. 

The ad, which ends by noting that "daily demand will lower your power bill and put money back in your pocket. It's a good thing," was paid for by a political action committee (PAC) named Nevadans for Reliable, Renewable, Affordable Energy. According to ad tracking firm AdImpact, just over $93,000 was spent broadcasting the ad throughout the month of September, and it gained 6.4 million impressions.

If the name rings a bell, it's because that same PAC has been around since 2018, when it was funded by union and other utility-aligned interests to defeat a ballot question that threatened NV Energy's monopoly. 

This go around, campaign finance records show that the PAC behind the ad received a combined $170,000 from NV Energy this year — and then spent the bulk of the money with NV Energy's longtime advertising firm, R&R Partners.

"We just want to get information out to the public that the demand charge is beneficial to the majority of customers," Hunter Stern, one of the PAC's officers, told The Nevada Independent. 

The PAC also funded mailers for the June primary election against a state lawmaker vocally opposed to the daily demand charge.

Stephanie Chase, research and communications manager at the watchdog Energy and Policy Institute, said the PAC is simply "NV Energy and other utility interests in costume."

"It's interesting that NV Energy is trying to make it look like there's a coalition supporting their demand charge, when there just isn't," she said. 

Demand charge download

The demand charge will bill customers not only for the power they use but will add a small charge for the highest 15-minute period of power usage during each day to reflect the strain customers put on the grid. 

The move is intended to offset differences paid by solar and non-solar customers. Existing legislation limits how those differences can be rectified. When in place, the charge, which was approved by state energy regulators, is expected to reduce bills for the state's roughly 90 percent of customers who do not have solar.

However, the charge is expected to increase bills for Southern Nevada solar customers, and low-income customers who have less flexibility to adjust their energy usage could also see their bills increase.  

The potential for increased costs has drawn the ire of groups such as the Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition, a group of 14 community organizations that launched a billboard campaign against it. The coalition argues that the charge has "an experimental and confusing rate design" and increases energy burdens on lower-use and low-income ratepayers. 

Solar advocacy groups and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Aaron Ford, currently the state's attorney general, have filed lawsuits against it as well.

Money talks

Registered to John Peragallo, with lobbyists Gail Tuzzolo and Stern listed as officers, the PAC formed ahead of two massive energy-related questions on the 2018 ballot.

Question 6, a constitutional amendment to require electric utilities to source 50 percent of their electricity from renewable resources (doubling the prior requirement of 25 percent by 2025), passed. 

But a more politically heated energy-related question didn't fare as well. 

Question 3, the Energy Choice Initiative, proposed a constitutional amendment to end NV Energy's legal electricity generation monopoly and establish an open retail market by 2023.

In Nevada, citizen-initiated constitutional amendments require approval in two successive general elections, and in 2016, it overwhelmingly passed with 72 percent of Nevadans favoring it. 

But then the money rolled in. 

It primarily came from NV Energy, which threw a still-record $64 million at a campaign to change voters' perceptions.

Nevadans for Reliable, Renewable, Affordable Energy also opposed the question at a smaller scale. It pulled in $850,000 from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, the union that represents NV Energy workers, and nearly $3.5 million from NextERA Energy Resources INC, the nation's largest builder of energy infrastructure. The PAC forwarded millions that year to Las Vegas-based Neri Group LLC for campaign and consulting work, ultimately spending $3.9 million over the election cycle. 

The expensive lobbying campaign worked; only 33 percent of voters approved Question 3 during the second vote in 2018, preserving NV Energy's monopoly status.

The PAC's financial activity slowed after the 2018 election, but this year, in addition to smaller contributions from various unions and Southwest Gas, the PAC pulled in $150,000 from NV Energy. The PAC then sent $150,000 to R&R Partners, a firm focused on "government affairs, crisis consulting and community relations" that represents NV Energy. The firm confirmed in an email that it had produced a public education campaign about the daily demand charge on behalf of the PAC.

In a phone call, Stern acknowledged the lag in the PAC's activity. 

"We recently have seen the need to become active again because of the current political climate," he said.

 Peragallo and Tuzzolo did not reply to calls, texts or emails from The Nevada Independent. 

The PAC also sponsored a mail campaign against Assm. Howard Watts (D-Las Vegas), who ultimately lost in the primary to challenger Miguel Dávila, who was supported by various local unions, NV Energy and Southwest Gas. 

One of Watts' last efforts as a state lawmaker was, as chair of the state's interim committee on growth and infrastructure, to introduce a bill draft request for the upcoming session that would have prohibited NV Energy from implementing the demand charge. No other committee members supported the motion and it failed.

State lawmakers could still pass legislation ending the demand charge during Nevada's legislative session, which begins Feb. 1.