Opinion ID: 2631746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: NRS 704.110(10) unambiguously directs the PUCN to analyze each power purchasing practice or transaction separately to determine whether the utility prudently incurred the costs associated with each practice or transaction

Text: When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, a court should give that language its ordinary meaning and not go beyond it. [37] A statute is ambiguous if it is capable of being understood in two or more senses by reasonably well-informed persons. [38] NRS 704.110(10) states that [t]he [PUCN] shall not allow the electric utility to recover any costs for purchased fuel and purchased power that were the result of any practice or transaction that was undertaken, managed or performed imprudently by the electric utility. NRS 704.110(10) is unambiguous, and thus, we give the statute its ordinary meaning. [39] Indeed, a reasonably well-informed person could understand the statute's plain language to stand for only a single proposition: NRS 704.110(10) directs the PUCN to engage in an analysis that considers each practice or transaction separately when deciding whether an allowance or disallowance is warranted for that particular practice or transaction. This construction is evidenced by the use of the word or [40] separating practice and transaction, and the fact that the words practice and transaction appear in the singular, not the plural, form. Consequently, we conclude that NRS 704.110(10) unambiguously demonstrates the Legislature's intent that the PUCN analyze each practice and transaction separately to determine whether the utility prudently incurred the costs associated with that practice or transaction. Because the statute requires the PUCN to analyze each practice and transaction separately, the PUCN's finding of colossal management mistakes cannot operate as a ground for denying the entire deferred energy application. As the statute mandates, the PUCN undertook separate review of each practice or transaction, in determining whether Nevada Power's costs were prudently incurred. Only costs stemming from those transactions that are imprudent must be disallowed. Accordingly, the PUCN's application of NRS 704.110(10) did not violate that statute's directive because the PUCN's analysis of Nevada Power's practices and transactions associated with the $485 million allowance comported with NRS 704.110(10) by determining whether each practice or transaction was undertaken, managed or performed in a prudent manner.