Nevada’s Senate Bill 443 (SB 443) sounds like it has good intentions, but it could end up doing more harm than good for the state. The bill wants to make sure workers on big natural gas projects for public utilities are paid a set “prevailing wage.” This means contractors would have to pay workers a specific amount, usually higher than what they’d earn in regular private jobs. While the goal is to improve safety and ensure quality work, the reality is that SB 443 could raise costs, slow down important projects, and limit competition. Let’s break it down.
What is SB 443?
SB 443 is a proposal in Nevada’s legislature that would require contractors working on major natural gas infrastructure projects—like pipelines or power plants—for public utilities to pay their workers a “prevailing wage.” This is a government-set wage rate, often based on what union workers earn in the area, and it’s typically much higher than what workers might earn on similar private projects.
The idea behind it is to make sure workers are paid fairly and that the projects are done safely and with high quality. But there’s a catch: these higher wages come with some serious downsides.
Why Could SB 443 Be Bad for Nevada?
Here are the main reasons why SB 443 might not be the best move for Nevada:
1. It Will Drive Up Costs
Prevailing wage laws make projects more expensive because they force contractors to pay workers way more than they would in a normal job market. Research shows that in Nevada, these mandated wages are about 45% higher than what workers typically earn in the private sector. That’s a huge jump!
For example, back in 2009-2010, prevailing wage rules cost Nevada taxpayers nearly $1 billion extra on public projects. With SB 443, businesses, entrepreneurs, and everyday taxpayers would end up footing the bill for these inflated wages on natural gas projects. Higher costs could mean higher utility bills for everyone or even fewer projects getting done.
2. It Hurts Competition
When you force contractors to pay higher wages, it makes it harder for smaller businesses or non-union companies to compete for these projects. Only bigger companies with deeper pockets can afford to bid, which means fewer businesses get a chance to participate. Less competition often leads to worse deals for the public, as there’s less pressure to keep prices low or innovate.
3. It Could Delay Critical Projects
Natural gas infrastructure—like pipelines or energy facilities—is essential for keeping Nevada’s homes and businesses powered. But if SB 443 makes these projects more expensive and limits who can work on them, it could slow things down. Delays in building or upgrading infrastructure could mean less reliable energy or missed opportunities to improve Nevada’s energy system.
The Bigger Picture
Supporters of SB 443 argue that higher wages lead to safer projects and better-quality work. But there are other ways to achieve those goals without jacking up costs or shutting out competition. For example, Nevada could focus on stricter safety regulations or better training programs for workers instead of mandating expensive wages that burden taxpayers.
The numbers don’t lie: prevailing wages in Nevada are 44.2% higher in Northern Nevada and 45.8% higher in Southern Nevada compared to regular market wages. These extra costs add up fast, and they’re not just paid by the government—they hit businesses and regular people, too.
Wrapping It Up
Senate Bill 443 might sound like a way to protect workers and ensure quality, but it comes with a hefty price tag. Higher costs, less competition, and potential delays in building critical natural gas infrastructure could hurt Nevada’s economy and its people. Instead of piling on more expensive rules, Nevada’s leaders should look for smarter ways to keep projects safe and high-quality without breaking the bank.
If you care about keeping Nevada’s energy costs down and our infrastructure strong, SB 443 might not be the answer. Let’s encourage lawmakers to find better solutions that work for everyone.
