My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11304
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11304
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:16:54 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:52:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.100.50
Description
CRSP - Power Marketing
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
2/1/1986
Author
USDOI/WAPA
Title
SLCA Integrated Projects Marketing and Allocation Criteria
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
138
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />exceed its average seasonal total energy use for the period <br /> <br />1980-1982. An adjustment will be allowed for those customers who have <br /> <br />demonstrated to Western's satisfaction that energy usage for this <br /> <br />period was reduced as the result of conservation efforts. <br /> <br />D. MAJOR ISSUES <br />1. Eligibility Requirements - Application of the Preference Laws <br />In the 1984 Proposed Criteria, Western proposed that resources would <br />be allocated in accordance with preference provisions of power <br />marketing law in the following order of priority: (1) preference <br />entities within the SLCA Integrated Projects market area; (2) <br />preference entities outside the market area; and (3) nonpreference <br />entities, provided that those nonpreference entities acting as agents <br />for public entities without distribution systems shall receive <br />priority over nonpreference entities acting on their own behalf. <br /> <br />The Utah Power & Light Company (UP&L) application on behalf of 143 <br />municipalities was determined to be a request for an allocation of <br />power to a nonpreference entity. Under power marketing law, <br />therefore, UP&L's request could not be given equal consideration with <br />requests from preference utilities. Western did conclude, however, <br />that a sale to an investor-owned utility (IOU) acting as an agent for <br />certain public entities was superior to sales to IOUs acting on their <br />own behalf and therefore was given priority within the nonpreference <br />category. <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.