Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Where 'I...one preference entity challenges the Secretary's decision to <br />discriminate against it in favor of other preference entities, the <br />reclamation laws provide no law to apply to the dispute. If he so <br />chooses, the Secretary can market ~ available power to a single <br />public entity without running afoul of the preference clause." <br />[emphasis in origina1]~. In 1985, this reasoning was affirmed by <br />five courts in the 4th, 8th, and 11th Circuits. (See Electricities of <br />North Carolina, Inc. v. Southeastern Power Administration <br />(Electricities III), No. C-C-85-384-P (W.D.N.C. October 30, 1985); <br />Electricities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Southeastern Power <br />AdminiStration (Electricities II), No. 84-2152 (4th Cir. Mar. 19, <br />1985);:E1ectricities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Southeastern Power <br />Administration (Electricities I), No. 82-888-CIV-5, (E.D.N.C. <br />October 16,1984); Greenwood Utilities Commission v. Hodel, 764 F. 2d <br />1459 (11th Cir. 1985); South Sioux City v. Western Area Power <br />Administration, No. CV82-L-I07 (D. Neb. May 20, 1985). <br /> <br />In this instance, the commenter does not represent a municipality; the <br />commenter represents an IOU applying for power on behalf of 143 <br />municipalities. 43 U.S.C. 485h(c) states that "preference shall be <br />given to municipalities and other public corporations and agencies; <br />and also to cooperatives and other nonprofit organizations financed in <br />whole or in part by loans made pursuant to the Rural Electrification <br />Act of .1936." IOUs are clearly not entitled to preference under this <br /> <br />17 <br />