Laserfiche WebLink
<br />upon existing customers. The Criteria also recognize the equity of <br /> <br /> <br />selling Federal power to entities that were unahle to contract for <br /> <br /> <br />power earlier. The Criteria attempt to strike a balance between needs <br /> <br /> <br />of existing and potential customers. <br /> <br />(e) Former Secretary of Energy Hodel's Remarks. The <br />IOU alleged that the proposed preference criteria were prejudged and <br />predetermined by then-Secretary of Energy Hodel before the IOU had an <br />opportunity to comment. This allegation is based on remarks made by <br />Secretary Hodel at a May 3, 1983, meeting of the American Public Power <br />Associ~tion, in which he expresses general support for the preference <br />clause. Western does not see anything arbitrary, capricious, <br />improper, or illegal in a Secretary's statement that he supports the <br />laws he is required to administer. <br /> <br />(f) "Yardstick Competition." The IOU argues that <br />the concept that preference 1 aws promote "yardst i ck compet it i on" is an <br />anachronism. This same commenter previously argued that certain <br />congressional purposes in enacting the DOE Act in 1977, found at 42 <br />U.S.C. '7112, were very important. One of the purposes, mentioned at <br />section 102(12), was "to foster and assure competition among parties <br />engaged in the supply of energy and fuel s." We have recent <br />legislation, therefore, which indicates that Congress does not <br />consider the concept of competition to be anachronistic. In any <br />event, Western is not in any position to second-guess Congress on the <br />competition issue. Western is legally bound to uphold the preference <br /> <br />19 <br />