Laserfiche WebLink
<br />law regardless of whether it mayor may not be founded on an <br />anachronistic idea. See Power Authority of State of New York v. FERC, <br />743 F.2d at 105. <br /> <br />(2) Priorities Among Qualified Preference Entities. The <br />suggestion to modify priorities to provide a higher priority to <br />nonpreference entities within the market area over preference entities <br />outside the market area would allow for a greater allocation to <br />entities in the Northern Division States. Adoption of such a proposal <br />would mean, the commenter also believes, that the Southern Division <br />allocations should be withdrawn. The legislative history of the <br />Colorado River Storage Project shows, that Congress indeed considered <br />including a geographic preference clause in the CRSP Act but chose not <br />to enact such a clause. The issue of whether the Southern Division <br />should receive any SLCA Integrated Projects power was thoroughly <br />discussed in the 1984 Proposed Criteria at 49 FR 34912-34914, and need <br />not be repeated here. <br /> <br />In the 1984 Proposed Criteria, Western provided a statement following <br />the listing of allocation priorities as follows: "These <br />priorities may be recognized within pricing blocks for non-firm <br />energy. II This statement means that Western will normally apply thi s <br />same order of priority when conSidering competing purchasers of <br />nonfirm energy. Preference is currently applied within each I-mill <br />pri ce range. <br /> <br />. 20 <br />