Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Western continues to believe there is justification for treating <br />existing customers differently than iPotentia1 new customers. In this <br />sense, existing customers have been igiven a priority, but this <br />priority is of a different character than that given to preference <br />utilities over investor-owned utilities. Existing preference <br />customers have no vested right in Federal power. However, in <br />balancing the interests of existing land potential new customers that <br />are qualified under the law to pref~rence consideration over <br />investor-owned utilities, Western continues to give more weight to <br />those currently receiving benefits to avoid inflicting undue economic <br />hardship, while recognizing the need to provide other qualified <br />preference purchasers some reasonabl'e benefits from Federal power. <br /> <br />2. Other Eligibility Requirements <br />Western acknowledged the need to clarify the eligibility requirements <br />and revised them in the 1984 Proposed Criteria. Western refused to <br />extend the December 30,1983, dead1i:ne for filing applicant profile <br />data, which is one of the eligibility requirements. Western did, <br />however, grant an extension of the January 1, 1984, deadline to have <br />taken "significant and tangible steps" to acquire the means to <br />distribute power by September 30, 1~88, to the cities of West <br />Bountiful, Richfield, and Map1eton, ;Utah. <br /> <br />Western requested further comments from the public on whether <br />conservation should be an allocation criterion, and indicated that an <br />; <br /> <br />environmental assessment would consiider the matter in further detail. <br /> <br />22 <br />