Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />001538 <br /> <br />942 <br /> <br />AIUZONA LAW REVIEW <br /> <br />(V 1ll:M " <br /> <br />and Nevada, therefore, the upcoming reallocation process must reco~ <br />,the asserted right of each state to receive an equal share of the Hoovct <br />energy resource. <br /> <br /> <br />THE CALIFORNIA POSITION <br />-, <br /> <br />The California Hoover allotteesl22 are strongly opposed to the Ari- <br />zona-Nevada "super-preference" position. California argues that the right <br />of renewal established in section 617d(b) of the Act is absolute and DOl <br />subject to secretarial discretion.123 Moreover, it claims that the BCPA did <br />not create in section 617d(c) a "super-preference" right in each state 10 <br />one-third of the entire Hoover output.124 Finally, argues California, the <br />state preference that was established in section617d(c) is subject to seen- <br />tarial discretion.l2S, ';nl~<,;:~; <br />-. ~ !/;.: ~ -~-~Jif.~~~:::~ <br />Rlgkl of Renewal ::-: 'F-.~i:f-/l:'> <br /> <br />In attempting to protect its allocation of sixty-four percent of the HoO- <br />ver power,126 California first asserts that section 617d(b), on its face, pro- <br />vides an absolute right of renewal.127 This section provides that any <br />Hoover power contractor not in default on the contract "shall be entitled <br />to a renewal."128 California contends that this language is a "mandatory <br />directive" that confers no discretion upon the Secretary in decidin! <br />whether to renew.129 Thus, California asserts that the "unless" clause 0{ <br />section 617d(b), providing for compensation in the event ofnonrenewal,l)O <br />applies only if Congress, which California argues is the only body with the <br />power to deny the.r!ght of renewal, decides not to renew.J31 <br /> <br />BCPA would permit the Secretary to allow such a non-federally financed power facility allJlt <br />dam. 43 U.S.C. ~ 617e (1976 & Supp. IV 1980) provides that instead of leasing tbe govemmc:cli <br />power plants, the Secretary may in the alternative simply lease the use of water for genenlUl! <br />electrical energy. allowing the le~ to construct their own power units. This option was rejeacd <br />in the original allocation process, but would appear to be a viable alternative with respect to 1_ <br />upgrading. See DocUMENTS. supra note 4, at 68. , . <br />122. The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Southern CalifOOlU <br />Edison Company are the lessees of the power plant and have an allotment of approximately 2S, <br />See DOCUMENTS, supra note 4, at A455; mpra notes 27-35 and accompanying text. The 0l!Iet <br />California allottces, Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena receive about six percent of the en~. <br />CONTRACTS, supra note 4, at 593; see supra notes 27-35 and accompanying text. [The Calif_ <br />allottces hereinafter will be referred to collectively as California.J <br />123. See California Brief, supra note 7, at 12-49. <br />124. Id at 50-85. <br />125. Id at 90-109. <br />126. See id at 18-20. <br />127. See id.; 43 U.S.C. ~ 611d(b) (1976). <br />128. See 43 U.S.C. ~ 617d(b) (1976); supra notes 44-51 and accompanying text <br />129. See California Brief, supra note 7, at 18. . <br />130. 43 U.S.C. ~ 617d(b) (1976) provides that renewals shall be granted unless compe~uoa <br />is paid for property used in receiving Hoover power that is either taken or damaged. SN SfI/'H <br />notes 43-51 and accompanying text. , , . <br />131. See California Brief, supra note 7, at 22. This argument is based on the assumpuon 1lul <br />the "unless" clause is closely related to the "recapture" provisions of the Federal Power Aa. 16 <br />U.S.C. ~~ 807(a), 808(a) (1976); see supra notes 97-107 and accompanying text. Since ~ 807(b) <br />states that Congr~ upon recommendation of the Federal Power Commission (now the ~edeta1 <br />Energy Regulation Commission), may exercise the recapture rights of ~ 807(a), CalifO/llJ3 aJlt- <br />eludes that the "unless" clause of ~ 617d(b) of the BCPA means that only Congress can exeJOjoC <br />this "recapture" right. California Brief, supra note 7, at 22-23. This argument overlooks the f.ac1 <br /> <br />/ <br />f <br /> <br />1982J <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />~ <br />t <br /> <br /> <br />! <br /> <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />j <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br />. <br />'" <br />1. <br />f <br />~ <br /> <br />I <br />