Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />001531 <br /> <br />:i <br />;1 <br />I <br />r <br />'I' <br />~: <br />I:~ <br /> <br />.-' ~ ; <br />!ff' <br />I;:: <br />II!.;' <br />,i:! ' <br /> <br />1982) <br /> <br />HOOVER DAM ENERGY <br /> <br />935 <br /> <br />, ence clause appears to operate as a "tie-breaker" by ensuring that, when <br />twO applications are found to be equally in the public interest, the Secre- <br />tary will award the contract to a state or municipality over a private power <br />, customer. 57 This provision operates in much the same way as the prefer- <br />'ence clauses in other federal power and reclamation projects,58-with one <br />significant change. Instead of placing all preference customers on an equal <br />footing, as do the other federal acts,59 the BCPA gives states contracting <br />for Hoover power for use within the state priority over other preference <br />customers.60 <br />The policy underlying the use of preference clauses favoring the sale <br />of power to public entities is simply to ensure the widest possible distribu- <br />tion of the' benefits of low-cost electric energy produced at public expense, <br />, rather than to permit the monopolization of the power by private utili- <br />ties.61 Preference clauses encourage widespread distribution of federal <br />power by fostering sale to states, municipalities, and other public agencies <br />and requiring the sale of power at the lowest possible rates consistent with <br />the public interest and sound business principles.62 Consideration of these <br />factors tends to make the sale of power to preference entities subject to <br />administrative discretion.63 It has been held consistently that the Secretary <br />has broad discretion, in accordance with his duty to preserve project effi- <br />ciency, in deciding whether and on what terms power will be sold to pref- <br />erence customers.64 <br />[ If the preference clause does act as a tie-breaker,65 the Secretary's <br />I finding that the conflicting applications are equally in the public interest66 <br /> <br /> <br />r 57. See it/. This is the interpretation given the clause by WAPA, which asserts that the pref-' <br />, m:nce clause is a "tie-breaker" applicable only when the Secretary's discretion finds two con1lict- <br />I iIIg applications equally well adapted to serve the public interest. WAPA Staff Discussion Paper, <br />i sup,a note 10, at 5-6. <br />! 58. See, e.g., Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 6 800(a) (1976); Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 <br />; uS.C. fi 825 (1976); Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 43 U.S.C. 6 485h(c) (1976); Colorado River <br />: B3Sin Proje<..'t Act, 43 U.S.C. 6 1554 (1976) (incorporating 43 U.S.C. 6485h(c)). <br />I 59. See supra note 58. <br />r 60. See 43 U.S.C. fi 617d(c) (1976). This modification probably was engendered by the no- <br />: lion that, since Arizona and Nevada owned the bed of the Colorado River, a navigable stream <br />:IArizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423, 437 (1931)) upon which the dam was built, these states were <br />: ClItitled to a "preferred right" to the energy generated at the dam: Hearings on H.R. .5773 Before <br />:lItt House Comm. on Irrigation and Reclamation, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 28 (1928). Nevada and <br />. A'!zona partially rest their claim to one-third of the Hoove~ power on this notion. See Nevada <br />,i1nef, mpra note 8, at 67; infra notes 81-85 and accompanymg text, <br />: 61. See City of Santa Clara v. Andrus, S72 F.2d 660, 667-68 (9th Cir. 1978) (interpreting <br />~atiOll Act of 1939); Disposition of Surplus Power Generated at Clark HiD Reservoir Pro- <br />'jett, 41 Op. Att'y Gen. 236, 246-48 (1955) (interpreting Flood Control Act of 1944). <br />62. See Santa Clara v. Andrus, S72 F.2d 660, 667 (9th Cir. 1978); Disposition of Power Gen- <br />erated at Clark HiD Reservoir Project, 41 Op. Att) Gen. 236, 239 (1955). <br />.63. To a certain extent the Secretary's allocation of power under a preference clause is not <br />~bJea to judicial review. See City of Santa Clara v. Andrus, S72 F.2d 660, 666-68 (9th Cir. 1978); <br />;,po notes 285-90 and accompanying text. <br />64. See City of Santa Clara v. Andrus, 572 F.2d 660, 667 (9th Cir. 1978); Arizona Power <br />Auth. v. Monon, 549 F.2d 1231, 1241 (9th Cir. 1977); Arizona Power Pooling Ass'n v. Monon, 527 <br />F ld 721, 727 (9th Cir. 1975). <br />65. See supro note S7 and accompanying text. <br />66. See 43 U.S.C. 6 617d(c) (1976); Interpretations of Certain Provisions of the Boulder Can- <br />tOn Project Act," 53 Int. Dec. I, 7-8 (1930) [hereinafter cited as Interpretations of BCP AI; WAF A <br />5taJr Discussion Paper, supra note 10, at 5-6; supra notes 52-60 and accompanying text. <br />" <br /> <br />, ~:/ <br />!:",. <br />::,': <br />! :1d: <br /> <br />:f::', <br />!)'I; <br />t.::: <br />i ;!! .~ <br /> <br />Iii".!,:!.' <br />"'" <br />j-,'; <br />1'1' <br />il'::W! <br />If"" <br />II';,!:> <br />j ~~.:- <br /> <br /> <br />li~r <br /> <br />!f:"i: <br />:\:i" <br />!!m:! <br /> <br />111'1( <br />, "I"" <br />I:l'j:.-: <br />'l'{,;; <br />II).:' <br />!I:;,;;- , <br /> <br />:~',:,; <br />II,i.i.' <br />!!;:~~; <br />t".. <br />III,::: <br />If:!::n~: . <br />I~.,'.." , <br />'f" ~; '. <br />!i;i;~r <br />iI,'.:'.' <br />:." ~-. . <br />It~::-: <br />It"... <br />I!r;f <br /> <br />i:.--' <br /> <br />;r~" <br /> <br />i;":";:;, <br />F., <br />in::,: <br />i,-"!" <br />I:,:, <br />r.:j" <br /> <br />i[1;1:!, <br /> <br />i~ " " <br /> <br />~1' <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />" ;;"J,l <br />" '" 'J1 <br /> <br /> <br />, <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />1 <br />H <br />j <br />. j <br /> <br />I .~. <br />\, <br />j <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />.~ <br />.~ <br /> <br />o_! <br /> <br />f. <br />