Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, . <br /> <br />(b) Discussion: <br /> <br />, <br />The above comments have been grouped for discussion <br />i <br /> <br />into the following nu~bered categories: <br /> <br />(1) Preference issues raised by UP&L <br /> <br />(2) Priorities amongiqua1ified preference entities <br /> <br />(1) Preference issueS raised by UP&L. One of the <br />central issues that has arisen during the <br />development of marketing criteria for the SLCA <br />Integrated Projej:ts, inc1udi ng the CRSP resource, <br /> <br />, <br />is the preferenc;e clause, and its relationship to <br />UP&L's request for power. UP&L indicates that it <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />wants to be allocated a portion of the marketable <br />Federal power d,rect1y. In addition, UP&L has <br />stated its willingness to act as an agent for 143 <br />I <br />cities, countie$ and towns located in Utah and <br />! <br />Wyoming, if Western chooses to allocate power <br />directly to tho~e local governments. <br /> <br />Western will first consider the application of <br />. i <br />UP&L on 1 ts own! behalf. UP&L is an investor-owned <br />, <br /> <br />uti1 ity p,rimarily subject to the jurisdiction of <br />the Utah Public Service Commission. The CRSP Act <br />of April 11, 1956, does not explicitly contain a <br />j <br />provision addr4ssing preference. However, <br /> <br />10 <br />