Laserfiche WebLink
<br />House Report:No. 1774, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 22 <br />(1954). Accqrd, Arizona Power Authority v. Morton, <br /> <br />, <br />549 F.2d 1231, 1237 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 434 <br />U.S. 835 (1977). <br /> <br />--- <br /> <br />The general reclamation law referred to by the <br />Conmittee gives pl'eference to municipalities, <br />pUblic corporatiors, public agencies, <br />cooperatives, nonprofit organizations and public <br />bodies. UP&L is none of these. In fact, <br />arguments supporting the application for power by <br />UP&L arecontrar~ to the expressed attitude of <br />UP&L towards the: preference clause at the time the <br />CRSP legislation,was being considered. The <br />following excerpt is from the testimony of David <br />O. Moffat, Jr., Vice President of the Utah Power & <br />Light Co., before a Senate subconmittee in 1955. <br />Mr. Moffat was explaining several principles for <br />cooperation of private enterprise and the Federal <br />Government, in qonnection with the marketing of <br /> <br />I . <br />CRSP power, whe~ the following colloquy took place: <br /> <br />MR. MOFFAT;..The private utilities are willing <br />to enter into contracts whereby they will <br />del iver pr!lject power to preference customers <br />making sucr reasonable transmission charges <br />, <br /> <br />12 <br />