Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ities," presents a different question. UP&L is <br />suggesting that ~hese applying municipalities <br />within the States of Utah and Wyoming should all <br />be treated as preference customers, regardless of <br />whether a city is served by UP&L or by a municipal <br />utility. UP&L a~gues that no Federal law directly <br />. <br /> <br />applicable to the CRSP requires that a municipal- <br />ity be a utility before preference status exists. <br />The Utah investor-owned utility believes that some <br />"municipal purpo$es" preference language, used in <br />an act passed by! Congress in' 1906, could be em- <br />ployed as a basis for selling Federa1 electricity <br />to a city, regardless of the character of the <br />util ity that physically serves that town's <br />citizens. <br /> <br />-~ <br />In, maki ng the argument that Western, under the <br /> <br />. <br />applicable preference clauses, can legally sell <br />electricity to cities that have no utility <br />responsibility,jUP&L has expressed its belief that <br />, <br />past policies arid legal opinions on the question <br />are ill-founded. UP&L is presenting a proposal to <br />Western that it'believes will meet the letter of <br />the relevant la~ and comport with the intent of <br />Congress. This! proposal essentially can be <br />summarized in five points: <br /> <br />18 <br />