Laserfiche WebLink
<br />power load to be served, but would contract with <br />UP&L to perform toe utility services necessary to <br />deliver CRSP power to their domestic and rural <br />cusumers, thereby! achievi ng the most widespread <br />benefit at the loWest possible rates. <br /> <br />A 1 though the UP&Li proposal comes closer to <br />satisfying prefe~nce law and Western's marketing <br />criteria than a direct allocation to an <br />investor-owned utility, Western is not presently <br />willing to revis~ the proposed criteria so as to <br />put those cities icurrently served by UP&L on the <br />same eligibilityilevel as preference utilities. <br />, <br /> <br />Several reasons underlie this decision. <br /> <br />The primary reasQn the UP&L proposal appears to be <br /> <br />, <br />deficient is tha~ it is inconsistent with <br />congressional in~ent. The legislative history of <br />I <br />the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 bears out the <br />fact that Congress intended for the preference <br />clause to extendi to municipalities as distributors <br />of power. Illus~rative is the statement made by <br />! <br />J. Kennard Cheadle. Assistant to the Commissioner <br />and Chief Counsel for the Bureau of Reclamation, <br />during hearings ion the 1939 legislation: <br /> <br />20 <br />