Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The point of view taken by many of the <br />speakers has been that the amendment merely <br />added R. E. A. cooperatives to a preferred <br />list of public-power distributors already <br />established by law; that is not the case. <br />Existing law only gives preference to sale <br />for municipal purposes, not to municipalities <br />as distributors of power. 84 Congo Rec. <br />10223 (1939). <br /> <br />The legislative history of the Reclamation Project <br />Act of 1939 shows the intention of Congress that <br />Federal hydropower be sold to municipalities as <br />utilities. The marketing of power by Western and <br />Western's predecessors has consistently taken <br />place in accordance with this congressional <br />policy. Courts of law frequently show great <br />deference to the interpretation of a law by the <br />agency charged with its administration. Udall v. <br />Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 (1965). Such deference is <br />due on the preference clause issue. <br /> <br />There can be no doubt that the policies attacked <br />by UP&L are longstanding. Congress has recently <br />outlined the history of preference policy and <br />reaffirmed the validity not only of the preference <br />clause, but also of sales to preference utilities <br /> <br />23 <br />