Laserfiche WebLink
<br />that says if you do not have the ability to <br />directly distribute the energy, you cannot even <br />wait at the end of the line and have preference." <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />130 Co ng. Rec. H3336 (May 3, 1984). The amendment <br />was rejected. Id. Representative Hunter of <br />California then introduced an amendment which <br />would allow 10 megawatts from the Hoover uprates <br />to be offered to entities in California, with a <br />preference to entities in areas of the State where <br />retail rates for power were high. As with the <br />bill introduced by Representative Bates, <br />Mr. Hunter's amendment allowed for the allocation <br />of power "without regard to whether these entities <br />own their own transmission and distribution <br />facilities." 130 Congo Rec. H3338 (May 3,1984). <br />The power would have been put under contract only <br />if the purchasing entity certified that the power <br />would be resold at cost plus distribution costs. <br />Rising in opposition to the Hunter amendment, <br />Representati ve Udall stated that "thi s amendment <br />has a 11 the vi ces of the Bates amendment ," and <br />that the Hunter proposal "wou 1 d destroy the <br />preference clause." 130 Congo Rec. H3338 (May 3, <br />1984). The Hunter amendment, as with the Bates <br />proposal, was defeated on the House floor. <br /> <br />29 <br />