Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />part of the country. Eligibility requirements for <br />numerous Federal benefits preclude uniform <br />enjoyment of those benefits by all taxpayers. The <br />, <br /> <br />congressional policylof selling Federal hydropower <br />I , <br />first to municipal u~ilities similarly offers <br /> <br />direct benefits only'to certain eligible <br /> <br />enti ti es. Relevant Federal 1 aws gi ve preference <br /> <br />to public bodies, andi cooperatives, not to all <br />i <br /> <br />taxpayers. While the notion of widespread use is <br /> <br />certainly important in the marketing of Federal <br /> <br />power, it does not vitiate the preference clause. <br /> <br />Nor can UP&L argue that the 143 cities, towns and <br />counties deSiring an allocation of the CRSP <br />resource have no opportunity to obtain the <br />benefits of low-cost Federal power. The <br />opportunity to receive an allocation exists for <br />all taxpayers in the marketing area. To actually <br />obtain those benefits, taxpayers must act together <br />to create a public utility. <br /> <br />Utah Power & Light criticizes Western's proposed <br />marketing criteria on the ground that the <br />"widespread use!' policy in reclamation law has <br />been mi sapp 1 i ed in an arbi trary and capri ci ous <br />manner. Precedent involving the Power Authority <br />of the State of New York and the Southeastern <br /> <br />34 <br />