Laserfiche WebLink
<br />re-affirmation of: preference and yardstick <br />competition as a national policy. Western <br />believes that the position of UP&L on this issue <br />is at odds with this policy. Given the <br />consistently evident congressional intent to <br />foster competitidn through Federal power sales to <br />preference utili~ies, and the relative lack of <br />competitive advantages in UP&L's proposal, Western <br />believes that a continuation of the past Federal <br />practice of allocating power first to municipal <br />util i ti es is warranted in thi s reproposed criteri a. <br /> <br />Utah Power and Light also advances the argument <br />that preference laws only establish a priority as <br />to price, anQ no,t as to ri ght.. If UP&L were to <br />bid a higher price for CRSP power, it is argued, <br />, <br />the CRSP would b~ best served by a sale which <br />would result in .additional assistance in the <br /> <br />repayment of water projects. In effect, UP&L is <br />suggesting that I preference. should only be <br />significant if the bids for Federal hydrop.ower are <br />equal. <br /> <br />From the standpoint of the fiscal vitality of <br />i <br />water project d~velopment in the upper basin of <br />i <br />, <br />the Colorado River, UP&L's suggestion has 'some <br /> <br />appe~l. Jhe Reclamation Project Act of 1939 <br /> <br />, 40 <br /> <br />I, <br />