Laserfiche WebLink
<br />context of the Hoover Powerplant Act of 1984. See <br />also Senate Report No. 98-340, 98th Cong., 1st <br />Sess. 53 (1983). Even more to the point, Western <br />has no present authority to use appropriated <br />dollars to even study the possibility of selling <br />Federal power at a market price. Energy and Water <br />Development Appropriation Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. <br />98-50, section 506, 97 Stat. 247, 261-62 (1983). <br />Under these circumstances, Western cannot adopt <br />UP&L's suggestion that CRSP power should be sold <br />to the highest bidder. <br /> <br />Utah Power and Light suggests that Western need <br />not rely on the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 <br />for authority to sell CRSP power to Utah and <br />Wyoming municipalities not served by preference <br />utilities. Specifically, UP&L relies upon some <br />"municipal purposes" language in the Town Sites <br />and Power Development Act of 1906 as being <br />supportive of such an allocation. 43 U.S.C. <br />section 522. Western believes that more recent <br />preference laws, being more comprehensive than the <br />1906 legislation, offer a better insight into <br />current congressional intent and policy. <br />Furthermore, the proposed marketing criteria are <br />consistent with the 1906 law, as the sale of power <br /> <br />45 <br />