Laserfiche WebLink
<br />existing rules or understandings that stem <br />from an independent source . .. that secure <br />certain benefits and that support claims of <br />entitlement to those benefits. <br /> <br />See also Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593, <br />601 (1972). <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />Under the Roth test, an investor-owned utility has <br />no legitimate claim of entitlement to Federal <br />hydropower, especially when preference utilities <br />are in competition for that power. Nor are <br />municipalities served by UP&L, or the citizens <br />within those towns, in a position to stake a <br />legitimate claim to CRSP power in the face of an <br />overriding congressional intent to make such power <br />available first to preference utilities. Even <br />assuming that the cities represented by UP&L are <br />within the class of preference entities eligible <br />for CRSP power, they possess no "property" <br />interest in CRSP power as against other preferred <br />entities such as municipal utilities. No <br />procedural due process safeguards are <br />constitutionally required in the allocation <br />decision among preference entities. Santa Clara <br />v. Andrus, 572 F .2d at 676. Furthermore, even if <br />UP&L or the cities it represents are entitled to <br /> <br />49 <br />