Laserfiche WebLink
<br />due process protection, this simply means they <br />must be affordedian opportunity to be heard at a <br /> <br />. <br />meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. <br />Armstrong v. Manfo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965). <br />Western believesithat they have been afforded <br />amp le opportuni ty in thi s regard. <br /> <br />Equal protectionl under the law is the second major <br />constitutional opjection raised by UP&L. In <br />summary, UP&L ma~ntains that the cities it serves, <br />and the citizens within those cities, are being <br />treated i rrati onally by Western. The 1 ack of <br /> <br />, <br />rationality, according to the investor-owned <br />i <br />utility, flows ~rom Western's decision to serve <br />one class of po~er users, served by the <br />di stribution system of UP&L,. differently from the <br />class of power ~sers served by municipal <br />utilities. wes~ern is not persuaded by this <br />i <br />argument. Assuming for the purpose of discussion <br />that UP&L or the cities on whose behalf UP&L acts <br /> <br />have standing to assert a violation of equal <br />protection, the~e is a rational basis for the <br />i <br />classification. ~et forth in the criteria. Among <br />other reasons, 'preference in the sale of Federal <br />power to munici!pal utilities serves the intent of <br />Congress, promqtes local control, prevents <br />! <br /> <br />50 <br />