Laserfiche WebLink
<br />investor-owned utilities from making a profit on a <br />publ i c resou rce, and serves as a yardsti ck to <br />encourage competition within the utility <br />industry. As a rational basis exists, no equal <br />protection violation occurs. Matthews v. <br />DeCastro, 429 U.S. 181, 185 (1976). <br /> <br />A violation of the constitutionally protected <br />right to travel is also a defect of the proposed <br />marketing criteria, according to UP&L. Western <br />does not agree. Modern case law on the right to <br />travel issue is fundamentally concerned with state <br />residency requirements and their adverse impact on <br />the fundamental needs and rights of the traveler. <br />Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. <br />250, 261-62 (1974). UP&L does not argue that a <br />new arrival in Utah or Wyoming, in either a town <br />served by a municipal utility or a town served by <br />an investor-owned utility, is charged a higher <br />rate for.power than long-time residents. As such, <br />there is no discrimination against an interstate <br />migrant in favor of existing Utah or Wyoming <br />residents. See Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, <br />342 n.12 (1972). No fundamental right is at stake <br />simply because one citizen pays more for <br />electricity than another citizen. The question of <br /> <br />51 <br />