Laserfiche WebLink
<br />sides, that this is the appropriate application of <br />the preference laws. While the UP&L application <br />on behalf of 143 cities, counties, and towns does <br />not constitute a unique situation meriting equal <br />consideration with consumer-owned utilities, the <br />arguments in its favor do persuade Western that <br />such an arrangement is superior to direct sales to <br />investor-owned utilities and should have priority <br />within the nonpreference category. Western <br />proposes to modify the priorities as follows: <br /> <br />(1) Preference entities within the SLCA <br />Integrated Projects market area; <br /> <br />(2) Preference entities outside the.market area; <br /> <br />and <br /> <br />(3) Nonpreference entities, provided that those <br />nonpreference entities acting as agents for <br />public entities without distribution systems <br />shall receive priority over nonpreference <br />entities acting on their own behalf. <br /> <br />The law is silent as to any priorities that should <br /> <br />be given among qualified preference entities. <br /> <br />Generally speaking, when a resource first becomes <br /> <br />available, all qualified applicants are treated <br /> <br />57 <br />