Laserfiche WebLink
<br />/ <br /> <br />- 4 - <br /> <br />"preference laws," these laws were passed by Congress to prevent the benefits of <br />using the Nation's waterways to be garnered for private gain. CREDA's legal <br />analysis demonstrates that no Congress, court or federal agency has ever agreed <br />with UP&L's reading of the 1939 Reclamation Act or the 1944 Flood Control Act - <br />the two statutes which govern the sale of CRSP power. To the contrary, every <br />time an attack like UP&L's has been mounted against these laws, it has been <br />rejected. <br /> <br />In spite of existing federal law, UP&L argues that its version of <br />"fairness" dictates that these laws are no longer constitutional. UP&L claims that <br />unless present laws are overturned, its "due process" rights will be violated, not- <br />withstanding the fact that it has no legal right to CRSP power. UP&L goes on to <br />argue that its "equal protection" rights are at stake and that its rights under the <br />10th Amendment of the Constitution - which prohibits federal interference with <br />traditional state functions - would be violated without CRSP power. Both argu- <br />ments have been flatly rejected by the Supreme Court, as discussed in detail in <br />CREDA's legal analysis. <br />CREDA has assembled its engineering and legal analyses to rebut <br />UP&L's application for CRSP power. The analyses follow this discussion. <br />The engineering report shows how consumer-owned systems will be <br />substantially damaged, with very little benefit to UP&L, if their CRSP power is <br />given to UP&L. The engineering report also shows how consumer-owned systems <br />paid a very real premium when they first acquired CRSP power and how they have <br />lost forever the opportunity to recover the competitive position they once enjoyed <br />vis ~ vis private power companies if CRSP power is taken away at this late date. <br />