WSP03019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- 3 - '... CREDA's counsel, Duncan, Allen and Mitchell of Washington, D.C., the policy considerations which led to the development and continuation of the preference clause are reviewed, the federal laws which support Western's decision not to sell power to UP&L are discussed, and the flaws which render UP&L's constitutional claims invalid are exposed. The preference clause represents the Congressional determination that national resources should be devoted to the people and should be distributed directly to the people without the use of an intermediary that would profit by acting as a middle-man. Accordingly, Congress decided that power generated at federally-owned hydroelectric projects must be offered for sale first to public bodies, such as municipalities, joint action agencies, cooperatives, and other public, non-profit organizations, before any of the available power may be offered to a private corporation like UP&L. An additional benefit of the preference clause is that it helps to keep the rates of investor-owned utilities in check by providing competition in the essentially monopolistic electric utility industry. The marketing criteria which Western has proposed for the sale of CRSP power after 1989 conform to the requirements of the preference clause. These criteria distinguish between preference entities which own and operate their own distribution systems and those that rely on private companies such as UP&L to sell power to their citizens. The type of scheme UP&L proposes is essentially a subterfuge. CRSP power would theoretically be allocated to UP&L's Agent Cities but would, in reality, be instantaneously resold by those Agent Cities to UP&L for ultimate distribution. Similar schemes have been attempted in the past and have been rejected by courts and federal agencies. Western's refusal to sell power in a manner which would benefit UP&L does not violate UP&L's or its Agent Cities' due process rights, as claimed by UP&L. The "due process" required by the Constitution simply means that one must be given the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaning- ful manner. The procedure which Western has instituted and is following for the development of ' its post-1989 CRSP marketing pIan provides more than an ade- quate opportunity for members of the public to be heard by Western. UP&L has participated fully in Western's public proceedings. Accordingly, UP&L has no legitimate claim that it has been deprived of due process of law. UP&L has also claimed that the constitutional right of citizens to be given equal protection of the laws would be violated if Western refused to accede to its demands for power. Contrary to UP&L's allegations, the Constitution does not require absolute equality nor does it preclude the government from enacting laws which make distinctions or classifications between citizens or regions. The guarantees of equal protection merely require that the government's reasons for providing benefits to a particular group of persons or geographic region be ration- al. If a classification created by a statute is "suspect" because it discriminates according to race, national origin or alienage or if a "fundamental" right is affect- ed, the government may be required to show that it had compelling reasons for creating the classifications.