Opinion ID: 343208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Summary of Legislative History

Text: 91 Arizona Power has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that the Marketing Criteria clearly violate the legislative intent behind CRSP. The deletion of the mandatory geographic preferences in the bills introduced in the 83rd Congress does not indicate an intent to invalidate all geographic preferences. In our view, that deletion had two purposes: (1) to ensure compliance with Section 485h(c) reclamation law preferences by not permitting nonpreference customers in the upper division states a priority over preference customers outside that area; and (2) to ensure that power be marketed at firm power rates that would maximize power revenues needed to reimburse the government. 92 The geographic preference of the Marketing Criteria does not contravene these policies. First, the existence of some sort of withdrawal program was certainly contemplated by Congress. The history consistently evidenced an intent to promote primarily the development of the upper division states. This intent is effectively accomplished by a scheme to market eventually the bulk of CRSP power to the upper division states while generating power revenues in the interim by selling significant blocks of power to lower division customers. Withdrawal is the only means of reconciling these two goals. 59 Second, the Marketing Criteria do not permit nonpreference customers to have a priority over preference customers. 93 We conclude, therefore, that Arizona Power has failed to establish from the legislative history that the Secretary's action falls outside the realm of his discretion and conflicts with congressional purposes. Equally significant, in our view, is Arizona Power's failure to identify in the legislative history a standard for administrative conduct against which we can measure the Secretary's action. It must be remembered that our task, or at least a part of our task, in this review is to determine whether there is (a) law to apply. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, supra, 401 U.S. at 410, 91 S.Ct. 814. Arizona Power has alleged, unsuccessfully, that the geographic preferences violate congressional intent, but it has failed to articulate what law we should apply; i. e., it did not demonstrate what the congressionally devised standard for power distribution is. 94 Perhaps Arizona Power is suggesting that the applicable law is a same basis standard. But we find this standard so vague as to be meaningless and hence no genuine limitation on the Secretary's discretion. For example, a same basis standard could be construed as requiring each of the seven basin states to receive one-seventh of the power. It should be noted that Arizona now receives more than a one-seventh share. Alternatively, the same basis standard could require allocation on the basis of each state's population, number of preference customers, past or projected energy needs, or the amount of Colorado River water allocated to each state under the Colorado River or Upper Colorado River Basin Compacts. 60 But the legislative history provides no basis for adopting any of these interpretations as the controlling standard for CRSP power distribution. Rather, that history points to a congressional commitment of the decision within certain express limitations not applicable here to the discretion of the Secretary.