OCR Text |
Show At PSC hearing Po wer debate expected to ignite anew Monday whether the sale is "in the public interest." in-terest." The PSC will hear testimony from federation attorneys, UP&L and CPN attorney, representatives of consumer groups and a host of witnesses who have asked to be heard. The latter will include the Iron . County Board of Commission, who have passed a resolution favoring UP&L. The PSC will consider the puchase price and its effect on both CPN and UP&L rate payers; how the federation proposes to provide services if the system is condemned; what the impact will be on UP&L customers who do not have all-electric rate schedules like CPN customers; and how much of the purchase price will be allowed in the rate schedules. UP&L also has been asked by the PSC to account for money it spent on its public relations campaign in southern Utah. Whether the PSC decision or the court condemnation suit will be the final instrument in determining who ultimately will own the CPN system is not entirely clear at present. Whether or not the PCS can determine that it' is in the public interest for UP&L to purchase a system which is undergoing condemnation procedures will probably be a central question at the hearings. There is little doubt, though, the PSC realizes it is sitting on the hottest issue in southern Utah, except ' for the deployment of the MX missile. Special to The Record The Utah Public Service Commission meetings here Monday can be expected to ignite anew all the sparks of controversy con-troversy generated in the past three years by the question of whether southwestern south-western Utah should be served by a private-or publicly -owned power utility. The spotlight will be on the hearings at wich the PSC must decide if it is in the public interest to approve the sale of CP National to Utah Power & Light Company. Off in the wings, however, is a court action taken by the Southwest Utah Cooperative Power Federation in May, which could leave UP&L holding a condemned system if the sale is approved. ap-proved. The federation, ' made up of municipalities and Rural Electrification Elec-trification Associations in the CPN service area, have used the municipalities powers of eminent domain to condemn the system and have the courts establish a fair price. Will the PSC, in making its decision on the CPN-UP&L sale, have preempted preemp-ted the court's prerogative to establish a fair price for the system- if it legitimatizes the proposed UP&L purchase price of the equivalent of $20 million in cash and or property? The tough question is just one of a number which must be answered by the PSC after taking testimony at the hearings. The hearings get underway at the Cedar City High School Auditorium at 2 p.m., Monday with an evening session set for 6 p.m., for those unable to attend the daytime session. The PSC had set aside the entire week for the hearings if necessary. The hearings are just the latest in a series of moves and counter-moves by proponents and opponents and opponents op-ponents of public power. While public power advocates would say the power issue in southern Utah goes back beyond the time when the Cedar City Council in July 1973 opted to renew its franchise with CP National rather than exercise its option to obtain cheap federal Glen Canyon Dam power by establishing its own power system, opponents would disagree. . They would say the present controversy con-troversy started when CPN's power rates became the highest in the state. Two things happened to cause the higher rates. CPN had contracted with the Bureau of Reclamation for the Glen Canyon Dam power at cheap rates and that contract expired in 1975. CPN was forced to contract with UP&L for wholesale power. To deliver the wholesale power to the CPN service area, CPN entered into an agreement with UP&L to pay the costs of a 230 KV transmission line from UP&L's sigurd substation to the Iron County border. bor-der. While CPN customers paid for the line through its rates, UP&L retained ownership of the line. Thus, CPN became a "middleman," since 95 percent of its power was obtained ob-tained from UP&L. Customer dissatisfaction with the leap in their power bills precipitated a . political battle in Cedar City, the major consumer of CPN power, which resulted in Democrats being elected to the city council in 1977 for the first time in J7 years. At the first budget hearing, which came six months after the new council took office, the council budgeted $50,000 for a feasibility study to determine the economics of acquiring the CPN system for the city. The study by. Ford, Bacon & Davis Engineers claimed the city could save 10 percent on its utility bills by establishing a municipal system and as much as 20 percent if it went in with other municipalities in the CPN service area and purchased the entire CPN system in Washington, Kane and Iron Counties, as well as Fredonia, Ariz., transmission lines and all. The figures delevloped by the engineering firm were based on a book value price for the system of $14.3 million: Meanwhile, the federation had been established to form the mechanism by which ' the whole system could be acquired. CPN, a California-based utility, announced in late 1978 its intention to sell Utah holdings. Negotiations between bet-ween the federation and CPN for the purchase of the system started in April 1979. After upping its offer for the system several times during the negotiation process, the federation in November 1979 was awaiting word back from CPN it h had signed a letter of intent to sell the Utah private utility to UP&L. The announcement was followed by an intense campaign in southern Utah by UP&L to convince residents they would be served better by UP&L, The Salt Lake-based company promised an immediate reduction in rates of 10 percent by cutting out CPN, the "middleman." A non-binding referendum in Cedar City in February, however, resulted in Cedar City residents voting by a moderate majority of 1771 to 1443, in favor of establishing a municipal system. In the absence of a final contract of sale between the two private utilities, the federation on Mar. 3, 1980, announced an-nounced its intention to use the right of eminent domain to acquire the CPN system through a condemnation suit, which was filed in 5th District Court early in May. On Apr. 29, UP&L announced it had reached an agreement with CPN to purchase its system for the equivalent of more than $20 million in cash and or properties. UP&L subsequently "filed motions to dismiss the condemnation suit and a full court hearing on the motions is pending. The suit for condemnation, which could take a year or more to settle, would establish a price which the federation would have to pay for the system. ' ' Meanwhile, the PSC in a pre-hearing in June decided on the scope of issues and legalities upon which it will hear arguments in its determination of |