Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Mississippi
72 L. Ed. 2d 532, 456 U.S. 742, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 38 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under its Commerce Clause authority, Congress may condition a state's continued regulation of a preemptible field on the state's consideration of federally proposed standards and its enforcement of federal law. This conditional preemption does not violate the Tenth Amendment as it does not directly compel the state to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program.
Facts:
- In 1978, in response to a nationwide energy crisis, Congress enacted the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).
- Titles I and III of PURPA directed state utility regulatory commissions to 'consider' adopting and implementing specific federal standards for setting electricity and natural gas utility rates.
- The Act did not mandate that states adopt the federal standards, but required them to hold public hearings on the matter and issue a written statement of reasons if they declined to adopt them.
- Section 210 of PURPA required state commissions to implement rules, promulgated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), that obligated electric utilities to buy power from and sell power to qualifying small power production and cogeneration facilities.
- The Mississippi Public Service Commission, the state body responsible for regulating intrastate utility activities in Mississippi, was subject to these federal mandates.
- As a result, Mississippi was directed by federal law to expend state resources to hold hearings, consider specific federal policy proposals, and implement federal rules for utility regulation.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Mississippi and the Mississippi Public Service Commission filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Secretary of Energy.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that Titles I, III, and Section 210 of PURPA were unconstitutional.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court held for Mississippi, finding that PURPA exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and violated the Tenth Amendment.
- FERC and the Secretary of Energy, the defendants, appealed the trial court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), which requires state utility commissions to consider federal ratemaking standards and to implement federal rules regarding energy cogeneration, exceed congressional power under the Commerce Clause or violate the Tenth Amendment by compelling states to enact and administer a federal regulatory program?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) is a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause and does not violate the Tenth Amendment. Congress had a rational basis to conclude that regulating intrastate utility activities, which have an immediate effect on interstate commerce, was necessary to address the nationwide energy crisis. The Tenth Amendment is not violated because PURPA does not commandeer state governments. Section 210's requirement that state commissions implement FERC's rules by adjudicating disputes is a valid application of the principle from Testa v. Katt, which holds that state courts and analogous adjudicative bodies must enforce federal law. The requirements in Titles I and III that states merely 'consider' federal standards are a constitutional form of conditional preemption. Since Congress could have completely preempted the field of utility regulation, it was permissible for it to choose a less intrusive scheme that allows states to continue regulating on the condition that they consider federal proposals. This structure represents a program of 'cooperative federalism,' not a direct compulsion of state legislative power.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Powell
No, in part, and Yes, in part. While precedent supports the constitutionality of PURPA's substantive provisions, the procedural requirements imposed on state regulatory agencies violate the Tenth Amendment. The Act's mandates regarding intervention, enforcement, and judicial review intrude upon core areas of a state's administrative and judicial procedure. The federal government cannot supplant state-prescribed procedures that define the nature of state administrative agencies. Such an intrusion represents a 'tyranny of small decisions' that gradually erodes state sovereignty, regardless of whether Congress could have preempted the entire field.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice O'Connor
No, in part, and Yes, in part. While PURPA is within the scope of the Commerce Clause, Titles I and III are unconstitutional because they 'conscript state utility commissions into the national bureaucratic army,' violating the principles of National League of Cities v. Usery. The Act infringes on state sovereignty by dictating the regulatory agenda of state agencies and impairing their ability to address local issues. The majority's rationale that states can 'choose' to avoid PURPA by abandoning utility regulation is an 'absurdity,' as it offers a false choice that would effectively nullify the Tenth Amendment. This scheme is not cooperative federalism but a direct compulsion that blurs political accountability and is inconsistent with the Framers' intent to create independent state and national sovereigns.
Analysis:
This case significantly affirmed Congress's broad power under the Commerce Clause to regulate areas with a substantial effect on the national economy, like energy. More importantly, it established the 'conditional preemption' doctrine as a permissible way for Congress to influence state policy without running afoul of the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering principle. The Court distinguished between directly compelling a state to legislate, which is forbidden, and offering a state the choice to either regulate according to federal conditions or cede the field to federal control. This decision set the stage for later landmark federalism cases, like New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, which would further refine and narrow the limits of federal power over the states.
Unlock the full brief for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Mississippi