Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California
475 U.S. 1 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state cannot require a privately owned utility company to include the speech of a third party in its billing envelopes, as doing so impermissibly burdens the company's First Amendment rights by forcing it to associate with and disseminate speech with which it may disagree.
Facts:
- For 62 years, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), a privately owned utility, distributed its own newsletter, 'Progress', in its monthly billing envelopes to over three million customers.
- The newsletter contained a variety of content, including political editorials, feature stories, energy conservation tips, and billing information.
- Toward Utility Rate Normalization (TURN) is a consumer advocacy group that frequently intervened in and opposed PG&E during ratemaking proceedings before the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
- The PUC determined that the 'extra space' in PG&E's billing envelopes—the space remaining that could be used without incurring additional postage costs—was the property of the ratepayers, not PG&E.
- Based on this determination, the PUC ordered PG&E to allow TURN to use this 'extra space' four times a year for two years to communicate with ratepayers and solicit funds.
- The PUC's stated goals for the order were to expose ratepayers to a variety of views on utility issues and to assist TURN in raising funds to support its advocacy.
- The PUC's order required TURN to include a disclaimer that its messages were not from PG&E, but it placed no other limitations on the content of what TURN could say.
Procedural Posture:
- Toward Utility Rate Normalization (TURN) intervened in a ratemaking proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), a state regulatory agency.
- TURN petitioned the PUC to grant it access to the 'extra space' in Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E) billing envelopes.
- The PUC issued a final order granting TURN the right to use the extra space in PG&E's billing envelopes four times per year.
- PG&E, as appellant, appealed the PUC's order directly to the California Supreme Court.
- The California Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied discretionary review of the case.
- PG&E appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction to hear the case.
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 a state utility commission's order requiring a privately owned utility company to include in its billing envelopes the messages of a third-party consumer group with which the utility disagrees violate the utility's First Amendment rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, the order violates PG&E's First Amendment rights. A state utility commission's order requiring a privately owned utility to carry the messages of a third-party group in its billing envelopes impermissibly burdens the utility's First Amendment rights. The right to speak includes the concomitant right to refrain from speaking or being associated with the speech of others. Citing Miami Herald v. Tornillo, the Court found that compelling a private speaker to provide a forum for other views penalizes the expression of particular points of view and forces the speaker to alter their own speech. The order was not content-neutral because it specifically granted access to a group that opposes the utility's views, creating a one-sided burden. The Commission's finding that ratepayers 'own' the extra space is constitutionally irrelevant; the order still forces PG&E to use its property—the envelopes—to spread a message with which it disagrees. The order is not a narrowly tailored means of serving a compelling state interest, as less intrusive means exist to achieve the state's goals, nor is it a valid time, place, or manner restriction because it is content-based.
Concurring - Chief Justice Burger
Yes, the order violates PG&E's First Amendment rights. The order violates PG&E's right to be free from forced association with views with which it disagrees, a principle established in Wooley v. Maynard. Compelling PG&E to mail messages for others is indistinguishable from compelling it to carry those messages on its trucks or buildings. The mailing envelopes are property acquired by PG&E through its own resources and cannot be commandeered by the state for this purpose.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
Yes, the order violates PG&E's First Amendment rights. This case is distinguishable from PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins. First, the intrusion here is greater because PG&E's billing envelope is a private forum, not a space opened to the public like a shopping center. Second, the state's order directly curtails PG&E's own ability to speak in its limited forum, whereas the shopping center owner in PruneYard did not allege his own speech was hindered. The state's interest in subsidizing another speaker is insufficient to justify this direct burden on PG&E's First Amendment rights.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No, the order does not violate PG&E's First Amendment rights. The access order does not unconstitutionally burden PG&E's right to speak. Any deterrent effect on PG&E's speech is remote and speculative, unlike the direct penalty in Tornillo. Furthermore, the negative free speech right to not associate with the speech of others, which is rooted in an individual's 'freedom of conscience,' should not be extended to business corporations. Corporate speech rights are instrumental to fostering a public forum of ideas, and this order enlarges, rather than abridges, public discussion. The case is constitutionally indistinguishable from PruneYard, and a disclaimer is sufficient to prevent any mistaken association of TURN's views with PG&E.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No, the order does not violate PG&E's First Amendment rights. The Court misconstrues the narrow scope of the Commission's order, which is limited to allowing a fundraising solicitation for a specific purpose, not open-ended political debate. This requirement is a small step from other permissible regulations compelling commercial communications, such as legal notices in bills or SEC rules requiring companies to transmit shareholder proposals. The Commission's rule makes a relevant audience accessible to a group with a demonstrable interest in reaching them for a limited and approved purpose, which does not cross a constitutional threshold.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the First Amendment rights of corporations by extending to them a strong negative right to be free from compelled speech. By applying principles from cases involving individuals (Wooley) and the institutional press (Tornillo), the Court established that a private company cannot be forced by the government to serve as a conduit for the messages of its adversaries. The ruling limits the power of regulatory agencies to promote certain viewpoints by commandeering a private entity's property for communication, even if that property is redefined as belonging to the public. It sets a precedent that content-based access mandates imposed on private speakers will be subject to strict scrutiny.
