Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission
461 U.S. 190 (1983)
Rule of Law:
The Atomic Energy Act does not preempt state laws that condition the construction of new nuclear power plants on economic grounds, as Congress intended to leave traditional state authority over the economic regulation of electric utilities intact, including determinations of need, cost, and reliability.
Facts:
- Nuclear power reactors produce intensely radioactive spent fuel that must be carefully stored.
- Initially, spent fuel was stored in temporary, on-site pools with the expectation that it would be reprocessed, but widespread reprocessing did not occur.
- The accumulation of spent fuel in these limited-capacity pools created a risk that reactors would have to shut down for lack of storage space.
- At the time, no federally approved, permanent, long-term disposal method for high-level nuclear waste had been developed, creating significant uncertainty.
- This unresolved waste disposal problem posed a substantial economic risk to the viability and cost-effectiveness of nuclear power generation.
- In 1976, California enacted a law (§ 25524.2) imposing a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear plants.
- The moratorium would remain in effect until the State Energy Commission found that a federally approved, demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste existed.
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison Co. were utility companies that sought to construct and operate nuclear power plants in California.
Procedural Posture:
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison Co. filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that provisions of California's Warren-Alquist Act, including the nuclear moratorium in § 25524.2, were preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act.
- The District Court ruled in favor of the utilities, holding that the challenged provisions were preempted and therefore void.
- The State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment, holding that § 25524.2 was not preempted because it was based on economic concerns rather than radiation safety.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
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 Atomic Energy Act preempt a California state law that imposes a moratorium on the certification of new nuclear power plants until the state finds that a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste exists?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. The Atomic Energy Act does not preempt California's moratorium on new nuclear plant construction. The Act establishes a dual regulatory system where the federal government has exclusive authority over radiological safety, but states retain their traditional authority over economic questions, such as the need for generating capacity, reliability, and cost. California's law is not aimed at regulating radiation hazards but at the economic uncertainties created by the lack of a permanent nuclear waste disposal solution. Because the state's rationale is economic rather than safety-based, the law falls within the state's traditional sphere of authority and is not preempted. While Congress intended to promote nuclear power, it did not intend for this development to proceed 'at all costs' or to displace the states' role in making economic judgments about energy generation.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Agreed with the judgment, but on different grounds. The majority is wrong to suggest that a state moratorium motivated by safety concerns would be preempted. Congress occupied the narrow field of how to construct and operate nuclear plants safely, not the broader, threshold question of whether a state should permit their construction at all. States retain the traditional authority to choose their energy sources and should be permitted to decline the nuclear option for any reason, including safety. To hold otherwise would create a regulatory vacuum where no entity is empowered to make a holistic judgment about whether the risks of nuclear power are acceptable for a particular state.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of dual regulation in the nuclear energy field, creating a clear distinction between federal safety authority and state economic authority. It provides states with a potent, legally defensible avenue to halt or slow the development of new nuclear power plants by citing economic uncertainties, even when those uncertainties are directly linked to unresolved safety issues like waste disposal. The ruling affirms that federal promotion of an industry does not automatically override a state's traditional police powers to regulate the economic feasibility of that industry within its borders, significantly impacting the future landscape of nuclear power development in the United States.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission (1983)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"