Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm'n
| Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued January 17, 1983 Decided April 20, 1983 |
|
| Full case name | Pacific Gas & Electric Co., et al. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, et al. |
| Citations | 461 U.S. 190 (more)
103 S. Ct. 1713, 75 L. Ed.2d 752 (1983)
|
| Prior history | Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, 489 F. Supp. 699 (E.D. Cal. 1980), reversed by Pacific Legal Found. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 659 F.2d 903 (1981) |
| Holding | |
| States are not preempted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 from enacting a moratorium on new nuclear generating plants until the federal government has approved and there exists a means for the disposal of high-level radiological waste. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Burger, Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Blackmun, joined by Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2011-2282; Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25524.1(b) | |
In Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that a state statute regulating economic aspects of nuclear generating plants was not preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The case provides a framework that has guided other cases involving preemption of federal authority.
The issue of nuclear waste: The radioactive waste fuel in a nuclear reactor must be periodically removed. Because nuclear power plant operators originally assumed that the fuel would be reprocessed, storage pools made to hold it were relatively limited in capacity and design. Over time, however, it became clear that the fuel would not be reprocessed. This resulted in large stores of radioactive waste. As a result, as Justice White noted, that "problems of how and whereto store nuclear wastes [have] engendered considerable scientific, political, and public debate."
California statute: Responding to these concerns, California in 1974 enacted the Warren-Alquist State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 25000 et seq. Under the act, which was amended in 1976 to add new regulations, operators of nuclear and certain other power plants had to apply for certification by the new State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, or "Energy Commission" for short. Two sections in particular became the subject of dispute:
Dispute: Two California public utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric Companies, filed an action in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that these two provisions of the Warren-Alquist act (as well as various others) were invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution because they were preempted by (conflicted with) the Atomic Energy Act. The federal district court agreed.
...
Wikipedia