FERC v. Mississippi

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsCommerce ClauseTenth AmendmentPreemptionCooperative FederalismPURPApublic utilitiesstate regulatory commissions

Facts

PURPA was enacted as part of a federal response to the national energy crisis. Titles I and III required state utility regulators and nonregulated utilities to consider specified federal ratemaking and service standards, follow certain hearing and notice procedures, and report on their consideration, but did not require adoption of the standards. Section 210 required state regulatory authorities and nonregulated utilities to implement FERC rules encouraging cogeneration and small power production, including utility purchases from and sales to qualifying facilities. Mississippi challenged these provisions as beyond Congress's commerce power and as an invasion of state sovereignty.

Issue

Whether Titles I and III and § 210 of PURPA exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause or violated the Tenth Amendment by requiring state utility regulators to consider federal standards, follow specified procedures, and implement FERC rules concerning cogeneration and small power production.

Rule

Under the Commerce Clause, a court may invalidate federal legislation only if there is no rational basis for a congressional finding that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce or no reasonable connection between the regulatory means selected and the asserted ends. Congress may pre-empt state regulation in a field affecting interstate commerce and may condition continued state regulation in that pre-emptible field on the state's consideration of federal standards and compliance with related procedural requirements, so long as the state is not directly compelled to enact or adopt a substantive regulatory program. Where state adjudicatory bodies have adequate jurisdiction under local law, they may be required to entertain federal claims analogous to those they already hear.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Regional Grid Efficiency Act after finding that local water-distribution pricing practices contribute to nationwide energy use because pumping and treatment systems draw power from interconnected grids. The Act requires both municipal water boards and privately owned local water companies in places like Phoenix, Arizona, and Toledo, Ohio, to evaluate specified pricing methods intended to reduce peak demand.

A city water board argues that the statute exceeds Congress's commerce power because the board regulates only retail service within one state. What is the strongest basis for upholding the statute?

Explanation. The majority applied highly deferential Commerce Clause review: legislation is invalid only if there is no rational basis for Congress's finding that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce, or no reasonable connection between the means selected and the asserted ends. The fact that a regulator's activity is intrastate does not itself defeat federal power where Congress rationally found broader interstate effects.