Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission

Supreme Court of the United States · 1983 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFederal PreemptionRipenessAtomic Energy ActSupremacy ClauseAtomic Energy Actnuclear safetyeconomic regulation

Facts

California's Warren-Alquist Act required certification before construction of electric generating plants, including nuclear plants. In 1976, California added one provision requiring case-by-case findings of adequate interim spent-fuel storage capacity, and another imposing a moratorium on certifying new nuclear plants until the state commission found a federally approved and demonstrated means for permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste. Utilities argued these provisions were pre-empted by the Atomic Energy Act. California maintained that the moratorium was based on economic concerns arising from uncertainty in waste disposal, not on radiation-safety concerns.

Issue

Whether California's nuclear plant certification provisions were ripe for review and whether they were pre-empted by the Atomic Energy Act. More specifically, whether the state may condition or delay new nuclear plant construction based on the absence of a demonstrated federally approved waste-disposal technology when the State asserts an economic, rather than safety, rationale.

Rule

Under the Atomic Energy Act, the Federal Government occupies the field of regulating the radiological safety aspects of nuclear plant construction and operation, while the States retain their traditional authority over matters such as need, reliability, cost, and other non-safety aspects of electrical generation. A state law is pre-empted if Congress expressly pre-empts it, if federal regulation occupies the field, or if the state law conflicts with federal law by making dual compliance impossible or by standing as an obstacle to Congress's purposes. Ripeness turns on the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding review.

🔒

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.

Oregon enacts a statute providing that no new nuclear generating station may be certified until the state energy board determines that permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste is "safe for Oregon residents over the life of the plant." The statute leaves all federal licensing requirements untouched and says the state board will rely on its own safety assessment.

A utility challenges the Oregon statute under the Supremacy Clause. What is the strongest argument that the challenge should succeed?

Explanation. The majority drew a sharp line: the Federal Government occupies the field of radiological safety in nuclear plant construction and operation, while States retain authority over economic and other non-safety utility questions. A state moratorium grounded in safety concerns falls within the occupied field and is preempted even apart from impossibility. Here, Oregon requires the State’s own judgment that permanent disposal is safe, so the law is safety regulation. (Derived from Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (1983).)