|
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. ==Background== 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 () 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: *Section 25524.1(b) provided that the Energy Commission had the authority to determine, prior to the building of a new nuclear power plant, that there would be adequate storage space for the spent fuel rods "at the time such nuclear facility requires such storage." *Section 25524.2 addressed long-term concerns arising from nuclear wastes by placing a moratorium, or stoppage, on the certification of new plants until the Energy Commission "finds that there has been developed and that the United States through its authorized agency has approved and there exists a demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste." 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. Appeal: The Ninth Circuit held: *Petitioners had standing to challenge the statute (upholding the district court), *25524.1(b), regarding spent fuel storage, was not ripe for review (overturning the district court). The reason given for this was that "we cannot know whether the Energy Commission will ever find a nuclear plant's storage capacity to be inadequate." *25524.2, creating the moratorium, was not preempted (overturning the district court), because sections 271 and 274(k) of the Atomic Energy Act authorized the states to regulate nuclear power plants "for purposes other than protection against radiation hazards," and that is what this section did: it dealt with economic aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, and was not designed to provide protection against radiation hazards. Explanation of case's title: The Supreme Court granted certiorari to this case. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had also consolidated another federal district court case, ''Pacific Legal Foundation v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission'',〔''Pacific Legal Foundation v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission'', 472 F. Supp. 191 (S.D. Cal. 1979).〕 which challenged other portions of the California statute into the ''Pacific Gas'' case. Although this second district court case gave the appellate court decision its name, the Supreme Court denied certiorari on that case's portion of the appellate decision. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|