## Facts

- California adopted rules governing certification of new nuclear power plants by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission).
- One provision required a case-by-case finding of “adequate capacity” for interim spent-fuel storage when such storage would be needed.
- Another provision imposed a moratorium on certifying new nuclear plants until the Commission found that a federally approved, demonstrated means existed for permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
- Pacific Gas & Electric and other utilities sued, alleging the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) preempted both provisions because Congress occupied the field of nuclear safety and the state measures effectively regulated safety by conditioning construction on waste-disposal progress.
- The district court held both challenges ripe and found both provisions preempted.
- The Ninth Circuit held the moratorium challenge ripe and upheld it as economic regulation, but found the interim-storage provision unripe.
- The Supreme Court granted review on ripeness and preemption.

## Issues

1. Whether the challenge to California’s moratorium on new nuclear plant certification was ripe for judicial review.
2. Whether the challenge to the interim spent-fuel storage “adequate capacity” requirement was ripe for judicial review.
3. Whether the AEA preempted the moratorium because it entered the federally occupied field of radiological safety regulation.
4. Whether the moratorium conflicted with federal objectives or federal waste-disposal policy so as to be preempted under conflict/obstacle principles.

## Decision

- The Court held the moratorium challenge ripe because it presented a primarily legal question and imposed immediate practical effects on utilities planning new facilities.
- The Court held the interim-storage “adequate capacity” challenge not ripe because application depended on uncertain future facts and discretionary Commission determinations.
- The Court held the moratorium not preempted by the AEA because it was grounded in economic concerns within traditional state utility regulation rather than radiological safety.
- The Court rejected conflict/obstacle arguments that the moratorium impermissibly interfered with federal promotion of nuclear power or federal waste-management choices.
- Disposition: affirmed the judgment upholding the moratorium; dismissed the challenge to the interim-storage provision as unripe.

## Legal Principles

- The AEA preempts state regulation of radiological safety, except for limited state powers expressly preserved by Congress.
- A state measure is preempted if it regulates within a federally occupied field or if it conflicts with, or stands as an obstacle to, federal purposes and objectives.
- States retain authority over traditional utility matters such as need, reliability, cost, and related economic judgments, including decisions that may slow or stop nuclear development for non-safety reasons.
- Courts assess ripeness by considering the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship of withholding review.

## Conclusion

The Court drew a line between federally preempted nuclear safety regulation and permissible state economic regulation of utilities: California could condition new nuclear plant certification on the existence of a permanent waste-disposal solution as an economic judgment, but a challenge to a fact-dependent interim-storage adequacy requirement was premature.


Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190 (1983)