Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1981 to 1988

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Energy Resources Commission - "swords Into Plowshares", Pacific Gas Takes On The Energy Commission, An Economic Issue, Not A Safety Issue

federal court nuclear california

Petitioner

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Respondent

State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Committee of California

Petitioner's Claim

That two California statutes governing development of nuclear power plants were preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and were thus invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

John R. McDonough

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Laurence H. Tribe

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

20 April 1983

Decision

The Court having judged that one of the two statutes was not ripe for review, held that the remaining California law did not conflict with the authority of the federal government because it addressed issues of economics, not nuclear safety.

Significance

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Energy Resources Commission provides a judicial framework for evaluating the limits of state and federal law with regard to specific areas of authority. In its review of the case, the Court applied a test--assessing the conflict, if any, between state and federal policies--that promised to offer guidelines for other cases involving preemption of federal authority.

Related Cases

  • Power Reactor Development Co. v. Electrical Workers, 367 U.S. 396 (1961).
  • Metropolitan Edison v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766 (1983).
  • Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238 (1984).
  • New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
Palmore v. Sidoti - Significance, Interracial Adoption [next] [back] Oregon v. Elstad - Miranda Warnings, Inadmissible Confessions?, The Second Confession Is Admissible, Dissenting Opinions, Impact, Further Readings

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or