461 U.S. 190 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983)
Pacific Gas & Electric v. State Energy Resources Conservation is a foundational preemption case that delineates the boundary between exclusive federal regulation of nuclear safety and preserved state authority over the economic and planning aspects of electricity generation.
Are California's statutory provisions conditioning certification of new nuclear power plants on findings about spent-fuel storage capacity and an approved method for permanent nuclear waste disposal preempted by the Atomic Energy Act and the federal nuclear regulatory scheme?
Under the Supremacy Clause, state law is preempted where Congress (1) expressly preempts state law, (2) occupies a regulatory field, or (3) state law conflicts with federal law by making compliance with both impossible or standing as an obstacle to federal objectives. In the Atomic Energy Act, Congress occupied the field of nuclear safety; the federal government, through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), has exclusive authority to regulate radiological safety. However, the AEA preserves traditional state authority over the need for power, the type and mix of generation, rates, and other economic and land-use aspects of utility regulation. State laws grounded in non-safety rationales—such as economics, reliability, and cost—are not preempted merely because they touch on nuclear power, provided they do not directly regulate radiological hazards or conflict with federal objectives.
No. California's moratorium and related certification requirements were not preempted. Because the state measures rested on economic concerns about the costs and reliability implications of uncertain nuclear waste disposal rather than on radiological safety, they fell within the realm of state authority preserved by the AEA and did not conflict with federal objectives.
Pacific Gas & Electric is a cornerstone in preemption doctrine and energy federalism. It draws a bright line: the federal government exclusively regulates nuclear safety, while states remain free to make economic and planning decisions about energy resources, including choosing not to build nuclear plants. The case teaches that courts scrutinize the purpose and operation of state laws in preemption disputes and will not lightly infer conflict where Congress deliberately left room for state policymaking. For law students, it is a leading example of field versus conflict preemption, the role of legislative purpose, and the preservation of traditional state powers in complex, federally regulated industries.