New England Power Company v. New Hampshire Massachusetts v. New Hampshire Roberts, Ii v. New Hampshire, s. 80-1208
| Decision Date | 24 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 80-1208,80-1610,80-1471,s. 80-1208 |
| Citation | 455 U.S. 331,71 L.Ed.2d 188,102 S.Ct. 1096 |
| Parties | NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. NEW HAMPSHIRE et al. MASSACHUSETTS, et al., Appellants v. NEW HAMPSHIRE et al. Dennis J. ROBERTS, II, Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island, et al., Appellant v. NEW HAMPSHIRE et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appellant New England Power Co., a public utility generating and transmitting electricity at wholesale, sells most of its power in Massachusetts and Rhode Island; its wholesale customers service less than 6% of New Hampshire's population. New England Power owns and operates hydroelectric units, some of which are located in New Hampshire. The units are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to the Federal Power Act. A New Hampshire statute, enacted in 1913, prohibits a corporation engaged in the generation of electrical energy by water power from transmitting such energy out of the State unless approval is first obtained from the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission. The statute empowers that Commission to prohibit the exportation of such energy when it determines that the energy "is reasonably required for use within this state and that the public good requires that it be delivered for such use." Since 1926, New England Power or its predecessor periodically obtained the Commission's approval to transmit electricity produced in New Hampshire to points outside the State. However, in 1980, after an investigation and hearings, the Commission withdrew such approval and ordered New England Power to arrange to sell the previously exported hydroelectric energy within New Hampshire. New England Power, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Attorney General of Rhode Island appealed the Commission's order to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, contending that the order was pre-empted by the Federal Power Act and imposed impermissible burdens on interstate commerce. The court rejected those arguments, holding, inter alia, that the "saving clause" of § 201(b) of the Federal Power Act granted New Hampshire authority to restrict the interstate transportation of hydroelectric power generated within the State. Section 201(b), which was enacted in 1935, provides that the Act's provisions delegating exclusive authority to the FERC to regulate the transmission and sale at wholesale of electric energy in interstate commerce "shall not . . . deprive a State or State commission of its lawful authority now exercised over the exportation of hydroelectric energy which is transmitted across a State line."
Held : New Hampshire has sought to restrict the flow of privately owned and produced electricity in interstate commerce in a manner inconsistent with the Commerce Clause. Section 201(b) of the Federal Power Act does not provide an affirmative grant of authority to the State to do so. Pp. 338-344.
(a) Absent authorizing federal legislation, the Commerce Clause precludes a state from mandating that its residents be given a preferred right of access over out-of-state consumers to natural resources located within its borders or to the products derived therefrom. The New Hampshire Commission's order is precisely the sort of protectionist regulation that the Commerce Clause declares off limits to the states. Moreover, the Commission's "exportation ban" places direct and substantial burdens on transactions in interstate commerce that cannot be squared with the Commerce Clause when they serve only to advance simple economic protectionism. Pp. 338-340.
(b) In § 201(b), Congress did no more than leave standing whatever valid state laws then existed relating to the exportation of hydroelectric energy. Nothing in the legislative history or language of the statute evinces a congressional intent to alter the limits of state power otherwise imposed by the Commerce Clause, or to modify this Court's earlier holdings concerning the limits of state authority to restrain interstate trade. When Congress has not expressly stated its intent to sustain state legislation from attack under the Commerce Clause, this Court has no authority to rewrite its legislation based on mere speculation as to what Congress probably had in mind. Pp. 340-343.
120 N.H. 866, 424 A.2d 807, reversed and remanded.
Samuel Huntington, Westborough, Mass., for appellant in 80-1208.
Donald K. Stern, Boston, Mass., for appellants in 80-1471 and 80-1610.
Gregory H. Smith, Concord, N. H., for appellees.
These three consolidated appeals present the question whether a state can constitutionally prohibit the exportation of hydroelectric energy produced within its borders by a federally licensed facility, or otherwise reserve for its own citizens the "economic benefit" of such hydroelectric power.
Appellant New England Power Co. is a public utility which generates and transmits electricity at wholesale. It sells 75% of its power in Massachusetts and much of the remainder in Rhode Island; less than 6% of New Hampshire's population is serviced by New England Power's wholesale customers. New England Power owns and operates six hydroelectric generating stations on the Connecticut River, consisting of 27 generating units. Twenty-one of these units—with a capacity of 419.8 megawatts, or about 10% of New England Power's total generating capacity—are located within the State of New Hampshire. The units are licensed by the Federal En- ergy Regulatory Commission pursuant to Part I of the Federal Power Act, 41 Stat. 1063, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791a-823 (1976 ed. and Supp.IV). Since hydroelectric facilities operate without significant fuel consumption, these units can produce electricity at substantially lower cost than most other generating sources.
New England Power is a member of the New England Power Pool, whose utility-members own over 98% of the total generation capacity, and virtually all of the transmission facilities, in the six-state region. The objectives of the Power Pool, as described in the agreement among its members, are to assure the reliability of the region's bulk power supply and to attain "maximum practicable economy" through, inter alia, "joint planning, central dispatching . . . and coordinated construction, operation and maintenance of electric generation and transmission facilities owned or controlled by the Participants. . . ." New England Power Pool Agreement § 4.1, App. 31a. All member-owned generating facilities are placed under the control of the Power Pool's Dispatch Center. A computer calculates the cost of generation for each generating unit and assigns each unit an operating schedule that will minimize the cost of the region's total power supply. Power generated at the various units, including New England Power's Connecticut River hydroelectric stations, flows freely through the Pool's regional transmission network, or "grid." The energy is dispatched to members' customers as their power needs arise, without regard to generating source. The Pool bills each member the amount it would have cost the utility to meet its customers' load using only its own generating sources, minus that member's share of the savings resulting from the centralized dispatch system.1
A New Hampshire statute, enacted in 1913, provides:
"No corporation engaged in the generation of electrical energy by water power shall engage in the business of transmitting or conveying the same beyond the confines of the state, unless it shall first file notice of its intention so to do with the public utilities commission and obtain an order of said commission permitting it to engage in such business." N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 374:35 (1966).
The statute empowers the New Hampshire Commission to prohibit the exportation of such electrical energy when it determines that the energy "is reasonably required for use within this state and that the public good requires that it be delivered for such use." Ibid.
Since 1926, New England Power or a predecessor company periodically applied for and obtained approval from the New Hampshire Commission to transmit electricity produced at the Connecticut River plants to points outside New Hampshire. However, on September 19, 1980, after an investigation and hearings, the Commission withdrew the authority formerly granted New England Power to export its hydroelectric energy, and ordered the company to "make arrangements to sell the previously exported hydroelectric energy to persons, utilities and municipalities within the State of New Hampshire. . . ." 2 In its report accompanying the order the Commission found that New Hampshire's population and energy needs were increasing rapidly; that, primarily because of its low "generating mix" of hydroelectric energy, the Public Service Company of New Hampshire, the State's largest electric utility, had generating costs about 25% higher than those of New England Power; and that if New England Power's hydroelectric energy were sold exclusively in New Hampshire, New Hampshire customers could save approximately $25 million a year. The Commission therefore concluded that New England Power's hydroelectric energy was "required for use within the State" of New Hampshire, and that discontinuation of its exportation would serve the "public good." App. to Juris. Statement in No. 80-1208, pp. 25-39.
The Commission did not, however, order New England Power to sever its connections with the Power Pool. So long as the electricity produced at New England Power's hydroelectric plants continues to flow through the Pool's regional transmission network, it will be impossible to contain that electricity within the State of New Hampshire in any physical sense. Although the precise contours of the Commission's order are unclear, it appears to require that New England Power sell electricity to New Hampshire utilities in an amount equal to the output of its in-state hydroelectric facilities, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Timken Co. v. United States
...intent of Congress is an exercise fraught with hazards, and `a step to be taken cautiously.'" New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331, 342, 102 S.Ct. 1096, 1102, 71 L.Ed.2d 188 (1982) (quoting Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U.S. 1, 26, 97 S.Ct. 926, 941-42, 51 L.Ed.......
-
Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona, A18-0090
...518, 533, 98 S.Ct. 2482, 57 L.Ed.2d 397 (1978), and precludes local protectionist measures, New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire , 455 U.S. 331, 339, 102 S.Ct. 1096, 71 L.Ed.2d 188 (1982) (stating that the state’s export ban on energy "is precisely the sort of protectionist regulation tha......
-
Energy Mich., Inc. v. Scripps
...of state power otherwise imposed by the Commerce Clause.’ " Id. at 458, 112 S.Ct. 789 (quoting New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire , 455 U.S. 331, 341, 102 S.Ct. 1096, 71 L.Ed.2d 188 (1982) ). Instead, the Court concluded that its "decisions have uniformly subjected Commerce Clause cases......
-
Andover Sav. Bank v. Commissioner of Revenue
...resources or products of trade from one State to another in order to satisfy local needs, e.g., New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331, 102 S.Ct. 1096, 71 L.Ed.2d 188 (1982); Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322, 99 S.Ct. 1727, 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979); Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 43......
-
Table of Cases
...Co. of Indiana v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 108 S.Ct. 1803, 100 L.Ed.2d 302 (1988), 874, 878, 884 New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331, 102 S.Ct. 1096, 71 L.Ed.2d 188 (1982), 872, New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76, 2 S.Ct. 176, 27 L.Ed. 656 (1883), 667 New Jersey v. New Y......
-
Congress, the courts, and solid waste transport: good fences don't always make good neighbors.
...tax on foreign insurer whose home state taxes California insurers at higher rate). (129) New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331, 33940 (1982) (quoting Lewis v. BT Inv. Managers, Inc., 447 U.S. 27, 44 (1980)). (130) Id. at 340-41 (Federal Power Act provision that Act "shall not......
-
Legal After-Shocks on the Energy Seismograph: Judicial Prohibition of Recent State Regulation and Promotion of Power
...16. Federal Power Comm’n (FPC) v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 376 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1964). 17. New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331 (1982). See also Montana-Dakota Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 341 U.S. 246, 251 (1951), Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. hornburg, 476 U.S. 953 (1986);......
-
The Intersection of Constitutional Law and Environmental Litigation
...Oil & Gas Co., 340 U.S. 179 (1950). 160. See Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979). 161. See New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331 (1982). 162. See Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel . Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 (1982). 163. See New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269 (1988). 1......