Source: https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/limits-on-state-regulatory-and-tax-power/pacific-gas-electric-co-v-state-energy-resources-conservation-development-commission/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:57:21+00:00

Document:
Cipollone, Executor of the Estate of Rose D. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc 505 U.S. 504, 112 S. Ct. 2608, 120 L. Ed. 2d 407, 1992 U.S.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission 461 U.S. 190, 103 S. Ct. 1713, 75 L. Ed. 2d 752, 1983 U.S.
Hines, Secretary of Labor ad Industry of Pennsylvania v. Davidowitz 312 U.S. 52, 61 S. Ct. 399, 85 L. Ed. 581, 1941 U.S.
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc v. Paul, Director, Department of Agriculture of California 373 U.S. 132, 83 S. Ct. 1210, 10 L. Ed. 2d 248, 1963 U.S.
H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc v. Du Mond, Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets of New York 336 U.S. 525, 69 S. Ct. 657, 93 L. Ed. 865, 1949 U.S.
Aaron B. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia 53 U.S. 299, 13 L. Ed. 996, 1851 U.S.
South Carolina State Highway Department v. Barnwell Brothers, Inc 303 U.S. 177, 58 S. Ct. 510, 82 L. Ed. 734, 1938 U.S.
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona 325 U.S. 761, 65 S. Ct. 1515, 89 L. Ed. 1915, 1945 U.S.
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey 437 U.S. 617, 98 S. Ct. 2531, 57 L. Ed. 2d 475, 1978 U.S.
C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York 511 U.S. 383, 114 S. Ct. 1677, 128 L. Ed. 2d 399, 1994 U.S.
Hughes v. Oklahoma 441 U.S. 322, 99 S. Ct. 1727, 60 L. Ed. 2d 250, 1979 U.S.
Hunt, Governor of the State of North Carolina v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission 432 U.S. 333, 97 S. Ct. 2434, 53 L. Ed. 2d 383, 1977 U.S.
Exxon Corporation v. Governor of Maryland 437 U.S. 117, 98 S. Ct. 2207, 57 L. Ed. 2d 91, 1978 U.S.
West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture 512 U.S. 186, 114 S. Ct. 2205, 129 L. Ed. 2d 157, 1994 U.S.
State of Minnesota v. Clover Lead Creamery Co 449 U.S. 456, 101 S. Ct. 715, 66 L. Ed. 2d 659, 1981 U.S.
Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wisconsin 340 U.S. 349, 71 S. Ct. 295, 95 L. Ed. 329, 1951 U.S.
Maine v. Taylor and United States 477 U.S. 131, 106 S. Ct. 2440, 91 L. Ed. 2d 110, 1986 U.S.
Loren J. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc 397 U.S. 137, 90 S. Ct. 844, 25 L. Ed. 2d 174, 1970 U.S.
Bibb, Director, Department of Public Safety of Illinois v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc 359 U.S. 520, 79 S. Ct. 962, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1003, 1959 U.S.
Raymond Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware 455 U.S. 329, 102 S. Ct. 1496;71 L. Ed. 2d 187; 1982 U.S.
CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America 481 U.S. 69, 107 S. Ct. 1637, 95 L. Ed. 2d 67, 1987 U.S.
South-Central Timber Development, Inc v. Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources of Alaska 467 U.S. 82, 104 S. Ct. 2237, 81 L. Ed. 2d 71, 1984 U.S.
Western & Southern Life Insurance Co. v. State Board of Equalization of California 451 U.S. 648, 101 S. Ct. 2070, 68 L. Ed. 2d 514, 1981 U.S.
Reeves, Inc v. William Stake 447 U.S. 429, 100 S. Ct. 2271, 65 L. Ed. 2d 244, 1980 U.S.
Toomer v. Witsell 334 U.S. 385, 68 S. Ct. 1156, 92 L. Ed. 1460, 1948 U.S.
Held. Yes, a state law placing a moratorium on construction of nuclear power plants does not impede federal law’s objectives of developing nuclear energy.
e. With regard to the third and final ground, the primary purpose of the Act was to promote nuclear power, but that is not supposed to be accomplished “at all costs.”� The state law is not preempted.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.