Opinion ID: 3009773
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: atlantic coast

Text: We applied Carbone in Atlantic Coast Demolition & Recycling, Inc. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Atlantic County, 48 F.3d 701 (3d Cir. 1995). Atlantic Coast involved a challenge to New Jersey's solid waste management regime, which was adopted in response to that state's especially severe solid waste crisis during the 1970s and '80s. Provisions of the Solid Waste Management Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §13:1E-1 to -207 (West 1991 & supp. 1994), and the Solid Waste Utility Control Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 48:13A-1 to 13 (West Supp. 1994), authorized the local waste districts to adopt flow control ordinances mandating the delivery of certain wastes to designated facilities that charge higher tipping fees in order to cover operating expenses and repay revenue bonds used to finance the capital expenditures of constructing these facilities. In addressing the challenge, we rejected the attempt to frame the issue as one of the constitutionality of the statute after the designation was made, thus refuting the contention that the challenged ordinance, which required waste to be deposited at the designated facility (which was in-state), amounted to an export ban. We found significant precedent allowing local government authorities to select a single service provider in the public utility context: A gas or electric utility granted a franchise to serve the needs of all residents within a local area is not ordinarily required to 28 commit to producing its electricity or securing its natural gas supply within that area as well. Normally, both in-state and out-of-state interests may, therefore, compete equally for the franchise award and the creation of a captive consumer base does not, under these circumstances, discriminate against electricity and gas generated or produced out of state. 48 F.3d at 715. Nevertheless, in Atlantic Coast there were strong indications that in-state and out-of-state businesses did not compete equally. The designation process set forth in the state's regulations under SWUCA and SWMA, N.J. Admin. Cod tit. 7, §26-6.6, allowed for the designation of facilities in the waste district, in another waste district or out-of-state. The state's Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (D.E.P.E.) admitted, however, that its goal was to secure the state's self sufficiency in non-recyclable waste disposal. Moreover, a district wishing to designate an out-of-state facility had to certify to the Department that there were no suitable alternatives within the state, either in their waste district or in another waste district. See N.J. Stat Ann. §13:1E-21 (1991). Accordingly, the district court found that it was clear that the D.E.P.E. administers the law with the specific goal that all waste generated New Jersey be disposed of within the borders of the state. (Civ. No. 93-cv-02669) (JEI). Rather than representing a truly open and competitive process, we found that New Jersey designation process is intended to favor operators that have facilities already located 29 within, or those that are willing to construct a facility within, the state. 48 F.3d at 708. Indeed, in rejecting the argument that out-of-state businesses could compete for designation, we explained that the New Jersey regime, with its core goal of New Jersey's waste self-sufficiency in five years, assured that out of state facilities do not compete on anything approaching a level playing field. 48 F.3d at 713. In interpreting Carbone, therefore, Atlantic Coast did not consider all flow control ordinances to be per se discriminatory (and consequently subject to strict scrutiny analysis). Instead, we focused on the process, and invalidated a scheme in which the process discriminated against out-of-state facilities.