Opinion ID: 2075970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intrusion on a field which has been pervasively and exclusively regulated by Congress

Text: When Congress has manifested an intent to occupy a particular area through a comprehensive scheme of federal regulation, federal law will preempt state regulation in that area. Congressional intent to occupy an area of law may be inferred where the pervasiveness of the federal regulation precludes supplementation by the States, where the federal interest in the field is sufficiently dominant, or where the object sought to be obtained by the federal law and the character of obligations imposed by it... reveal the same purpose. ... [E]ven where Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation in a particular field, state law is pre-empted when it actually conflicts with federal law. Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 108 S.Ct. at 1150 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 1152, 91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947)). In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Comm., 461 U.S. 190, 103 S.Ct. 1713, 75 L.Ed.2d 752 (1983), the Supreme Court made it clear that state regulation of nuclear power is preempted when its purpose is to regulate safety, even when it does not directly conflict with federal law, because the Federal Government has occupied the entire field of nuclear safety concerns, except the limited powers expressly ceded to the States. Id. at 212, 103 S.Ct. at 1726. Since the passage of the Atomic Energy Act in 1954, Congress has preserved a dual system of regulation, with the federal government maintaining complete control of the safety and `nuclear' aspects of energy generation and the states exercising traditional authority over the need for additional generating capacity, the type of generating facilities to be licensed, land use, [retail] ratemaking, and the like. Id. Maine Yankee argues that federal law governs nuclear decommissioning chiefly through three interrelated regulatory schemes: (1) Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations; (2) certain provisions of the Federal Power Act; (3) section 468A of the Internal Revenue Code. The MPUC concedes that the NRC has exclusive control over the health and safety aspects of nuclear decommissioning. It disputes, however, the validity of Maine Yankee's assertion that NRC's jurisdiction extends to the economics of decommissioning. Economic regulation of nuclear power has traditionally been granted to the states. Id. Nevertheless, the NRC has acknowledged its authority, granted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, to take whatever regulatory actions may be necessary to protect the public health and safety, including the promulgation of rules prescribing allowable funding methods for meeting decommissioning costs. The fact that these regulatory actions may have an economic impact does not mean that they lie outside NRC's jurisdiction. 53 Fed.Reg. at 24037 (citations omitted). NRC's rule amendments permit the appropriate state or federal rate-setting agency to regulate funding for decommissioning; in the case of wholesale rate setting, that agency would be FERC. Id. at 24037-38. The Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 824-825, declares that there will be federal regulation of the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and the sale of such energy at wholesale in interstate commerce, provided this regulation extends only to those matters which are not subject to regulation by the States. Id. at § 824(a). In this case, the decommissioning of an atomic power plant engaged in the wholesale marketing of electricity in interstate commerce is not a matter subject to regulation by the state. Thus, by the authority of the Federal Power Act, state regulation must be preempted in this area. It is undisputed that FERC requires utilities over which it exercises jurisdiction to follow I.R.C. § 468A (1988) which permits deductibility of amounts contributed to the decommissioning trust fund only to the extent such expense is included in rates. Maine Yankee contends that FERC's incorporation of IRC § 468A into the FERC regulatory scheme, as occurred in Systems Energy Resources, Inc., 37 F.E.R.C. 61,261 at p. 61,726-27 (1986) (SERI) shows that the IRS regulations are not only a direct federal oversight of decommissioning fund policy, but are also inextricably interwoven into FERC's exercise of its own jurisdiction. The MPUC disputes this contention, claiming that Maine Yankee has failed to show that this incorporation indicates that Congress has granted IRS federal oversight of decommissioning fund policy. In either case, this issue is not determinative as it has already been shown that Congress intended to dominate the field of nuclear safety concerns. When the object sought to be obtained by the federal law and the character of obligations imposed by it ... reveal the same purpose as those sought by state regulation, the state regulation is preempted. Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 108 S.Ct. at 1150 (citation omitted). In enacting the NDFA, the Legislature stated that timely proper decommissioning of any nuclear power plant ... is essential to protect public health, safety and the environment. 35-A M.R.S.A. at § 4351. Because Congress has clearly manifested an intent to maintain complete control over the safety and `nuclear' aspects of energy generation, the NDFA is preempted. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Dev. Comm., 461 U.S. at 212, 103 S.Ct. at 1726. The entry is: The February 22, 1990 order is vacated. All concurring.