Opinion ID: 2109887
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Implied Pre-Emption

Text: Because we have already concluded that the PSC's regulatory authority in this case has not been expressly pre-empted by federal law, we turn to whether it has been impliedly pre-empted. The Supreme Court has applied a flexible pre-emption analysis sensitive to the particular facts and legislation involved. Each case `requires a particularized examination of the relevant state, federal, and tribal interests.' Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 1698, 1707, 104 L.Ed.2d 209 (1989) [quoting Ramah Navajo School Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of New Mexico, 458 U.S. 832, 838, 102 S.Ct. 3394, 3398, 73 L.Ed.2d 1174 (1982) ]. We examine those interests relevant here. The state's interest, described earlier, in regulating suppliers of electricity in furtherance of the public good is substantial and ranks among the most important functions traditionally associated with the police power of the States. Arkansas Elec. Co-op. v. Arkansas Public Service Comm'n, supra . Because electric service is capital-intensive, state regulation designed to avoid wasteful duplication of facilities between competing electric suppliers benefits all consumers of electricity. A State's regulatory interest will be particularly substantial if the State can point to off-reservation effects that necessitate state intervention. New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324, 336, 103 S.Ct. 2378, 2388, 76 L.Ed.2d 611 (1983). The electric supply systems of Otter Tail and Baker are not confined to the reservation but extend throughout a large portion of the state. Thus, the economic impact of operations within the reservation can adversely affect non-reservation customers of those electric suppliers. Otter Tail has not referred us to any federal legislation which suggests a federal policy encouraging electric utility regulation by Indian tribes. The Tribe's interest is difficult to identify. Indeed, electric utility regulation by the Tribe can hardly be characterized as an important area of `traditional tribal control.' Byzewski v. Byzewski, 429 N.W.2d 394, 399 (N.D.1988) [quoting Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering, 476 U.S. 877, 889, 106 S.Ct. 2305, 2313, 90 L.Ed.2d 881 (1986) ]. See also McKenzie County Social Services Bd. v. V.G., 392 N.W.2d 399, 402 (N.D.1986). The Tribe has acquiesced in the state's regulation of electric utilities on the reservation in the past. We conclude that the state's authority over electric suppliers has not been impliedly pre-empted by federal law.