Document: 455 U.S. 331 102 S.Ct. 1096 71 L.Ed.2d 188 NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY, Appellantv.NEW HAMPSHIRE et al. MASSACHUSETTS, al., Appellants v. Dennis J. ROBERTS, II, Attorney General of the State Rhode Island, Appellant Nos. 80-1208, 80-1471, 80-1610. Argued Dec. 7, 1981. Decided Feb. 24, 1982. Syllabus New England Power Co., a public utility generating and transmitting electricity at wholesale, sells most its power in Massachusetts Island; wholesale customers service less than 6% Hampshire's population. owns operates hydroelectric units, some which are located Hampshire. The units licensed by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to Act. A Hampshire statute, enacted 1913, prohibits corporation engaged generation electrical energy water from such out unless approval is first obtained Public Utilities Commission. statute empowers that prohibit exportation when it determines "is reasonably required for use within this state good requires be delivered use." Since 1926, or predecessor periodically Commission's transmit produced points outside State. However, 1980, after an investigation hearings, withdrew ordered arrange sell previously exported Power, Commonwealth Massachusetts, Island appealed order Supreme Court, contending was pre-empted Act imposed impermissible burdens on interstate commerce. court rejected those arguments, holding, inter alia, "saving clause" § 201(b) granted authority restrict transportation generated Section 201(b), 1935, provides Act's provisions delegating exclusive FERC regulate transmission sale electric commerce "shall not . deprive commission lawful now exercised over transmitted across line." Held : has sought flow privately owned manner inconsistent with Commerce Clause. does provide affirmative grant do so. Pp. 338-344. (a) Absent authorizing federal legislation, Clause precludes mandating residents given preferred right access out-of-state consumers natural resources borders products derived therefrom. precisely sort protectionist regulation declares off limits states. Moreover, "exportation ban" places direct substantial transactions cannot squared they serve only advance simple economic protectionism. 338-340. (b) In Congress did no more leave standing whatever valid laws then existed relating energy. Nothing legislative history language evinces congressional intent alter otherwise Clause, modify Court's earlier holdings concerning restrain trade. When expressly stated sustain legislation attack under Court rewrite based mere speculation as what probably had mind. 340-343. 120 N.H. 866, 424 A.2d 807, reversed remanded. Samuel Huntington, Westborough, Mass., appellant 80-1208. Donald K. Stern, Boston, appellants 80-1471 Gregory H. Smith, Concord, N. H., appellees. Chief Justice BURGER opinion Court. 1 These three consolidated appeals present question whether can constitutionally federally facility, reserve own citizens "economic benefit" power. 2 * Co. generates transmits wholesale. It 75% much remainder population serviced Power's customers. six stations Connecticut River, consisting 27 units. Twenty-one these units—with capacity 419.8 megawatts, about 10% total capacity—are Part I Act, 41 Stat. 1063, amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791a-823 (1976 ed. Supp.IV). facilities operate without significant fuel consumption, produce substantially lower cost other sources. 3 member Pool, whose utility-members 98% capacity, virtually all facilities, six-state region. objectives described agreement among members, assure reliability region's bulk supply attain "maximum practicable economy" through, "joint planning, central dispatching coordinated construction, operation maintenance controlled Participants. ." Pool Agreement 4.1, App. 31a. All member-owned placed control Pool's Dispatch Center. computer calculates each unit assigns operating schedule will minimize supply. various including River stations, flows freely through regional network, "grid." dispatched members' their needs arise, regard source. bills amount would have meet customers' load using sources, minus member's share savings resulting centralized dispatch system.1 4 provides: 5 "No shall engage business conveying same beyond confines state, file notice intention so utilities obtain said permitting business." N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 374:35 (1966). 6 Ibid. 7 company applied plants September 19, formerly export energy, "make arrangements persons, municipalities ."2 report accompanying order, found were increasing rapidly; that, primarily because low "generating mix" Service Company Hampshire, State's largest utility, costs 25% higher Power; if sold exclusively could save approximately $25 million year. therefore concluded "required State" discontinuation "public good." Juris. Statement No. pp. 25-39. 8 not, however, sever connections Pool. So long continues impossible contain any physical sense. Although precise contours unclear, appears require equal output in-state special rates adjusted reflect entire attributable low-cost generation.3 9 Roberts, They contended preempted Parts II 791a-824k Supp.IV), concluding 824(b) ed., Appeal 876-877, 814 (1980).4 further held interfere regulatory charged sales thus remanded case permit parties "develop mechanics implemention" mandated appropriate adjustments filings administrative agencies enable regain benefit power." Id., 878-879, A.2d, 815.5 10 We noted probable jurisdiction, 451 981, 101 2311, 68 837 (1981), we reverse. 11 recognized absent "questionable" trade N.H., 876, 814. Our cases consistently Constitution, Art. I, 8, cl. 3, access, consumers, E.g., Hughes Oklahoma, 441 322, 99 1727, 60 250 (1979); Pennsylvania West Virginia, 262 553, 43 658, 67 L.Ed. 1117 (1923); Kansas Natural Gas 221 229, 31 564, 55 716 (1911). Only recently, Philadelphia Jersey, 437 617, 627, 98 2531, 2537, 57 475 (1978), reiterated "[t]hese stand basic principle 'State prevent articles being shipped ground satisfy local demands needed people State' " (quoting Foster-Fountain Packing Haydel, 278 1, 10, 49 73 147 (1928)).6 12 Commission, prohibiting selling off-limits made clear designed gain advantage expense neighboring disputed SeePublic Comm'n Attleboro Steam & Electric 273 83, 47 294, 549 (1927). Such state-imposed "simple protectionism." supra, U.S., 624, S.Ct., 2535. 13 nevertheless upheld permits borders. indeed well settled may powers "[confer] upon States ability enjoy." Lewis BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 27, 44, 100 2009, 2020, 64 702 (1980). See Southern Pacific Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 761, 769, 65 1515, 1520, 89 1915 (1945). dispositive question, fact authorized states impose restrictions issue here. III 14 national concern development, comprehensive utilization country's very early expressed powers. Water 1920. potential source led exercise constitutional navigable streams encourage development "to expanding economy." FPC Union 381 90, 99, 85 1253, 1258, 239 (1965). 15 824-824k delegated commerce, production. United California, 345 295, 706, 97 1020 (1953). 1935 enactment "direct result" holding lacked governing resale. 311, 715. intended "fill gap" created establishing jurisdiction sales. 307-311, 713-715. provides, provision sense burden "in permissible." 1520. energy; plain terms, simply saves pre-emption "lawful." likewise indicates "tak[e]no commissions." H.R.Rep.No.1318, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., (1935) (emphasis added). Clause," 304, 712, Rather, Congress' define extent legislation's pre-emptive effect law." 49, 2022.7 17 To support argument contrary, relies single statement floor House Representatives during debates preceding II. Congressman Rogers stated: 18 "[T]he Senate bill originally drawn certain States, think five all, rights line. This situation been taken care committee, hope you come it, section 201 part us privilege continue, 22 years, our lines but up there granite hills old Hampshire." 79 Cong.Rec. 10527 (1935). 19 From expression "hope," concludes specifically preserve 20 Reliance isolated fragments divining fraught hazards, "a step cautiously." Piper Chris-Craft Industries, 430 26, 926, 941, 51 124 (1977); 319-321, 719-720 (Jackson, J., concurring). even accord weight Rogers' statement, contention free restraint. urged his colleagues "deprive" "rights" already possessed—i.e., ensure itself read pre-empting legislation. 21 sure, Members thought protection needed.8 Indeed, Clause—independently Act—restricts matters affecting little way "lawful" authority.9 But "expressly policy" Prudential Ins. Benjamin, 328 408, 427, 431, 66 1142, 1153, 1155, 90 1342 (1946), "probably mind." SeeUnited 319, 719 concurring); see also id., must construe written, intended—as standard "nonpre-emption" clause.10 IV conclude, therefore, For reasons, judgment reversed, proceedings opinion. 23 ordered. Testimony before indicated substantial. example, 1979, system reported $44 million. 35a, 56a. generally Office Regulation, Pooling 15-23, 39-41, 69-79 description efficiencies pooling arrangements. reads: "ORDERED, permission (NEPCO) boundaries hereby withdrawn thirty (30) days date Order; "FURTHER ORDERED, NEPCO make completion both Seabrook again re-examine exportation." staff economist testified hearings "allocate benefits billing mechanisms" cost"—i.e., producing power, depreciation, plus return invested capital. 38a-39a. economist's analysis ensue restricting "exportation" manner—upon relied heavily report—was assumption enter into new contracts kilowatt hours average course number years. Tr. Hearings DE 79-223, 23-24, 1-35. record entirely point, benefit," "savings," currently reflected company's general rates, shared pro rata 15a-18a. Brief p. 7. dismissed several arguments advanced Roberts—that interpreted, exceeded violated Privileges Immunities IV, 2, Tenth Amendment Constitution. inform refrained acting remand pending disposition appeals. find merit attempt distinguish "owns" hydroelectricity. Whatever proprietary interest river, pre-eminent waters resides Government, Twin City 350 222, 76 259, 240 (1956), determination "best adapted plan improving developing waterway waterways foreign commerce," 803(a). purported "ownership" justification conditioning First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative FPC, 152, 906, 1143 (1946). done resource assertedly owns; restricted product distinct river used it. Utah Light Pfost, 286 165, 179-181, 52 548, 551, 552, 1038 (1932). manufactured private facilities. Thus, reliance Reeves, Inc. Stake, 429, 2271, 244 (1980)—holding confine produces —is misplaced. confer absence anomalous speak terms "authority exercised." plainly assumes prior existence authority; addition, limit saving few "exercised" 1935. On hand, unusual displace area, consideration scope might constrained law. Milwaukee Illinois, 329, n.22, 1784, 1798, 114 (1981). need speculate here 201(b)'s effect. Even conclude override restraints remain entitled provision. seeks protect terminate hydroelectricity alterations connected—alterations appear contemplate made. operative compel utilities, fixed cost" 336, n. 3. argue incompatible vests ratemaking "the 824(b), 824d-824f Supp. IV)—and conflicts directly 205(b) 824d(b), maintaining "any unreasonable difference between localities" respect subject jurisdiction. Given violates decide issue.

Category: 7