Document: 441 U.S. 141 99 S.Ct. 1629 60 L.Ed.2d 106 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY et al., Appellants,v.Arthur B. SNEAD, etc., al. No. 77-1810. Argued Feb. 26, 1979. Decided April 18, Syllabus New Mexico has imposed an energy tax on the privilege of generating electricity within State. This applies to all utility companies State and may be credited against gross receipts liability for sold at retail Mexico. But where is transmitted other States sale consumption, there no which offset liability. A federal statute, 15 U.S.C. § 391, prohibits a from imposing generation or transmission discriminates out-of-state consumers, further provides that discriminatory if it "results, either directly indirectly, in greater burden electricity" generated interstate commerce than intrastate commerce. Appellant companies, owners power plants most ultimately brought action state court seeking have invalidated ground, inter alia, violated but Supreme Court, affirming trial court, upheld tax. Held: The invalid under Supremacy Clause by reason statute. Because itself, through operation tax-credit provisions, indirectly necessarily outside Mexico, violates statute does not exceed permissible bounds congressional Commerce Clause, since Congress had rational basis finding such as Mexico's interfered with commerce, selected reasonable method eliminate interference. Pp. 146-151. 91 N.M. 485, 576 P.2d 291, reversed. Daniel J. McAuliffe, Phoenix, Ariz., appellants. Jan E. Unna, Sante Fe, N. M., appellees. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 its borders. question this case whether conflicts law, statutory constitutional. 2 * Four Corners plants, located desert northwest, are owned appellants, five public utilities companies.1 Most consumers.2 imposes 4% sellers electricity,3 bulk appellants' sales made consumers States, they do incur significant In 1975, enacted Electrical Energy Tax Act, law issue case.4 That Act rate 4/10 mill each net kilowatt hour generated. roughly equivalent 2% value electricity. Section 9 however, electrical fully company's 3 regulations implementing insure company will receive full credit even itself make result accomplished requiring assign "potential credit" retailer, who turn required reimburse credit.5 consequence completely when extent State, company. 4 1976, Arizona, consumer parens patriae citizens, sought invoke Court's original jurisdiction motion leave file bill complaint asking declaratory judgment invalidating litigation now before us already been initiated courts present essentially same relief. Court denied Arizona complaint, concluding: 5 "[T]he pending state-court appropriate forum issues tendered here litigated. If appeal should hold unconstitutional, vindicated. If, hand, held constitutional, raised way direct 28 1257(2)." v. 425 794, 797, 96 1845, 1847, 48 376, 378. 6 One alternative scenarios foreseen our 1976 eventuated. validity constitutional attacks, Public Serv. Co. O'Chesky, 1257(2). 439 891, 246, 58 236. II 7 appellants contend specific well Commerce, Due Process, Import-Export Clauses Constitution. we conclude Clause6 reach substantive issues. 8 When Reform included provision relating taxes 2121(a) 90 Stat. 1914, codified provides: "No political subdivision thereof, impose assess respect out-of-State manufacturers, producers, wholesalers, retailers, For purposes section, results, commerce." 10 was passed House Representatives. Its genesis Senate Finance Committee, although version definition different finally enacted: 11 "For section results payment higher H.R.10612, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 1323 (1976). 12 Committee's Report described reasons including provision: 13 "The committee learned one places upon production boundaries consumption boundaries. While identical consumed inside discrimination because allows amount normally benefits only domiciliaries taxing allowed produced As result, cost nondomiciliaries increased producer must bear paying However, include 14 believes example taxation properly ability prohibit regulate (Footnote omitted.) S.Rep.No.94-938, pt. I, pp. 437-438 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2897, 3865-3866. identity unnamed disclosed during course subsequent floor debate Senator Domenici strike bill. Senators Montoya Fannin Goldwater Cranston California clear aimed 122 Cong.Rec. 24324-24329 At conclusion debate, Domenici's defeated. Id., 24329. 16 appellees concede Act. They contend, so defused Conference Committee failed hit mark. Specifically, point out tax, defined draft "the tax," became "a burden" 17 We told redrafted allay concerns somewhat similar taxes. gave reason, change language. merely stated: 18 "Senate amendment.—Under any restrictions their subdivisions goods services nondomiciliary use derived interpretations clause 19 amendment users. effective taxable years beginning after June 30, 1974. 20 "Conference agreement.—The conference agreement follows amendment." H.R.Conf.Rep.No. 94-1515, p. 503 21 There thus legislative history show what drafting intended accomplish. far "sterile" legislation is. To contrary, clearly operates, think, carry expressed intent invalidate 22 urge more prohibition test Clause. test, say, requires examination total structure determine fact sent See Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Reily, 373 64, 69, 83 1201, 202. And question, survives examination. Power argue, subject tax: By contrast, subjects therefore, structure, 23 But, whatever advanced appellees, specifically "on electricity," entire concededly provisions locally while look narrowly type names, rather consider faithful language also enacting it. statute.7 24 argue construed exceeds view broad argument rejected. Wickard Filburn, 317 111, 63 82, 87 L.Ed. 122; Katzenbach McClung, 379 294, 85 377, 290. Here, enact. Heart Atlanta Motel, Inc. United 241, 258-259, 348, 358-359, 258; 268-269; Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 110, 119, 62 523, 526, 86 726, 729. 25 region undoubtedly generates environmental problems indication prevent pay solutions these problems. Phoenix causes Albuquerque. chooses city, equally each. 26 27 It ordered. REHNQUIST, whom WHITE joins, concurring judgment. 29 I concur agree borders forbidden 391. 30 think closer intimates, both meaning actual 391 history. indicates concede, makes ante, 147-148; Brief Appellees 14. argues order "save" statutes that, redrafted, legislation: accomplishes Constitution would accomplish own force. 149; 11, 16, 24. vested judicial power, therefore unrealistic assume automatically never passes sense done law. my view, laws certainly entitled presumption effect. Since effect entirely history, give some weight reaching extends beyond requirements Clause* outlaws issue. Service El Paso Electric Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement Dist., Southern Edison Tucson Gas Each appellant owns undivided interest Plant. equal co-owner units San Juan Generating Station. operates Rio Grande Station southern minor portion regulated utility. sells wholesale Republic nearly billion hours N.M.Stat.Ann. §§ 7-9-1 7-9-80 (1978). critical sections 9. provide relevant part follows: 3. "A. purpose sale, takes place state, person temporary applicable until July 1, 1984, four-tenths ($.0004) "B. shall referred 'electrical tax.' " 7-18-3 On paid due state. "C. Subsections B assigned selling due, assignee assignor credit." provide: 72-16A-16.1(C) [now 7-9-80(C)] potential persons purchasing resale: "1) buyers potentially consume "2) resell Mexico; levied another thereof seller. "Each seller paragraph assign, buyer subparagraphs (1) (2) paragraph, pro-rata share available provided 72-16A-16.1(A) (B) 7-9-80(A), 7-9-80(B)]. presumed receipt invoice separately stating 72-16A-16.1. "In absence bad faith, purchaser rely claiming "D. reselling month 1975. reassigned regulation. "3) electric otherwise creditable 72-16A-16.1, reporting 1975." N.M.G.Rev. Regulations 16.1:1 Laws Pursuance [of Constitution] . supreme Law Land ." U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. evenhanded lowered Although practical shift legal incidence amici pointed several Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 72, 8101 (Purdon Supp.1978-1979); Wash.Rev.Code 82.16.020, 82.16.050 (1976); W.Va.Code 11-13-2d, 11-13-2m (Supp.1978). None adopted precisely scheme used express laws. mind were coextensive valid substantially Ante, see 69-70, 1203-1204, 202, 204-205 (1963); Gregg Dyeing Query, 286 472, 480, 52 631, 634, 76 1232, 1235 (1932); Utility Dist. 82 Wash.2d 232, 239-240, 510 206, 210-211, dismissed want substantial 414 1106 (1973).

Category: 7