pacific gas elec energy resources argued january decided april section california public resources code provides nuclear powerplant may built state energy resources conservation development commission must determine basis adequate capacity interim storage plant spent fuel time plant requires storage section imposes moratorium certification new nuclear plants state commission finds developed authorized agency approved demonstrated technology means permanent terminal disposal nuclear wastes petitioner electric utilities filed action federal district seeking declaration provisions inter alia invalid supremacy clause atomic energy act district finding issues presented two provisions ripe adjudication held conflict atomic energy act appeals agreed challenge ripe review found challenge known whether state commission ever find nuclear plant storage capacity inadequate went hold designed provide protection radiation hazards adopted uncertainties nuclear fuel cycle make nuclear power uneconomical uncertain source energy therefore section atomic energy act constituted authorization regulate nuclear powerplants purposes protection radiation hazards held invalid barrier fulfillment federal goal encouraging development atomic energy held challenge ripe judicial review questions concerning pp question ripeness turns fitness issues judicial decision hardship parties withholding consideration abbott laboratories gardner factors counsel favor finding challenge ripe adjudication question predominantly legal require industry proceed without knowing whether moratorium imposed valid impose palpable considerable hardship utilities may ultimately work harm citizens california moreover void hindering commercial development atomic energy delayed resolution frustrate one key purposes atomic energy act pp circumstances uncertain whether state commission ever find nuclear plant interim storage capacity inadequate holding infra federal law unlikely industry behavior uniquely affected uncertainty surrounding interim storage provision stretch reach early perhaps premature decision respecting section atomic energy act pp passage atomic energy act several revisions present day congress preserved dual regulation electricity generation federal government maintains complete control safety nuclear aspects energy generation whereas exercise traditional authority economic questions need additional generating capacity type generating facilities licensed land use ratemaking accepts california avowed economic rather safety purpose rationale enacting accordingly statute lies outside federally occupied field nuclear safety regulation pp section conflict federal regulation nuclear waste disposal decision nuclear regulatory commission nrc permissible continue license reactors notwithstanding uncertainty surrounding waste disposal problem congress recent passage nuclear waste policy act directed problem nrc decision compel utility develop nuclear plant compliance decision possible moreover nrc regulations aimed insuring plants safe necessarily economical interfere objective regulations attempt california part enter field developing licensing nuclear waste disposal technology field occupied federal government nrc obligations waste disposal field licensing power plants appear congress intended nuclear waste policy act make decision whether sufficient federal commitment fuel storage waste disposal licensing nuclear reactors may resume moreover act interpreted directed solving nuclear waste disposal problem existing reactors without necessarily encouraging requiring future plant construction undertaken pp section frustrate atomic energy act purpose develop commercial use nuclear power promotion nuclear power accomplished costs moreover congress given authority determine matter economics whether nuclear plant fossil fuel plant built california decision exercise authority constitute basis pp white delivered opinion burger brennan marshall powell rehnquist joined blackmun filed opinion concurring part concurring judgment stevens joined post john mcdonough argued cause petitioners briefs howard soloway deputy solicitor general claiborne argued cause amicus curiae urging reversal brief solicitor general lee assistant attorney general mcgrath john garvey leonard schaitman al daniel laurence tribe argued cause respondents brief roger beers william chamberlain dian grueneich ralph cavanagh briefs amici curiae urging reversal filed leonard trosten eugene fidell linda hodge atomic industrial forum john cannon susan wanat hans bethe et al joseph knotts robert baum edison electric institute max dean fusion energy foundation david crump wilkes robinson legal foundation america ronald zumbrun robin rivett raymond momboisse sam kazman pacific legal foundation et al briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed state alaska et al robert abrams attorney general new york peter schiff ezra bialik assistant attorney general wilson condon attorney general alaska douglas mertz assistant attorney general robert corbin attorney general arizona anthony ching solicitor general john steven clark attorney general arkansas tany hong attorney general hawaii michael lilly first deputy attorney general robert stephan attorney general kansas robert vinson eye assistant attorney general brian moline william guste attorney general louisiana kendall vick assistant attorney general warren spannaus attorney general minnesota jocelyn olson special assistant attorney general bill allain attorney general mississippi mack cameron special assistant attorney general mike greely attorney general montana mike mcgrath assistant attorney general richard bryan attorney general nevada larry struve chief deputy attorney general william brown attorney general ohio dennis muchnicki assistant attorney general jan eric cartwright attorney general oklahoma sara drake assistant attorney general daniel mcleod attorney general south carolina richard wilson assistant attorney general john easton attorney general vermont merideth wright assistant attorney general chauncey browning attorney general west virginia robert rodecker steven freudenthal attorney general wyoming walter perry iii senior assistant attorney general state connecticut carl ajello attorney general robert golden assistant attorney general neil proto special assistant attorney general state maine james tierney attorney general rufus brown deputy attorney general cabanne howard senior assistant attorney general gregory sample assistant attorney general commonwealth massachusetts francis bellotti attorney general stephen leonard assistant attorney general state illinois et al gregory smith attorney general new hampshire tupper kinder assistant attorney general tyrone fahner attorney general illinois john van vranken anne rapkin jeffrey paulson assistant attorneys general state oregon dave frohnmayer attorney general stanton long deputy attorney general william gary solicitor general james mountain deputy solicitor general frank ostrander assistant attorney general state washington kenneth eikenberry attorney general edward mackie chief deputy attorney general state wisconsin et al bronson la follette attorney general wisconsin steven schur carl sinderbrand assistant attorney general rufus edmisten attorney general north carolina john ashcroft attorney general missouri steven beshear attorney general kentucky richard levin attorney general new mexico geoffrey sloan thomas miller attorney general iowa james maret leroy zimmerman attorney general pennsylvania public utilities commission state california et al janice kerr calvin simpson paul rodgers joseph alviani filed brief new england legal foundation amicus curiae justice white delivered opinion turning swords plowshares symbolized transformation atomic power source energy american society facilitate development federal government relaxed monopoly fissionable materials nuclear technology place erected complex scheme promote civilian development nuclear energy seeking safeguard public environment unpredictable risks new technology early decided continue traditional role regulation electricity production interrelationship federal state authority nuclear energy field simple federal regulatory structure frequently amended optimize partnership case emerges intersection federal government efforts ensure nuclear power safe exercise historic state authority generation sale electricity issue whether provisions amendments california act cal pub res code ann west condition construction nuclear plants findings state energy resources conservation development commission adequate storage facilities means disposal available nuclear waste atomic energy act stat amended et seq nuclear reactor must periodically refueled spent fuel removed spent fuel intensely radioactive must carefully stored general practice store fuel pool reactor site many years assumed fuel reprocessed accordingly storage pools designed holding facilities limited storage capacities expectations reprocessing remained unfulfilled spent fuel accumulated storage pools creating risk nuclear reactors shut occur insufficient room pool store spent fuel also enough space hold entire fuel core certain inspections emergencies required unloading reactor recent years problem taken special urgency metric tons spent nuclear fuel already accumulated projected year metric tons spent fuel government studies indicate number reactors forced shut near future due inability store spent fuel second dimension problem even water pools adequate store safely spent fuel produced working lifetime reactor permanent disposal needed wastes remain radioactive thousands years number nuclear waste management strategies extensively examined range sinking wastes stable deep seabeds placing wastes beneath ice sheets greenland antarctica ejecting wastes space rocket greatest attention focused disposing wastes subsurface geologic repositories salt deposits problems store nuclear wastes engendered considerable scientific political public debate safety economic aspects nuclear waste issue first properly stored nuclear wastes might leak endanger environment human health second lack disposal option increases risk insufficiency interim storage space spent fuel lead reactor shutdowns rendering nuclear energy unpredictable uneconomical adventure california laws issue responses concerns california adopted state energy resources conservation development act cal pub res code ann west supp act requires utility seeking build california electric power generating plant including nuclear powerplant must apply certification state energy resources conservation development commission energy commission act amended provide additional state regulation new nuclear powerplant construction two sections amendments us section provides additional nuclear plants may built energy commission must determine basis adequate capacity storage plant spent fuel rods time nuclear facility requires storage law also requires utility provide continuous full core reserve storage capacity order permit storage entire reactor core must removed permit repairs reactor short addresses interim storage spent fuel section deals solution nuclear wastes section imposes moratorium certification new nuclear plants energy commission finds developed authorized agency approved exists demonstrated technology means disposal nuclear waste disposal defined method permanent terminal disposition nuclear waste finding must reported state legislature may nullify petitioners pacific gas electric southern california edison filed action district requesting declaration numerous provisions act including two sections challenged invalid supremacy clause atomic energy act district held petitioners standing challenge issues presented two statutes ripe adjudication two provisions void conflict atomic energy act supp ed cal appeals ninth circuit affirmed district ruling petitioners standing challenge california statutes also agreed challenge ripe review concluded however challenge ripe ecause know whether energy commission ever find nuclear plant storage capacity inadequate merits held nuclear moratorium provisions atomic energy act constitute congressional authorization regulate nuclear powerplants purposes protection radiation hazards held designed provide protection radiation hazards adopted uncertainties nuclear fuel cycle make nuclear power uneconomical uncertain source energy provision invalid barrier fulfillment federal goal encouraging development atomic energy granting state authority combined recent federal enactments demonstrated congress intend nuclear power developed costs proceed consistent priorities subject controls traditionally exercised expressly preserved federal statute granted certiorari limited questions whether ripe judicial review whether atomic energy act ii agree challenge ripe judicial review questions concerning basic rationale ripeness doctrine prevent courts avoidance premature adjudication entangling abstract disagreements administrative policies also protect agencies judicial interference administrative decision formalized effects felt concrete way challenging parties abbott laboratories gardner abbott laboratories remains leading discussion doctrine indicated question ripeness turns fitness issues judicial decision hardship parties withholding consideration factors counsel favor finding challenge waste disposal regulations ripe adjudication question predominantly legal although useful benefit california interpretation constitutes demonstrated technology means disposal nuclear waste resolution issue need await development moreover postponement decision likely work substantial hardship utilities appeals cogently reasoned utilities proceed hopes time certification came either required findings made law struck requires expenditures millions dollars number years without certainty recovery certification denied construction new nuclear facilities requires considerable advance planning order years thus rail reorganization act cases decisions made short future may affected whether act one await consummation threatened injury obtain preventive relief injury certainly impending enough quoting pennsylvania west virginia require industry proceed without knowing whether moratorium valid impose palpable considerable hardship utilities may ultimately work harm citizens california moreover petitioners correct void hinders commercial development atomic energy delayed resolution frustrate one key purposes atomic energy act duke power carolina environmental study group reasons issue whether federal law decided questions concerning constitutionality interim storage provision however ripe review waste disposal statute operates basis energy commission directed make determinations basis appeals explained know whether energy commission ever find nuclear plant storage capacity inadequate judicial consideration provision await developments furthermore hold today federal law little likelihood industry behavior uniquely affected whatever uncertainty surrounds interim storage provisions circumstances stretch reach early perhaps premature decision respecting iii well established within constitutional limits congress may state authority stating express terms jones rath packing absent explicit language congress intent supersede state law altogether may found scheme federal regulation pervasive make reasonable inference congress left room supplement act congress may touch field federal interest dominant federal system assumed preclude enforcement state laws subject object sought obtained federal law character obligations imposed may reveal purpose fidelity federal savings loan assn de la cuesta quoting rice santa fe elevator even congress entirely displaced state regulation specific area state law extent actually conflicts federal law conflict arises compliance federal state regulations physical impossibility florida lime avocado growers paul state law stands obstacle accomplishment execution full purposes objectives congress hines davidowitz petitioners supporting amici present three major lines argument first submit statute regulates construction nuclear plants allegedly predicated safety concerns ignores division federal state authority created atomic energy act falls within field federal government preserved exclusive control second statute judgments underlie conflict decisions concerning nuclear waste disposal issue made congress nuclear regulatory commission third california statute frustrates federal goal developing nuclear technology source energy consider contentions turn even brief perusal atomic energy act reveals despite comprehensiveness point expressly require construct authorize nuclear powerplants prohibit deciding absolute conditional matter permit construction reactors instead petitioners argue act intended preserve federal government sole regulator matters nuclear falls within scope impliedly field view issue congress passing act subsequently amending intended federal government regulate radiological safety aspects involved construction operation nuclear plant retain traditional responsibility field regulating electrical utilities determining questions need reliability cost related state concerns need new power facilities economic feasibility rates services areas characteristically governed justice brandeis observed franchise operate public utility special privilege may granted withheld pleasure state frost corporation dissenting opinion nature government regulation private utilities utility may frequently required state regulatory scheme obtain approval practices business regulated less detail free institute without approval regulatory body jackson metropolitan edison see central hudson gas electric public service new york state concern rates fair efficient represents clear substantial governmental interest exception broad authority federal power commission federal energy regulatory commission need pricing electrical power transmitted interstate commerce see federal power act ed supp economic aspects electrical generation regulated many years great detail noted vermont yankee nuclear power natural resources defense council little doubt atomic energy act state public utility commissions similar bodies empowered make initial decision regarding need power thus congress legislated field traditionally occupied start assumption historic police powers superseded federal act unless clear manifest purpose congress rice santa fe elevator supra atomic energy act must read however another background enrico fermi demonstrated first nuclear reactor congress authorized civilian application atomic power atomic energy act see act stat time atomic energy commission aec created however use control ownership nuclear technology remained federal monopoly atomic energy act act stat amended et seq ed supp grew congress determination national interest best served government encouraged private sector become involved development atomic energy peaceful purposes program federal regulation licensing see act implemented policy decision providing licensing private construction ownership operation commercial nuclear power reactors duke power carolina environmental study group aec however given exclusive jurisdiction license transfer delivery receipt acquisition possession use nuclear materials aa ed supp upon subjects role left commission however given authority generation electricity economic question whether particular plant built observed vermont yankee supra commission prime area concern licensing context national security public health safety see also power reactor development electrical workers utility investment considered commission licensing decisions nuclear regulatory commission nrc exercises aec regulatory authority purport exercise authority based economic considerations cfr recently repealed regulations concerning financial qualifications capabilities utility proposing construct operate nuclear powerplant fed reg notice rule repeal nrc stated utility financial qualifications concern nrc related public health safety almost inconceivable congress left regulatory vacuum reasonable inference congress intended continue make judgments doubt ratemaking questions remain state hands removed provided nothing chapter shall construed affect authority regulations federal state local agency respect generation sale transmission electric power produced use nuclear facilities licensed commission amendments reinforced fundamental division authority congress amended atomic energy act order clarify respective responsibilities commission respect regulation byproduct source special nuclear materials see authority planning new powerplants ratemaking issue indeed point amendments heighten role section authorized nrc agreements state governors discontinue regulatory authority certain nuclear materials limited conditions state programs permitted amendment required coordinated compatible nrc supra subject matters agreements also limited commission shall retain authority responsibility respect regulation construction operation production utilization facility disposal byproduct source special nuclear material commission determines hazards potential hazards thereof disposed without license commission nothing section shall construed affect authority state local agency regulate activities purposes protection radiation hazards regulatory structure remained unchanged purposes following proviso added provided section shall deemed confer upon federal state local agency authority regulate control restrict activities commission account indicates passage atomic energy act several revisions present day congress preserved dual regulation electricity generation federal government maintains complete control safety nuclear aspects energy generation exercise traditional authority need additional generating capacity type generating facilities licensed land use ratemaking like particularly controversial deciding construed classified difficult proposition outset emphasize statute seek regulate construction operation nuclear powerplant clearly impermissible california attempt regulation even enacted nonsafety concerns nevertheless directly conflict nrc exclusive authority plant construction operation respondents appear concede much respondents broadly argue however although safety regulation nuclear plants forbidden state may completely prohibit new construction safety concerns satisfied federal government reject line reasoning state safety regulation conflicts federal law rather federal government occupied entire field nuclear safety concerns except limited powers expressly ceded federal government completely occupies given field identifiable portion done test whether matter state asserts right act way regulated federal act rice santa fe elevator state moratorium nuclear construction grounded safety concerns falls squarely within prohibited field moreover state judgment nuclear power safe enough developed conflict directly countervailing judgment nrc see infra nuclear construction may proceed notwithstanding extant uncertainties waste disposal state prohibition nuclear construction safety reasons also teeth atomic energy act objective insure nuclear technology safe enough widespread development use reason infra case necessary determine whether nonsafety rationale california maintained appeals agreed aimed economic problems radiation hazards california assembly committee resources land use energy proposed package bills including reported waste disposal problem largely economic result poor planning safety related reassessment nuclear energy california policy analysis proposition alternatives reassessment report emphasis original committee explained lack federally approved method waste disposal created clog nuclear fuel cycle storage space limited nuclear wastes continuously produced without permanent means disposal nuclear waste problem become critical leading unpredictably high costs contain problem worse shutdowns reactors waste disposal safety reassessment report notes directly addressed bills ask method waste disposal chosen accepted federal government emphasis original appeals adopted reading relying reassessment report concluded ection directed towards purposes protection radiation hazards proposition required california judge safety proposed method waste disposal section leaves judgment federal government california concerned adequacy method rather existence second suggested california concerned economics banned california utilities building plants outside state objection carries little force indication california utilities contemplating construction state legislature obligated address purely hypothetical facets problem third petitioners note already body california public utilities commission authorized determine economic grounds whether nuclear powerplant constructed california certainly free make decisions basis state foreclosed reaching decision legislative judgment applicable cases economic uncertainties engendered nuclear waste disposal problems factors vary facility facility issue readily lends generalized decisionmaking california faulted pursuing course fourth petitioners note proposition initiative arose companion provisions california nuclear laws clearly written safety purposes mind suggested shares common heritage laws presumed enacted purposes short answer state laws indeed proposition passed provisions pedigree taint parts act although specific indicia california intent enacting subject varying interpretation two reasons become embroiled attempting ascertain california true motive first inquiry legislative motive often unsatisfactory venture motivates one legislator vote statute necessarily motivates scores others enact second particularly pointless us engage inquiry clear allowed retain authority need electrical generating facilities easily sufficient permit state inclined halt construction new nuclear plants refusing economic grounds issue certificates public convenience individual proceedings circumstances congress determine whether state misused authority left hands therefore accept california avowed economic purpose rationale enacting accordingly statute lies outside occupied field nuclear safety regulation petitioners second major argument concerns federal regulation aimed nuclear waste disposal problem contended conflicts federal regulation nuclear waste disposal nrc decision permissible continue license reactors notwithstanding uncertainty surrounding waste disposal problem congress recent passage legislation directed problem pursuant authority act ed supp aec later nrc promulgated extensive detailed regulations concerning operation nuclear facilities handling nuclear materials following provisions relevant spent fuel waste disposal issues case receive nrc operating license one must submit safety analysis report includes radioactive waste handling syste cfr ii see also cfr regulations specify general design criteria control requirements fuel storage handling radioactive waste stored reactor site cfr pt app criteria addition nrc promulgated detailed regulations governing storage disposal away reactor cfr pt nrc also promulgated procedural requirements covering license applications disposal radioactive waste geologic repositories cfr pt congress gave department energy responsibility establishment temporary permanent facilities storage management ultimate disposal nuclear wastes supp permanent disposal facilities yet licensed nrc department energy continue authorize storage spent fuel reactor sites pools water nrc asked natural resources defense council halt reactor licensing determined method permanent disposal waste nrc concluded given progress toward development disposal facilities availability interim storage continue license new reactors natural resources defense council nrc nrc imprimatur however indicates safe proceed plants economically wise nrc order compel utility develop nuclear plant compliance possible moreover nrc regulations aimed insuring plants safe necessarily economical interfere objective federal regulation california sought impose standards nuclear waste disposal statute accepts federal responsibility develop license technology attempt california part enter field one occupied federal government find nrc obligations waste disposal field licensing power plants case decided appeals new piece added regulatory puzzle closing week congress passed nuclear waste policy act pub stat complex bill providing multifaceted attack problem inter alia bill authorizes repositories disposal radioactive waste spent nuclear fuel provides licensing expansion interim storage authorizes research development provides scheme financing passage new legislation may convince state authorities sufficient federal commitment fuel storage waste disposal licensing nuclear reactors may resume indeed seems one purposes act appear congress intended make decision legislation senator mcclure attempted precisely amendment senate bill providing act satisfied legal requirements existence approved technology facilities disposal spent fuel nuclear waste amendment adopted senate without debate cong rec apr subsequent house hearings strongly urged language omitted affect case see nuclear waste disposal policy hearings subcommittee energy conservation power house committee energy commerce bill emerged house committee omit senate language manager representative ottinger stated house language deleted insure preemption cong rec bill ultimately signed law followed house language correctly reluctant draw inferences failure congress act case appear improper us give reading act congress considered rejected moreover certainly possible interpret act directed solving nuclear waste disposal problem existing reactors without necessarily encouraging requiring future plant construction undertaken finally strongly contended frustrates atomic energy act purpose develop commercial use nuclear power well established state law stands obstacle accomplishment execution full purposes objectives congress hines davidowitz florida lime avocado growers paul fidelity federal savings loan assn de la cuesta little doubt primary purpose atomic energy act continues promotion nuclear power act program encourage widespread participation development utilization atomic energy peaceful purposes maximum extent consistent common defense security health safety public house senate reports confirmed major policy goal involvement private industry speed development peaceful uses atomic energy purpose manifest passage act limits private liability nuclear accident act passed order protect public encourage development atomic energy industry duke power carolina environmental study group appeals suggestion legislation since indicated change congressional outlook unconvincing observed congress reorganized atomic energy commission dividing promotional safety responsibilities aec giving former energy research development administration erda latter nrc energy reorganization act stat et seq evident desire congress prevent safety compromised promotional concerns translate abandonment objective promoting nuclear power legislation carefully drafted fact avoid antinuclear sentiment continuing commitment nuclear power reflected extension act coverage pub stat well congress express preclusion reliance natural gas petroleum primary energy sources new powerplants powerplant industrial fuel use act stat supp true course congress sought simultaneously promote development alternative energy sources view steps indication congress retreated commitment development nuclear power electricity generation appeals right however promotion nuclear power accomplished costs elaborate licensing safety provisions continued preservation state regulation traditional areas belie moreover congress allowed determine matter economics whether nuclear plant fossil fuel plant built decision california exercise authority constitute basis therefore argument petitioners considerable force legal reality remains congress left sufficient authority allow development nuclear power slowed even stopped economic reasons given statutory scheme congress rethink division regulatory authority light possible exercise undercut federal objective courts assume role system assigns congress iv judgment appeals affirmed footnotes past several years department energy one predecessors warning congress almost annually imminent closure number nuclear power reactors result lack available capacity store spent nuclear fuel reactor yet shut reasons largely utilities expanded storage capacity pt office technology assessment analysis found reactors running storage space may shut unless storage space made available timely basis ota study see also affidavit terry lash staff scientist natural resources defense council app affidavit dale bridenbaugh nuclear engineer app see supra waste disposal present stage technological development refers storage long lived highly radioactive waste products detoxify sufficiently longer present environmental hazard presently physical chemical steps render waste less toxic simply passage time vermont yankee nuclear power natural resources defense council see generally nuclear fuel cycle committee california energy commission status nuclear fuel reprocessing spent fuel storage waste disposal draft report app report president interagency review group nuclear waste management committee nuclear alternative energy systems national research council national academy sciences energy transition pp see also yellin high technology courts harv rev uncertainty reflected fact since nuclear regulatory commission engaged proceeding reassess evidentiary basis position safety considerations compromised continuing federal licensing waste disposal method developed fed reg see minnesota nrc app moreover ultimate solution waste disposal problem may entail significant expenditures affecting economic attractiveness nuclear option applicant must first file notice intention file application certification commission conducts review process months notice intention approved applicant must file application certification commission conducts review process exceed months unless certification granted proposed plant constructed certification granted commission authorized make certain specifications construction plant directed monitor construction process transmission commission finding legislature certification nuclear powerplants continues prohibited legislative days elapsed without disaffirmance findings either house legislature findings disaffirmed energy commission legislature fails void renewed findings statute within legislative days retransmittal commission district found coupled energy commission failure make required findings made investment petitioners nuclear plants unreasonable risk also found sections provisions held invalid petitioners reactivate plans nuclear plant development also held unripe challenges various certification provisions cal pub res code ann west supp requirements utilities acquire surrounding development rights west supp reprocessing provisions requirement utility propose least three alternative sites held ripe review atomic energy act reasons similar applied section stat amended set forth provides nothing chapter shall construed affect authority regulations federal state local agency respect generation sale transmission electric power produced use nuclear facilities licensed commission provided section shall deemed confer upon federal state local agency authority regulate control restrict activities commission section stat provides nothing section shall construed affect authority state local agency regulate activities purposes protection radiation hazards role provisions federal regulatory structure discussed infra appeal ninth circuit consolidated decided related challenge brought nuclear engineer hired work proposed nuclear plant subsequently lost job project abandoned district held engineer standing challenge waste disposal law law atomic energy act pacific legal foundation state energy resources supp sd cal appeals disagreed district standing analysis reversed denied certiorari pacific gas electric example spent least million even filing notice intention file application certification opinion supp ed cal finding fact app pet cert finding fact respondents also contend waste disposal provision question ripe review even law invalid petitioners injury prevented practical matter building new nuclear fully redressed inasmuch sections act also prevent construction respondents also suggest lack redressability rises level art iii concern arguments predicated entirely upon statement petitioners reply brief support petition certiorari unless california certification system statutes reviewed least largely invalidated petitioners undertake build nuclear power plants california reply brief petitioners respondents attempt draw entirely much statement california certification provisions impose moratorium new construction main require information gathered variety issues considered energy commission cal pub res code ann west supp unreasonable presume informational requirements exert chilling effect new construction moratorium ninth circuit concurs delay adjudication cause undue hardship parties certification scheme general immediate substantial impact utilities gardner toilet goods association neither pacific gas electric southern california edison notice intention application certification pending threat procedural burdens might someday imposed certification might someday denied failure meet energy commission standards remote best omitted respondents fears petitioners seek pursue nuclear option notwithstanding favorable decision litigation appear greatly exaggerated appeals noted draft report state energy commission nuclear fuel cycle committee recommended requiring nuclear plants provide specified amount storage space see nuclear fuel cycle committee supra necessarily render provision ripe committee report indication views two five members energy commission may views change future report cautions represent final agency action indeed full commission decision january adopt report committee recommendations regarding storage finally recently enacted nuclear waste policy act pub stat et seq ed authorizes nrc license technology storage spent fuel directs secretary energy provide metric tons capacity storage spent fuel provisions might influence state commission ultimate findings early many adopted legislation empowering utility commissions regulate electric utilities see jones origins certificate public convenience necessity developments colum rev today every state regulatory body authority assuring adequate electric service reasonable rates house committee interstate foreign commerce electric utility sector concepts practices problems comm print description regulatory framework effect see american bar association special committee energy law need power choice technologies state decisions electric power facilities see also nrc atomic safety licensing appeal board consolidated edison retain right even face issuance nrc construction permit preclude construction bases lack need additional generating capacity environmental unacceptability proposed facility site cong rec remarks hickenlooper statements aec chairman strauss particularly instructive exchange house floor representatives yates cole representative yates inquired bill imposed duty upon commission determine whether public convenience necessity require certain commercial institutions licensed construct reactors production power civilian purposes representative cole responded imposition grant licenses based upon public convenience necessity said regulated existing federal state authorities touch respect authority shifted control byproduct source material special nuclear material quantities sufficient form critical mass california signed agreement cal health safety code ann west addition created advisory role respecting activities exclusively within nrc jurisdiction directs commission cooperate even formulation standards regulation radiation hazards unique provisions act pertaining aec licensing regulation persons operating reactors used produce electricity feeling uneasiness among drafters legislation effect new law upon agencies federal state local jurisdiction generation sale transmission electric power recognized drafters authority agencies respect generation sale transmission electric power produced use nuclear facilities affected new law aec regulatory control limited considerations involving common defense security protection health safety public respect special hazards associated operation nuclear facilities nevertheless section added make explicit licensees aec produced power though use nuclear facilities otherwise remain subject authority appropriate federal state local authorities respect generation sale transmission electric power amendment section effected bill intended clarification meaning section originally enacted expressions subsequent congress generally thought particularly useful ascertaining intent earlier congress senator hickenlooper sponsor amendment important figure drafting act senator pastore also involved writing act elaborated conscious desired aec engage business regulating electricity trying keep aec business regulating electricity gave birth section provided nothing act affect local supervising authority right control manufacture electricity generated nuclear facilities cong rec summary affirmance northern power minnesota summarily aff fully consistent reading division regulatory authority minnesota effort regulate radioactive waste discharges nuclear plants fell squarely within field safety regulation reserved federal regulation invalidation regulation northern requires retraction state authority preserved act summary affirmances action read adoption reasoning supporting judgment review zobel williams mandel bradley per curiam addition opportunity enter agreements nrc congress specifically authorized regulate radioactive air pollutants nuclear plants clean air act amendments supp impose certain siting requirements nuclear plants nrc authorization act fiscal year pub stat cal pub util code ann west supp amendments act passed alternative proposition initiative submitted california voters june terms provisions become operative proposition adopted cal pub res code ann historical note west proposition rejected like proposition among things barred construction new nuclear powerplants unless permanent method waste disposal developed though proposition gave reason concern threat harm land people california similarly cal pub res code ann west supp requires state energy commission undertake study underground placement berm containment nuclear reactors determine whether construction techniques necessary enhancing public health safety petitioners correctly cite perez campbell proposition state law may frustrate operation federal law simply state legislature passing law purpose mind one frustration perez however unlike case actual conflict state federal law perez involved arizona law required uninsured motorists satisfied judgments failed pay settlements accidents prove financial responsibility state license drive arizona law contrary federal bankruptcy act specified obligation discharged bankruptcy held state law despite fact purpose deter irresponsible driving rather aid collection debts actual conflict atomic energy act adherence impossible operation state law frustrated accomplishment federal objective perez apposite natural resources defense council petition nrc claimed atomic energy act required agency consider safety aspects waste disposal determining whether license reactors nrc denied petition stating examine safety risks licensing decisions fed reg nrc asked consider whether nuclear reactors sufficiently reliable investments light unresolved waste disposal question nrc address issue issue raised review nrc decision natural resources defense council nrc appeals stated issue whether nrc prior granting nuclear power reactor operating licenses required public health safety requirement atomic energy act make determination radioactive wastes permanently disposed safely emphasis deleted similarly nrc proceeding addressing extent assessments waste disposal technology factored nrc reactor licensing address economic ramifications issue matter subject prolonged litigation presently pending see natural resources defense council nrc app rev sub nom vermont yankee nuclear power natural resources defense council remand app cert granted sub nom baltimore gas electric natural resources defense council act ed enumerates following purposes establish schedule siting construction operation repositories provide reasonable assurance public environment adequately protected hazards posed radioactive waste spent nuclear fuel establish federal responsibility definite federal policy disposal waste spent fuel stat see also pt pp purpose act provide reasonable assurance safe waste disposal methods available needed cong rec remarks udall remarks winn act demonstrates public industry federal government fulfilling responsibility dispose waste erda functions transferred department energy stat supp senate bill included language prohibiting erda giving unwarranted priority single energy source concern erda may give unwarranted priority development nuclear power detriment competing energy technologies house bill expressed concern giving unwarranted priority nuclear power bill reported conference committee subsequently enacted contain senate prohibitory language instead stated technologies promoted conf recently rejected similar claim congressional policy favor use coal fuel source state legislation may adverse effect use coal commonwealth edison montana resolution case controlled first iowa cooperative fpc first iowa held compliance requirements state permit iowa law necessary order secure federal license hydroelectric project allowing veto federal decisions destroy effectiveness federal act subordinate control state comprehensive planning act provides shall depend upon judgment federal government manner requiring compliance state requirements reduced project size federal power commission determined inadequate compliance state engineering requirements handicap financial success project atomic energy act give nrc comprehensive planning responsibility moreover interfere type plant constructed state regulations affected construction operation federally approved nuclear powerplants pose different case justice blackmun justice stevens joins concurring part concurring judgment join opinion except extent suggests state may prohibit construction nuclear powerplants state motivated concerns safety plants since finds california motivated suggestion unnecessary holding important believe dictum wrong several respects takes position state decision prohibit construction nuclear powerplants three distinct reasons first federal government occupied entire field nuclear safety concerns except limited powers expressly ceded ante second indicates state judgment nuclear power safe enough developed conflict squarely countervailing judgment nrc nuclear construction may proceed notwithstanding extant uncertainties waste disposal ante third believes prohibition construction new nuclear plants teeth atomic energy act objective insure nuclear technology safe enough widespread development use ibid reasons summarized agree state nuclear moratorium even motivated safety concerns grounds first congress occupied broad field nuclear safety concerns narrower area nuclear plant constructed operated protect radiation hazards traditionally possessed authority choose technologies rely meeting energy needs nothing atomic energy act limits authority intimates state exercising authority may consider features distinguish nuclear plants power sources contrary act stat amended indicates may continue respect nuclear power exercise traditional police power manner meet energy needs short evidence congress clear manifest purpose rice santa fe elevator force blind whatever special dangers posed nuclear plants federal authority decide nuclear power create regulatory vacuum see wiggins federalism balancing burger california nuclear law preemption case study rev making traditional policy choices kinds power best suited needs state forced ignore undeniable fact nuclear power entails certain risks nrc evaluate dangers generating nuclear power balance dangers risks costs benefits choices available state consider state standards public convenience necessity professor wiggins noted state utility regulatory agency like california energy commission prevented making general evaluation feasibility broad grounds social economic ideological policy decision whether build nuclear facility state ultimately made public utility seeking construction ironic public energy utilities granted jurisdictional monopoly large part heavy regulation state freed regulatory oversight one decision promises affect greatest number persons greatest possible time ibid emphasis original ii second basis suggesting may prohibit construction nuclear plants safety grounds prohibition conflict nrc judgment construction nuclear plants may safely proceed flat ban safety reasons however make compliance federal state regulations physical impossibility florida lime avocado growers paul nrc expressed judgment safe proceed construction operation nuclear plants neither nrc congress mandated see ante iii state regulation also conflicts federal law stands obstacle accomplishment execution full purposes objectives congress hines davidowitz suggests state ban nuclear plants standard well see ante congress merely encouraged development nuclear technology make another source energy available congress forced accept particular source see note envir congress evidenced dictatorial intent every state build nuclear powerplants ban nuclear plant construction safety reasons thus conflict congress objectives purposes atomic energy act intended promote technological development nuclear power time private nuclear power industry act addressed practical question bringing industry order make available additional energy source makes much general statements purpose act legislative history see ante statements simply reflect congress desire create private nuclear power industry congress compel give preference eventual product industry ignore peculiar problems associated product see wiggins recent legislation makes clear federal policy preventing state choosing rely technologies considers safer nuclear power energy reorganization act stat et seq ed supp separated promotional regulatory functions area nuclear power act established nrc perform regulatory licensing functions atomic energy commission energy research development administration erda develop increase efficiency reliability use energy sources legislative history act expresses concern pronuclear bias regulatory agency demonstrates desire federal government place greater relative emphasis nonnuclear energy legislative purpose consistent fact retain many means prohibiting construction nuclear plants within borders may refuse issue certificates public convenience necessity individual nuclear powerplants may establish siting land use requirements nuclear plants stringent nrc cf nrc authorization act fiscal pub stat clean air act amendments may regulate radioactive air emissions nuclear plants may impose stringent emission standards promulgated nrc supp authority may used prevent construction nuclear plants altogether consolidated edison new york indian point station unit sum congress required go nuclear whole part atomic energy act twin goals promote development technology ensure safety technology although act reserves nrc decisions build operate nuclear plants reads much act suggesting also limits traditional power decide types electric power utilize congress simply made nuclear option available state may decline option reason rather rest elusive test legislative motive therefore conclude decision whether build nuclear plants remains view ban construction nuclear powerplants valid even authors motivated fear core meltdown nuclear catastrophe recognizes limited nature federal role ante describes role expansive terms ante conflict exist course nrc determined construction nuclear plants proceed state nevertheless chose go ahead construction cf florida lime avocado growers paul ban teeth atomic energy act objective insure nuclear technology safe enough widespread development use ante state decision permit construction nuclear plants however affects indirectly atomic energy act goal ensuring nuclear power safe enough widespread development ban might highlight state perception federal safety goal accomplished ban interfere efforts achieve goal apparently believes atomic energy act actual purpose maximize use nuclear power satisfy nation needs moratorium construction nuclear plants prevent accomplishment goal demonstrated infra incorrect attributing goal congress moreover degree nuclear moratorium hampers achievement goal depend motives framers address congressman cole chairman joint committee atomic energy delivered international congress nuclear engineering june quoted lemov state local control location nuclear reactors atomic energy act rev erda functions transferred department energy stat supp subsequent legislation congress continued promote many sources energy without giving preference nuclear power see powerplant industrial fuel use act stat et seq supp encouraging greater use coal alternative fuels lieu natural gas petroleum public utility regulatory policies act stat supp encouraging development cogeneration small power production facilities