New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire

455 U.S. 331 (1982)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire

United States Supreme Court
455 U.S. 331 (1982)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

The New Hampshire Commission (NH Commission) (defendant) considered the authority of New England Power Company (NEP) (plaintiff) to export hydroelectric energy (hydropower) out of the state. NEP operated 21 hydroelectric generating units within the New Hampshire. The units were licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Federal Power Act (FPA). A New Hampshire statute from 1913, which predated the FPA, reserved the right to permit the transmission of hydropower out of the state to the state public-utilities commission. Starting in 1926, NEP periodically obtained approval from the NH Commission to transmit the electricity that it produced outside the state. In 1980, the NH Commission found that New Hampshire’s energy needs were increasing and that requiring NEP’s hydropower to be sold exclusively within the state would result in $25 million in savings to New Hampshire’s electricity customers. The NH Commission found that NEP’s hydropower was required for use within the state and that the public good was served by requiring that the hydropower be sold within the state. The NH Commission then prohibited NEP from exporting hydropower out of state. NEP appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the NH Commission’s order based on the nonpreemption clause of FPA § 201(b). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari of three consolidated appeals regarding the authority of states to prohibit the exportation of hydropower to benefit its own residents.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Burger, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership