514 P.3d 234
Cal.2022Background
- California DWR sought renewal of its FERC license for the Oroville Facilities via FERC’s Alternative Licensing Process (ALP); participants negotiated a multi-party settlement agreement and DWR submitted a PDEA and FERC issued a draft EIS.
- After submission to FERC, DWR prepared and certified a CEQA EIR (2008) analyzing the settlement agreement and a FERC staff alternative; DWR adopted mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring program and sought section 401 certification from the State Water Board.
- Butte and Plumas Counties challenged the adequacy of the EIR in state court and sought to set it aside and enjoin project activities; the trial court upheld the EIR; the Court of Appeal found portions preempted or premature.
- Central legal tension: FERC’s exclusive federal licensing authority under the Federal Power Act (FPA) versus CEQA review by a state agency that is also the project owner and license applicant.
- The California Supreme Court held that challenges aiming to unwind or enjoin operation under the ALP settlement agreement are preempted by the FPA, but CEQA challenges to the EIR itself are not categorically preempted and may proceed so long as relief would not conflict with FERC’s exclusive authority; the matter was partially affirmed, partially reversed, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FPA preempts CEQA when the state (as owner/applicant) conducts relicensing review | Counties: CEQA applies; state self-governance and informational review not preempted | DWR/State Water Contractors: FPA occupies the field; CEQA barred | Court: CEQA is not categorically preempted for state-owner decisions; presumption against preemption applies |
| Whether FPA preempts CEQA challenges to the ALP settlement agreement and requests to enjoin operation under the proposed license | Counties: May challenge environmental sufficiency and seek injunction | Respondents: Such challenges/injunctions would interfere with FERC’s exclusive licensing authority | Court: Claims that would unwind the settlement or enjoin operation under terms of the ALP are preempted |
| Whether FPA preempts state-court CEQA review of the EIR DWR prepared to inform its licensing choices and mitigation | Counties: EIR review is permissible and can guide state decisions and mitigation | Respondents: EIR review conflicts with FERC and is premature or preempted | Court: CEQA challenge to the EIR may proceed insofar as remedies do not conflict with FERC; remand for further proceedings |
| Proper scope of remedies (e.g., imposing mitigation, setting aside certification, injunctions) | Counties: Seek set‑aside of EIR, injunctions, and further relief | Respondents: Remedies that alter ALP or FERC terms are preempted; some claims may be premature | Court: State courts cannot grant relief that conflicts with FERC; they can order reconsideration or other non‑conflicting relief and must address procedural bars on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- First Iowa Coop. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 328 U.S. 152 (1946) (FPA centralizes licensing and limits state control over federal projects)
- California v. FERC, 495 U.S. 490 (1990) (FPA preemption of state measures that conflict with federal licensing; Section 27 limits state authority to proprietary water rights)
- Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority, 3 Cal.5th 677 (2017) (CEQA may operate as state self‑governance for state‑owned projects; presumption against preemption)
- Sayles Hydro Assn. v. Maughan, 985 F.2d 451 (9th Cir. 1993) (interpreting FPA and Section 27 to preempt state environmental requirements outside proprietary‑rights scope)
- Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373 (2015) (framework for analyzing conflict preemption and federal objectives)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (Congressional intent is the touchstone for preemption analysis)
- International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987) (state law preempted if it interferes with methods federal statute uses to reach its goals)
- Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) (presumption against preemption where federal law would intrude on state sovereignty over its internal governance)
- Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, 541 U.S. 125 (2004) (similar presumption protecting state–municipal relations from preemption)