New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: New Hampshire ordered a private power company to stop exporting locally generated hydroelectricity, reserving it for in-state use. The Supreme Court struck down the order, finding it was unconstitutional economic protectionism that violated the dormant Commerce Clause.
Legal Significance: This case reinforces the dormant Commerce Clause principle that states cannot hoard natural resources or their products for their citizens’ exclusive economic benefit, even when a federal statute appears to preserve some state regulatory authority.
New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
New England Power Co. (NEPCO), a public utility, operates federally-licensed hydroelectric generating stations in New Hampshire. The low-cost electricity produced is transmitted into an interstate grid and sold at wholesale to customers across several states as part of the New England Power Pool, an integrated regional system. A 1913 New Hampshire statute authorized the state’s Public Utilities Commission to prohibit the exportation of hydroelectric power if it determined the energy was needed within the state for the “public good.” In 1980, the Commission invoked this law, ordering NEPCO to cease exporting its hydroelectric power and to make arrangements to sell it exclusively to in-state customers. The Commission’s explicit goal was to capture the economic benefit of this low-cost power, estimated at $25 million annually, for New Hampshire residents at the expense of out-of-state consumers. The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld the order, concluding that § 201(b) of the Federal Power Act, a federal saving clause, affirmatively permitted the state’s restriction on interstate commerce.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Commerce Clause prohibit a state from ordering a privately-owned, federally-licensed utility to cease exporting hydroelectric power generated within its borders to reserve that power for the economic benefit of its own citizens?
Yes. The New Hampshire order is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo con
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the Commerce Clause prohibit a state from ordering a privately-owned, federally-licensed utility to cease exporting hydroelectric power generated within its borders to reserve that power for the economic benefit of its own citizens?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the constitutional prohibition against state economic protectionism under the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labo
Legal Rule
The Commerce Clause precludes a state from mandating that its residents be Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qu
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Burger, found that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis no
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state violates the Commerce Clause when it mandates that economic