1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 754 F.2d
  5. 754 F.2d 550 (1985)
 

STATE OF TEX. v. UNITED STATES DEPT. OF ENERGY

No. 84-4826.

754 F.2d 550 (1985)

STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY and Donald Paul Hodel, Secretary, United States Department of Energy, Respondents, Arizona Nuclear Power Project, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company, Boston Edison Company, Carolina Power & Light Company, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., Duke Power Company, Florida Power & Light Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf States Utilities Company, Kansas City Power & Light Company, Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Kansas Gas & Electric Company, Middle South Services, Inc., New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Northeast Utilities, Omaha Public Power District, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, Philadelphia Electric Company, Public Service Company of Colorado, Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Southern California Edison Company, Toledo Edison Company, Union Electric Company, Virginia Electric & Power Company, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Movants for Leave to Intervene.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

February 20, 1985.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Renea Hicks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for petitioners.

Hector & Associates, P.A., Alice G. Hector, Hollis A. Whitson, Albuquerque, N.M., for Devin, et al.

Office of General Counsel, Dept. of Energy, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Newman & Holtzinger, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Arizona Nuclear Power.

John A. Bryson, Martin W. Matzen, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Appellate Sec. Land & Natural Resources Div., Washington, D.C., for U.S. Dept. of Energy.

ORDER

Thirty-one utilities have moved to intervene in an action filed by Texas in this court for review of the Department of Energy's designation of several sites in West Texas as potential long-term nuclear waste depositories. Because they have no defined role in the statutory scheme at issue other than providing funding for the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, because they have no legally protectable interest that might be affected by the outcome of this proceeding,...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases