State A, the nation's top producer of fossil-derived fuels, recently enacted the "Saving Flying Wildlife Act" (the Act).

Section 1 of the Act requires that 85% of the electricity sold by utilities in the state come from fossil-derived fuel sources. Wind energy, which is not widely produced in State A, is described by the Act as a "strongly disfavored energy source." The preamble of the Act contains express findings that wind farms have the potential to reduce, fragment, or degrade habitat for wildlife, fish, and plants. It further states that spinning turbine blades pose a unique threat to flying wildlife like birds and bats.

Section 2 of the Act prohibits the Public Service Commission of State A from approving any new wind farms in the state, unless it finds that "the construction of the wind farm is necessary to meet critical long-term energy needs of this state." A public utility in neighboring State B has applied for a permit to build a wind farm on property it owns across the border in State A. The Commission has denied the utility's application based on its finding that there is no evidence of any critical long-term energy needs in State A. The State B public utility presented undisputed evidence of severe energy shortages in State A over the next decade, but the Commission rejected this evidence as irrelevant to the statutory exception.

Section 3 of the Act requires State A, whenever possible, to buy goods and services from vendors located in State A whose wind energy consumption is 25% or less of their total operational energy needs ("low wind energy operators"). A vendor located outside of State A meets all the standards to qualify as a fossil fuel using vendor. The vendor has sought to sell goods and services to State A. The relevant State A agencies have refused to purchase from this vendor, pointing out that the Act requires them to purchase, if possible, only from vendors located within the state who are low wind energy operators, of which there are several.

There is no federal statute or regulation relevant to this problem.

Which provisions, if any, of the Saving Flying Wildlife Act unconstitutionally burden or discriminate against interstate commerce? Explain.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Several provisions of the Saving Flying Wildlife Act in State A could potentially be considered as unconstitutionally burdening or discriminating agai... View the full answer