Federal antitrust remedies in electric cases
The issue of antitrust remedies available in electric cases is far from settled. The courts and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) have taken various paths in the last year. On the one hand are the Chanute and Alabama Power cases which appear to encourage competition in the public interest. Using such inclusive criteria as potential anticompetitive affects could give great leeway in ordering wheeling or other forms of interconnection. Most of the cases, however, seem intent on restricting federal jurisdiction over antitrust remedies. The FERC appears ready to relinquish its role in ordering wheeling by asserting that wheeling can only be compelled for energy or conservation reasons not for fostering competition. After a honeymoon period of making price-squeeze allegations easier to prove, the courts seem to be considering price-squeeze cases strictly as antitrust litigation rather than as antitrust utility regulatory cases, thereby invoking a greater burden of proof. In their efforts not to be too swift in interfering with the market or promoting competition, the courts seem to have lost sight of the function of preventing discrimination. It appears clear that the courts and the commission will be increasingly reluctant to impose wheeling as a remedy. The Supreme Court at least, in denying certiorari in the Alabama Power case, has left an opening for redress through potential anticompetitive affects, although they may be nebulous at best.
- OSTI ID:
- 5261244
- Journal Information:
- Public Util. Fortn.; (United States), Vol. 113:3
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
''Conway'' price-squeeze issue
Antitrust considerations. Project L/R-10, final report