State Action Antitrust Exemption Collides with Deregulation: Rehabilitating the Foreseeability Doctrine

By Trujillo, Elizabeth | Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, January 1, 2006 | Go to article overview

State Action Antitrust Exemption Collides with Deregulation: Rehabilitating the Foreseeability Doctrine


Trujillo, Elizabeth, Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law


INTRODUCTION

A capitalist society with policies established to "regulate" the promotion of competition in traditionally regulated industries such as the electrical market seems counterintuitive. Yet, it is a reality in the United States. In particular, traditionally rate-regulated industries, such as electricity, have been "deregulated." In this context, deregulation means opening up certain components of the industry to competition. However, regulatory mechanisms in place to prevent abuses of the competitive process are also driving this competition, resulting in a "regulated deregulation."1

Specifically, recent initiatives to "deregulate" the electricity markets have highlighted that free markets thrive where competitive structures in place do not suppress competition. Before Congress passed PURPA (the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act) in 1978, electricity in the United States was provided by a vertically integrated firm, which provided transmission, distribution and generation service on a bundled basis.2 Since this firm had a legally conferred monopoly, state public utility commissions regulated its consumer rates.3 As a result, the electricity market has consisted of a structural design supporting regulatory entities that supervise and monitor the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity to end-users. Market monitoring and intrusiveness on the part of state legislatures and regulatory agencies permeate such structures and, therefore, cannot sustain competition without additional policies intended to promote competition.4 In essence, such deregulatory measures "re-regulate" an already regulated market.5

In a wholly regulated market, an electrical utility, servicing a franchised service territory, would generate its own electricity and then transport and distribute it to end-users, under regulated rate structures for this bundled service.6 Federal and state governments regulated pricing and distribution of electricity in order to protect consumers from this market power and any external costs of electricity production such as overproduction and the social costs of pollutants.7 Deregulatory policies have triggered an unbundling primarily through a separation of transmission from power generation. Transmission remains regulated. The jurisdiction over electricity rates of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) extends, in principle, to wholesale transactions, though the extent of this jurisdiction over retail rate regulation remains unclear.8 Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have legislation in place to "partially" deregulate their retail electricity markets by implementing retail access, even though some states have not moved forward in this.9 States' attempts to "deregulate" the electrical markets do not transform old paradigms of regulation, in which state governments created artificial barriers for new entrants, into new competitive regimes. Rather, traditional regulatory structures remain in place.

The pervasiveness of regulation in the business of electrical power generation has left utilities little room for antitrust law.10 One particularly useful tool for potential antitrust defendants is the state action immunity doctrine. The original purpose of state action immunity is to preserve principles of federalism and allow states to displace competition in sectors of their domestic economies so as to compensate for the failures of competition and protect the public welfare of its citizens.11 Essentially, it is a judicially created exemption that limits the potential antitrust liability of private parties, as well as municipalities and government entities.12 For an entity to successfully allege state action immunity, it must prove that it is advancing the interests of the state rather than its own interests. This is done by showing that the conduct is pursuant to a "clearly-articulated" state policy and that it has been "actively supervised" by the state. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

State Action Antitrust Exemption Collides with Deregulation: Rehabilitating the Foreseeability Doctrine
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.