NRRI 96-12 ANTITRUST CONCERNS IN THE MODERN PUBLIC UTILITY ENVIRONMENT James E. Meeks Professor of Law The Ohio State University College of Law THE NATIONAL REGULATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1080 Carmack Road Columbus, Ohio 43210 614/292-9404 April 1996 This report was prepared by The National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI) with funding provided by participating member commissions of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). The views and opinions of the author do not necessarily state or reflect the views, opinions, or policies of the NRRI, the NARUC, or NARUC member commissions. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITE*S>UcD DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liabili• ty or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, appa• ratus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessar• ily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Direct regulation of public utility activity and behavior has been the predominant approach to protect the public interest in this country. Changes in technology, as well as new thinking about the optimum role of regulation, have created a changing atmosphere in all of the traditional public utility industries. Competitive markets for many of the products and services in these industries have been developing. While monopoly power will continue to exist in certain parts of these industries and require direct regulation, in many areas a growing reliance upon competition as the best method of serving the public interest is developing. With this shift in emphasis from regulation to free markets, the antitrust laws take on new importance for these industries. In the absence of direct regulatory control, those laws are our society's primary method of insuring the markets necessary to make competition an effective device for protecting the public interest. This study provides an overview of the antitrust laws, briefly describes the applicable theoretical underpinnings, and then turns to areas where public utility activity may pose special problems or conflicts with prevailing antitrust policy. The following problems and related cases are discussed. (1) Recent cases have tended to downplay the antitrust significance of price squeezes and predatory pricing for both theoretical and practical reasons, particularly where all the prices involved are subject to direct regulation. However, it is recognized that such behavior may make economic sense and create a real threat to competition when the firm operates in two different markets, one regulated and one unregulated. Increasingly that kind of situation will be common, given the changes occurring in these industries. Both regulatory law and antitrust law should take account of this danger. THE NATIONAL REGULATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE—m (2) Territorial division has been a hallmark of traditional regulation, reflecting the general view that a protected monopoly served the public interest better than a mixed system of regulated monopoly and competition at the fringe (especially "cream skimming"). On the other hand, territorial division, and other customer allocation systems, have long been held to be one of the clearest violations of the antitrust laws. As we move from a largely regulated environment to a mixed competition/regulation environment, these two opposed positions will have to be reconciled. Where the territorial exclusivity scheme is clearly dictated by a regulatory program, it should be protected by the state action doctrine, but with the move to deregulate large parts of these markets, territorial schemes are clearly in jeopardy. (3) Tying arrangements and other vertical distribution restraints are illegal under the antitrust laws, at least when the firm has market power in the relevant market and can thus coerce the consumer to purchase an unwanted product. In the utility industries, it has long been customary to "bundle" various services and products when offering them to the consumer. Such bundling has already been challenged in a number of situations, both under the antitrust laws and also as a matter of public utility regulatory policy. As deregulation proceeds and we depend more and more on competition to protect the public interest, marketing policies by dominant firms that bundle products and services become more and more vulnerable under the antitrust laws. This is especially true when a firm's remaining monopoly/regulated market is used to force the purchase of a product in the free market. One of the first issues that must be faced, of course, is the definition of a product. Frequently in these businesses, it is not obvious whether one is dealing with one product or service rather than two or more products or services that have been bundled. THE NATIONAL REGULATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE—iv (4) The Robinson-Patman Act prohibits some forms of price discrimination. The Act's application, however, is limited in various ways. For example, the Act only applies to the sale of commodities; it does not apply to the sale of services. A first question in the public utility context is whether one is dealing with a commodity or a service. The problem is posed, in part, by the traditional bundling of transportation or transmission service with product. While the transporting function of gas and water are clearly services, natural gas and water are themselves clearly products. Similarly, the equipment component and the content of messages in telecommunications are clearly products. The problem posed by electricity is much more difficult since the generation function supports transmission and distribution. With the unbundling of products and services in modern utilities, this issue takes on even more importance. Also, to have a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, one must have the sale of the same product to two or more purchasers at different prices. The identity of the product and its discrete price is critical and poses special issues for public utilities. (5) Joint ventures pose special problems in all business settings under the antitrust laws. Often this method of organizing activity is particularly appropriate for achieving some important public benefit. However, since joint ventures frequently involve collaborative agreements among competitors, they may also be suspect under the antitrust laws. The public utility context demonstrates well the dilemma in public policy. There is a strong justification for highly integrated operations among the various participants in the industry. The telecommunications industry and the electric power industry are presently particularly marked by "network" characteristics. Generally, such joint ventures can be justified under the antitrust laws, since the public benefit outweighs the anticompetitive danger, if care is taken not to include provisions or practices that are unnecessary to achieving the legitimate purpose of the joint venture and go no further than necessary to achieve the desirable purpose. THE NATIONAL REGULATORY RESEARCH INSTITUTE— V Perhaps the most problematic areas involve access to membership in the joint venture or at least access to the benefits enjoyed by the members. In this and other contexts the "essential facilities" doctrine comes into consideration. That doctrine holds that one may be guilty of an antitrust violation if one uses, in a way that harms competition, market power over some factor essential to successfully engaging in the business involved. Here again, because of the mixed monopoly/competitive markets developing in the traditional public utilities, the possibility of antitrust problems with the essential facilities doctrine are particularly acute. (6) With the vast changes in these industries, it perhaps is not surprising that a large number of mergers and acquisitions have been proposed or accomplished. A business realignment, based upon the new needs and opportunities, is inevitable in dynamic markets such as these. The antitrust concern is to assure that the mergers and acquisition do not create market structures that will harm competition or potential competition in these markets. (7) Finally there are some defenses to antitrust charges that have special relevance in the public utility context. The "state action doctrine" reflects the accommodation, not only of antitrust concepts to the regulated markets involved, but also the accommodation of sometimes diverse federal and state legal policy objectives. The "filed rate doctrine" reflects the policy that a price set by a regulatory agency that has the jurisdiction to set that price, may not be attacked collaterally in an antitrust case. The "Noerr-Pennington doctrine" reflects the accommodation of collective political action, which may enjoy constitutional protection,