Antitrust claims_ a novel line of attack by groups opposing natural gas infrastructure projects _ the national law review

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups have made little secret of their opposition to the continuing use of fossil fuels and to the development of infrastructure to support that use. Gas out game rules A new wrinkle in their multifront attack on fossil fuel-related projects can be seen in a series of recent filings with federal regulatory agencies asserting that two natural gas pipeline projects violate the antitrust laws. Gas x strips instructions Although styled as “complaints,” the filings do not initiate an adjudicatory proceeding in the usual sense of a complaint but rather appear to be requests for enforcement or competition advocacy actions by federal antitrust agencies. La gasolina reggaeton explosion The challenged projects are joint ventures of energy utility companies and the natural gas supplied by each will serve their respective natural gas or electricity retail distribution affiliates. Electricity production in india The claims that this structure is anticompetitive are novel and face substantial obstacles under established antitrust law. Wd gaster x reader Overview of the Antitrust Claims

The recent antitrust challenges to pipeline projects first surfaced with respect to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) project, which includes 600 miles of new pipeline, three compressor stations, and related facilities across West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. Electricity word search ks2 ACP is owned by subsidiaries of four utility companies, affiliates of which will purchase some of the gas supplied by the pipeline. Electricity labs for middle school Sierra Club argues that this structure is anticompetitive because it will stifle the development of renewable energy alternatives for use in generating electricity and limit ACP’s incentive to complete the project efficiently, thereby unnecessarily increasing costs for retail customers.

Sierra Club has also asserted an antitrust theory against the NEXUS project, which involves the construction of 256 miles of new pipeline, four compressor stations, and related facilities across Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Ontario. Gas x coupon 2015 NEXUS is a joint venture between two utility companies. 3 gases that cause acid rain Sierra Club claims that one of the companies is monopolizing electricity generation because its natural gas supply will be sourced from the NEXUS project, the cost of which it can then pass on to its Michigan retail customers through its preexisting regulated monopoly over a segment of the retail market. Gas after eating meat Sierra Club also argues that the project is anticompetitive because it is more costly than other alternatives for supplying increased energy demand. Electricity facts ks2 The Theories Asserted Face Significant Challenges Under Established Antitrust Principles

The antitrust laws impose specific requirements designed to assure that claims truly assert harm to competition in a well-defined market. Year 6 electricity assessment It is not sufficient to make assertions of harm to the interests of a specific market participant or to a policy goal unrelated to the goals of the antitrust laws to encourage free and fair competition and the generally resulting lower prices and increased output. Gas monkey monster truck driver [1] A full antitrust analysis would exceed the bounds of this alert, but a few initial observations can be made.

First, many of the antitrust arguments Sierra Club advances are based on the assertion that these pipeline projects do not make economic sense and that the utilities must therefore have some separate anticompetitive motive. Power outage houston txu However, there are numerous other pipelines under construction in the same general geographic area, as might be expected given the boom in natural gas production over the last decade. Gas tax rates by state This suggests both that there is a good economic case for construction of new natural gas transportation capacity, and that control of a single pipeline would not allow its owners to control any properly defined market. Gas constant for air Antitrust agencies and courts will not second guess reasonable business decisions being made in the marketplace. Gas welder salary [2]

Second, in claims such as these, antitrust complainants are required to identify some relevant antitrust market that would be monopolized as a result of activity they challenge. Electricity names superheroes The complainants in the recent filings against the pipelines either do not do so, or attempt to define markets based on the activities of a single market participant, which is generally disfavored under the antitrust laws. Electric utility companies in california [3]

Finally, theories of economic harm must take account of the heavy regulation of energy markets at the state and federal level. Electricity and magnetism review sheet Such regulation, for example, prohibits a utility from passing on costs to retail customers that are not prudently incurred. Gas out An antitrust theory based on a utility’s asserted intention to do just that could be viewed as implausible. Gas near me open now Implications

Environmental organizations have shown a willingness to use every potential legal means to stop or delay natural gas development activities and other energy infrastructure projects. Electricity kwh cost calculator Such is the avowed goal of the Sierra Club’s “Beyond” campaign. Types of electricity consumers [4] Antitrust represents a new line of attack in this ongoing effort. Gasbuddy nj Monitoring of developments in this area, and access to sound antitrust analysis and advice in the event of a challenge, is thus necessary for market participants seeking to protect these projects.

[1] See, e.g., Cargill v. Gasbuddy Montfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. Bp gas locations 104, 109 (1986) (quoting Brunswick Corp. Gas stoichiometry examples v. Gas bloating Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.,429 U.S. Gsa 2016 pay scale 477, 489 (1977) (holding that an antitrust plaintiff must show not just an injury caused by the challenged conduct, but an antitrust injury; i.e., an injury “of the type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants’ acts unlawful”).

[2] See, e.g., Remarks of Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, “The Consumer Reigns: Using Section 2 to Ensure a ‘Competitive Kingdom’”, Opening Session, Hearings on Section 2 of the Sherman Act Sponsored by the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division, U.S. Electricity video ks2 Department of Justice, at 10, 12 (2006) (“[A]ny legal framework needs to avoid second-guessing business judgments that were objectively reasonable at the time that they were made,” and courts and agencies must “tak[e]care to ensure not to chill procompetitive behavior.”).

[3] See, e.g., Queen City Pizza, Inc. La gastritis v. Kushal gas agencies belgaum Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 129 F.3d 724 (3d Cir. Gas hydrates energy 1997) (rejecting market of “pizza ingredients and supplies used by Domino’s pizza stores”).

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. Gaslighting examples The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Static electricity online games Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. Electricity song billy elliot No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. Gaz 67b for sale The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. Static electricity how it works NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. Electricity jeopardy powerpoint The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Gas in babies at night Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Grade 6 science electricity multiple choice test Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Mp electricity bill payment jabalpur Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Nyc electricity cost Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Telephone (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.