Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States
35 L. Ed. 2d 359, 410 U.S. 366, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 131 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A firm with monopoly power over an essential facility violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act if it leverages that power to foreclose competition in a downstream market by refusing to deal with competitors. Regulation under the Federal Power Act does not confer immunity from antitrust laws for such conduct.
Facts:
- Otter Tail Power Co. was an investor-owned utility that provided retail electric service to 465 towns in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
- In many of these towns, Otter Tail operated under municipally granted franchises that were subject to renewal, creating competition for the retail distribution market.
- Each town constituted a natural monopoly for retail electricity distribution, and Otter Tail owned the only subtransmission lines available for delivering wholesale power to these towns.
- When the franchises in several towns, including Elbow Lake and Hankinson, expired, the citizens voted to establish their own municipal power systems.
- These proposed municipal systems needed to purchase wholesale power and have it transmitted, or 'wheeled,' to their local distribution networks.
- Otter Tail refused to sell wholesale power to these new municipal systems and also refused to wheel power for them from other suppliers, such as the Bureau of Reclamation.
- Otter Tail also instituted and supported litigation against municipalities that were attempting to establish their own systems, which had the effect of delaying or preventing the financing and creation of those systems.
- Otter Tail's contracts with other power suppliers included provisions that barred the use of its transmission lines to wheel power to towns it had previously served at retail.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a civil antitrust suit against Otter Tail Power Co. in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
- The District Court, as the court of first instance, found that Otter Tail had monopolized and attempted to monopolize the retail distribution of electric power in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act.
- The District Court issued a decree enjoining Otter Tail from its anticompetitive conduct, including refusing to sell or wheel power.
- Otter Tail Power Co., as the appellant, took a direct appeal from the District Court's judgment to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an electric utility company with a monopoly over transmission facilities violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act by refusing to sell wholesale power or 'wheel' power for competing municipal systems, in an effort to prevent them from entering the retail electricity market?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Douglas
Yes, an electric utility with a monopoly over transmission facilities violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act by refusing to deal with potential competitors to maintain its retail monopoly. Otter Tail used its strategic dominance in the transmission of power to foreclose competition in the retail distribution market. The use of monopoly power to destroy threatened competition is a clear violation of the Sherman Act. The Federal Power Act does not provide immunity from antitrust laws, as repeals of antitrust law by implication are strongly disfavored and the regulatory scheme is not so pervasive as to displace antitrust enforcement. The Act's purpose was to encourage voluntary interconnection, not to shield anticompetitive refusals to deal. Furthermore, the restrictive provisions in Otter Tail's contracts with other suppliers constituted per se illegal territorial allocation schemes designed to eliminate competition.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stewart
No, Otter Tail's refusal to deal did not violate the Sherman Act. The majority misapplied standard antitrust principles to a highly regulated, natural-monopoly industry. Congress, in enacting the Federal Power Act, specifically considered and rejected imposing common carrier obligations on electric utilities, which indicates a legislative intent to allow utilities the business freedom to decide whether to wheel power or sell it at wholesale. Otter Tail's refusal was a legitimate business decision to avoid participating in its own demise, falling within the 'zone of freedom' created by the statutory scheme. Antitrust principles are ill-suited for a market where the outcome is always a retail monopoly, and such disputes should be handled by the expert Federal Power Commission, not through antitrust litigation which could disrupt the regulatory framework.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes that even regulated industries are subject to antitrust scrutiny and solidifies the application of the essential facilities doctrine. The Court clarified that holding a natural monopoly, such as over power transmission lines, does not grant a company the right to use that monopoly to stifle competition in a related market. The ruling prevents vertically integrated monopolists from leveraging their control over a necessary input to maintain dominance in a downstream market. This precedent has had a profound impact on regulated industries, particularly in energy and telecommunications, by requiring dominant firms to provide competitors with reasonable access to essential infrastructure.
