16 U.S.C. § 2603

Relationship to antitrust laws

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing in this Act or in any amendment made by this Act affects—(1) the applicability of the antitrust laws to any electric utility or gas utility (as defined in section 3202 of title 15), or(2) any authority of the Secretary or of the Commission under any other provision of law (including the Federal Power Act [16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.] and the Natural Gas Act [15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.]) respecting unfair methods of competition or anticompetitive acts or practices.(Pub. L. 95–617, § 4, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3120.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is act Pub. L. 95–617, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3117, known as the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2601 of this title and Tables.

The Federal Power Act, referred to in par. (2), is act June 10, 1920, ch. 285, 41 Stat. 1063, which is classified generally to chapter 12 (§ 791a et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 791a of this title and Tables.

The Natural Gas Act, referred to in par. (2), is act June 21, 1938, ch. 556, 52 Stat. 821, which is classified generally to chapter 15B (§ 717 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 717w of Title 15 and Tables.

Codification

This section was not enacted as part of title I of Pub. L. 95–617 which comprises this chapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1979–1995 · leading case: Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429 (9th Cir. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429 (9th Cir. 1992). “” 16 U.S.C. § 2603 (1). Nugget contends that the phrase “antitrust laws” refers only to statutory law and does not encompass the common law state action doctrine.”

In Re Transcon Lines, Debtor. Leonard L. Gumport, Tr. of the Bankr. Est. of Transcon Lines v. Sterling Press, 58 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1995). “, quoting 16 U.S.C. § 2603 (1). Nugget argued that the term “antitrust laws” referred only to statutory law and not to the common law state action doctrine.”

Kamine/Besicorp Allegany L.P. v. Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp., 908 F. Supp. 1194 (W.D.N.Y. 1995). · cites it 2× “PURPA itself makes little mention of antitrust laws, other than the following statement contained in 16 U.S.C. § 2603 (1): Nothing in this Act or in any amendment made by this Act affects— (1) the applicability of the antitrust laws to any electric utility or gas utility .”

Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 804 F. Supp. 700 (E.D. Pa. 1992). “16 U.S.C. § 2603 (1) (emphasis added). Without citation to interpretative case law or legislative history, plaintiffs attribute a more tortured meaning to the phrase “affects the applicability” than can reasonably be taken from the context.”

Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 22 F.3d 1260 (3rd Cir. 1994). “” 16 U.S.C. § 2603 (1). The Oil Dealers thus argue that it is “totally inconsistent with PURPA to use the Pennsylvania legislation implementing [it] to exempt the utility’s conduct from the antitrust laws.”

Sunflower Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 603 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1979). “It is established in § 4, 16 U.S.C. § 2603 , that “[njothing in this Act or in any amendment made by this Act affects —(1) the applicability of the antitrust laws to any electric utility or gas utility .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.