939 F.3d 47
1st Cir.2019Background
- Defendants Eversource Energy and Avangrid own major New England local distribution companies (LDCs) and retail electricity load-serving entities (LSEs) and reserve transmission capacity on the interstate Algonquin pipeline using FERC-authorized "no-notice" contracts.
- Plaintiffs (a putative class of New England retail electricity consumers) allege defendants routinely over-reserved then cancelled unused daily pipeline capacity without releasing it, reducing effective Algonquin capacity and raising spot natural-gas prices and wholesale and retail electricity prices.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court alleging Sherman Act monopolization and various state antitrust/consumer-protection claims; the district court dismissed, principally invoking the filed-rate doctrine and alternatively for lack of antitrust standing and failure to plead monopolization.
- FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate natural-gas transportation rates; Algonquin’s FERC‑approved tariff expressly authorizes no-notice service and permits (but does not require) capacity release by shippers.
- FERC investigated the alleged withholding and found no evidence of anticompetitive withholding; Congress and FERC retain statutory and regulatory tools to police manipulative conduct in the transmission market.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the filed-rate doctrine bar federal antitrust claims challenging defendants' reservation/cancellation conduct in the natural‑gas transmission market? | The challenged conduct occurs in the spot natural‑gas market where FERC has largely "abdicated" oversight, so the filed‑rate doctrine should not apply. | FERC has regulated transmission and the Algonquin tariff governs no‑notice service and capacity release; the filed‑rate doctrine bars judicial second‑guessing of tariff‑governed practices. | Filed‑rate doctrine bars the federal antitrust claim because the alleged conduct is governed by a FERC‑approved tariff. |
| Can plaintiffs avoid the filed‑rate doctrine by seeking only injunctive relief? | An equitable injunction is permissible under Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co. and need not invalidate a tariff. | An injunction requiring defendants to resell reserved capacity would effectively alter FERC's tariff choice and intrude on FERC authority. | Injunctive relief is barred here because such an order would in substance alter or qualify the FERC‑approved tariff. |
| Do the plaintiffs’ state-law antitrust and consumer‑protection claims survive? | State claims are distinct and should proceed if federal claims can be framed to avoid preemption. | The filed‑rate doctrine applies equally to state claims that would conflict with FERC‑approved tariffs. | State claims dismissed as well—filed‑rate doctrine applies with equal force; court treated dismissal on the merits. |
| Were plaintiffs’ alternative antitrust theories (standing/monopolization) considered? | Plaintiffs contended injury and antitrust effects from withholding. | Defendants argued lack of antitrust standing and failure to plead monopolization. | Plaintiffs conceded lack of antitrust standing for a damages claim; court did not need to reach alternative merits after applying the filed‑rate doctrine. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Norwood v. New England Power Co., 202 F.3d 408 (1st Cir. 2000) (limited reach of filed‑rate doctrine; no blanket antitrust immunity for agency‑approved transactions)
- Town of Norwood v. FERC, 217 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2000) (describing filed‑rate doctrine as precluding collateral attack on agency‑filed rates and terms)
- E. & J. Gallo Winery v. EnCana Corp., 503 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2007) (filed‑rate doctrine bars state and federal antitrust challenges to agency‑approved tariffs)
- Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty. v. Dynegy Power Mktg., Inc., 384 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying filed‑rate doctrine in wholesale electricity context)
- Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U.S. 439 (1945) (equitable relief may be available where it does not seek to cancel or alter a tariff)
- Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988) (FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate natural‑gas transportation rates)
- N. Natural Gas Co. v. State Corp. Comm’n, 372 U.S. 84 (1963) (Natural Gas Act creates comprehensive federal regulation of interstate wholesale natural gas)
- Brown v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 982 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1992) (filed rate doctrine does not necessarily shield rates that are the product of pre‑filing unlawful activity)