Filed Rate Doctrine Did Not Bar Robinson-Patman Claim Against Electric Utility

In a case at the intersection of antitrust and energy regulation, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the "filed rate doctrine" did not bar the trial court's jurisdiction over claims for antitrust violations and other federal and state claims. A three-judge appellate panel in Williams v. Duke Energy International, Inc., concluded that the trial court misapplied the filed rate doctrine, reiterating that the doctrine "bars challenges to the reasonableness of a filed rate" and not "payments made outside of the rate scheme."1 The court then deemed the plaintiffs' allegations sufficient to pursue their claim that an electric utility's purported side agreements with certain consumers violated the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 ("the Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 13, et seq.

Background

The facts leading up to the court's opinion began in 1999, when the Ohio General Assembly enacted legislation to increase competition in the highly-regulated electric industry. The law required electric utility companies to file a transition plan with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), the state agency charged with regulating the electric industry.

Cincinnati Gas & Electric (CGE), one of the region's electric utility companies, submitted its transition plan for residential and non-residential customers. In 2003, CGE sought to modify the rates it charged to non-residential customers. PUCO ordered the utility to file a rate transition plan to govern the rates it would charge non-residential customers. Some large companies and the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, a consumer advocacy organization, objected to CGE's plan.

CGE eventually reached an agreement with many of the objecting parties, who withdrew their opposition to a revised CGE rate transition plan. The Ohio Consumers' Counsel continued to object, contending that CGE engaged in side agreements with some of the largest objecting companies. The Ohio Consumers' Counsel claimed that the utility offered rebates to some large companies in exchange for their support of a settlement agreement to the PUCO proceeding. It was these alleged side agreements that form the basis of the plaintiffs' lawsuit.

After protracted litigation before the administrative agency and the Ohio Supreme Court,2 a group of individuals and businesses brought suit in federal court against Duke Energy International, alleging a violation of the Act, which makes it unlawful for persons "engaged in commerce . . . to discriminate in price between...