§ 2.17. Price discrimination and anticompetitive effect (price squeeze issue).
448 words·~2 min read·
/us/cfr/t18/s§ 2.17·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
To implement compliance with the Supreme Court decision in F.P.C. v. Con-Way Corp., 426 U.S. 271 (1976), aff'g 510 F. 2d 1264 (D.C. Cir. 1975) and to expedite the consideration of price squeeze issues in wholesale electric rate proceedings, the Commission adopts the following procedures for raising price squeeze issues which are to be followed unless they are demonstrated in an individual case to be inadequate:
(a)Any wholesale customer, state commission or other interested person may file petitions to intervene alleging price discrimination and anticompetitive effects of the wholesale rates. In order to have the issue of price discrimination considered in the rate proceeding, the intervening customer or other interested person must support its allegation by a prima facie case. The elements of the prima facie case shall include at a minimum:
(1)Specification of the filing utility's retail rate schedules with which the intervening wholesale customer is unable to compete due to purchased power costs;
(2)A showing that a competitive situation exists in that the wholesale customer competes in the same market as the filing utility;
(3)A showing that the retail rates are lower than the proposed wholesale rates for comparable service;
(4)The wholesale customer's prospective rate for comparable retail service, i.e. the rate necessary to recover bulk power costs (at the proposed wholesale rate) and distribution costs;
(5)An indication of the reduction in the wholesale rate necessary to eliminate the price squeeze alleged.
(b)Where price squeeze is alleged, the Commission shall, in the order granting intervention, direct the Administrative Law Judge to convene a prehearing conference within 15 days from the date of the order for the purpose of hearing intervenors' request for data required to present their case, including prima facie showing, on price squeeze issues.
(c)Within 30 days from the date of the conference the filing utility shall respond to the data requests authorized by the Administrative Law Judge.
(d)Within 30 days from the filing utility's response, the intervenors shall file their case-in-chief on price squeeze issues, which shall include their prima facie case, unless filed previously.
(e)The burden of proof (i.e. the risk of nonpersuasion) to rebut the allegations of price squeeze and to justify the proposed rates are on the utility proposing the rates under section 205(e) of the Federal Power Act.
(f)In proceedings where price squeeze is an issue, the Secretary shall include the state commission, agency or body which is responsible for regulation of retail rates in the state affected in the service list maintained under § 385.2010(c) of this chapter. \[Order 563, 42 FR 16132, Mar. 25, 1977, as amended by Order 225, 47 FR 19054, May 3, 1982\]
Connections2 off-index
2 references not yet in our index
- 426 U.S. 271
- 510 F.2d 1264
Citation graph
cites case law
§ 2.17
Price discrimination and anticompetitive effect (price squeeze issue).
Cites 2Cited by 0 across 0 sources