Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-271_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 18

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

jurisdiction  to  determine  just  and  reasonable  wholesale
rates.”  487 U. S., at 374.  By contrast, respondents’ state
antitrust  lawsuits  do  not  seek  to  challenge  the  reason- 
ableness of any rates expressly approved by FERC.  Rather, 
they seek to challenge the background marketplace condi­
tions  that  affected  both  jurisdictional  and  nonjurisdic- 
tional rates. 

Petitioners additionally point to FPC v. Louisiana Power 
& Light Co., 406 U. S. 621 (1972).  In that case, the Court 
held  that  federal  law  gave  FPC  the  authority  to  allocate
natural  gas  during  shortages  by  ordering  interstate  pipe­
lines  to  curtail  gas  deliveries  to  all  customers,  including 
retail  customers.
  This  latter  fact,  the  pipelines  argue,
shows that FERC has authority to regulate index manipu­
lation  insofar  as  that  manipulation  affects  retail  (as  well
as wholesale) sales.  Brief for Petitioners 26.  Accordingly,
they contend that state laws that aim at this same subject 
are pre-empted.

This  argument,  however,  makes  too  much  of  too  little. 
The  Court’s  finding  of  pre-emption  in  Louisiana  Power 
rested  on  its  belief  that  the  state  laws  in  question  con-
flicted  with  federal  law.    The  Court  concluded  that  “FPC 
has authority to effect orderly curtailment plans involving 
both  direct  sales  and  sales  for  resale,”  406  U. S.,  at  631, 
because  otherwise  there  would  be  “unavoidable  conflict 
between” state regulation of direct sales and the “uniform
federal regulation” that the Natural Gas Act foresees, id., 
at  633–635.  Conflict  pre-emption  may,  of  course,  invali­
date  a  state  law  even  though  field  pre-emption  does  not. 
Because petitioners have not argued this case as a conflict
pre-emption  case,  Louisiana  Power  does  not  offer  them 
significant help. 

C 
To the extent any conflicts arise between state antitrust
law  proceedings  and  the  federal  rate-setting  process,  the