Task: songer_respond2_1_4

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the second listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "utilities". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

PER CURIAM.
In Del Costello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the six-month statute of limitations set forth in section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b), would apply to hybrid breach of duty of representation/breach of employment contract actions such as the case at bar. Although Del Costello was decided after Joseph Scaglione commenced this action, we recently held in Graves v. Smith’s Transfer Corp., 736 F.2d 819 (1st Cir.1984), that the period of limitation announced in Del Costello would apply retroactively. Since we held in Simpson v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 681 F.2d 81 (1st Cir.1982), that the decision to apply a holding retroactively, once made, governs all future applications of that holding, we are bound to apply the six-month period to Scaglione’s claim, and will not entertain arguments that under the criteria laid out in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), its application to his particular situation is unwarranted.
The district court found after trial to the bench that Scaglione’s cause of action against defendant Communications Workers of America, Local 1395, accrued before June 29, 1977. 586 F.Supp. 1018. This determination, amply supported by the evidence, bars Scaglione’s action against the Local, which was not commenced until December 29, 1977. Scaglione does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that his causes of action against defendant AT & T Technologies, Inc. must have accrued simultaneously with or prior to the accrual of his cause of action against the Local; these actions are thus also barred. This conclusion renders without force Scaglione’s argument that his actions against AT&T Technologies, Inc. are not time barred because they relate back to the time his action against the Local was filed.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the second listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "utilities". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?
A. nuclear power plants
B. other producers of power
C. telephone
D. other utilities
E. unclear
Answer:

Answer: C