Opinion ID: 726753
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application to Cal CNG's Claims against SoCalGas

Text: 40 Based on the foregoing analysis, it is clear that from July 1991 to July 1993 the CPUC had clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed a state policy that utility activities in the NGV-infrastructure market were desirable and did not pose any dangers to competition because the market contained no competitors. In January 1992, the CPUC approved SoCalGas's application to spend over $10 million of ratepayer funds on NGV programs, including the install[ation of] up to 51 refueling stations to serve SoCalGas and customer NGVs. 43 C.P.U.C.2d at 111. Thus, any activity by SoCalGas in this period to use ratepayer funds to provide NGV fueling stations to customers below-cost, or even for free, was part of a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy. 41 In addition, it is equally clear that after November 1995, the CPUC clearly articulated a policy forbidding utilities to use ratepayer funds to compete with nonutilities in the provision of NGV fueling stations. Thus, any SoCalGas actions after November 1995 to provide customers with ratepayer-subsidized NGV fueling stations would not enjoy state action immunity from antitrust liability. 42 For the period between July 1993 and November 1995--the period in which most of the SoCalGas actions alleged in the complaint seem to have taken place, 8 the CPUC's articulation of state policy did not directly address NGV fueling stations but held more generally that utilities' NGV programs must not be unfairly competitive with nonutility enterprises and must not interfere with the development of a competitive market. 145 P.U.R.4th at 252-53. The CPUC further stated that its guidelines on utility participation in NGV markets were subordinate to both state and federal statutes dealing with anticompetitive behavior. Id. at 252. It also directed the utilities to bring their existing NGV programs into conformity with the new guidelines. Id. at 246. Given the guidelines' unequivocal statement that utility activities in NGV markets must not be anticompetitive, the lack of any express commission discussion of fueling stations demonstrates the absence of the clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy that Midcal requires to shield ratepayer subsidization of such stations from federal antitrust scrutiny. Therefore, any SoCalGas actions in providing subsidized NGV fueling stations to customers after July 1993 do not enjoy state action immunity from antitrust liability. 9 9