City of Anaheim, City of Riverside, City of Banning, City of Colton, City of Azusa v. Southern California Edison Company

Good Law
92 Daily Journal DAR 1858·955 F.2d 1373·1992 WL 18480·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 1435·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1146
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 7, 199290-56375California3,941 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fernandez, J.

The Cities of Anaheim, Riverside, Banning, Colton and Azusa (the Cities) brought this action against Southern California Edison Company (Edison) and alleged that Edison had violated section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2) by engaging in a regulatory price squeeze and by denying access to an essential facility. After a court trial, the district court found in favor of Edison and entered judgment accordingly. The Cities appeal. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Edison is an investor-owned fully integrated public utility, which generates, transmits, and distributes electric power within its service area, an area which includes much of Central and Southern California. The Cities are located in Edison’s service area, but each has its own electrical distribution system and is the sole provider of retail electric service within its own boundaries. Edison provides retail service to all customers who are within its area and not within the boundaries of the Cities.

Although the Cities distribute power at retail within their boundaries, they do not generate their own electricity. Thus, they obtain their power in bulk elsewhere and receive it over Edison’s transmission lines. That wholesale…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.