United Energy Trading, LLC v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

This is the third time up for plaintiff United Energy Trading, LLC (“UET”) in its quest to state an “attempt to monopolize” claim against defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG & E”). See 15 U.S.C. § 2 . UET swung and missed on its first two tries, but here it puts the ball in play. PG & E’s motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claim, will be denied. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion set for August 11, 2016, is suitable for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing will be vacated.

II. BACKGROUND

PG & E is the traditional public utility in northern California. Until 1991, it held a *1017 state-sanctioned monopoly over the distribution of natural gas in that area. PG & E thus owns and operates the entire infrastructure that physically stores and transports natural gas to customers in northern California. PG & E is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), which requires PG & E to set its natural gas rates through use of a pre-approved formula. The formula does not vary, but PG & E exercises discretion over certain variables, including the calculation of its purchase price, its…