United States: Arizona Court Ruling Opens New Front In Rooftop Solar War With Utilities

Last Updated: November 30 2015
Article by Arthur W. Adelberg

Elon Musk, developer of PayPal, Tesla Motors and SpaceX, prides himself in disrupting business models of market incumbents.1 With his investment in SolarCity, an installer of rooftop solar systems, he is challenging the electric utility industry, which has been fighting back (in many cases successfully) in state legislatures and before utility commissions across the country.2 Earlier this year, when an Arizona utility raised fees on customers that install rooftop solar, SolarCity filed an antitrust suit in federal court alleging that the fees amounted to unlawful monopolization of (or attempt to monopolize) the market for providing electric power to end-use customers. With the string of Supreme Court decisions narrowing the scope of liability for monopolization, the legal prospects for SolarCity's Complaint were highly uncertain.3

On October 27, 2015, the Arizona District Court issued a 26-page Order that removes some of that uncertainty.4 While paring some of SolarCity's other claims, the Court declined to dismiss counts relating to unlawful monopolization, holding that SolarCity had alleged a cognizable claim under Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985)("Aspen Skiing"), a case that the Supreme Court subsequently characterized as "at or near the outer boundary" of unlawful monopolization doctrine under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.5 With this ruling, SolarCity may get the opportunity to prove that antitrust law trumps utilities' claims that their tactics are justified to protect against unfair cost-shifting. If so, SolarCity may have opened a new front in its "war" with utilities.6

Arizona's sunny climate makes the state an attractive market for SolarCity. Until its rate dispute, the company was installing almost 400 systems per month in the service territory of the Salt River Project ("SRP"), which operates in the Phoenix-metro area.7 SRP comprises two entities: the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association ("Association") and the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District ("District"). The former is a private, for-profit corporation formed to arrange for irrigation of Salt River Valley landowners' land, while the latter generates power and sells it at retail to Phoenix-area customers. The District operates much like a municipal utility, in that its rates and service are overseen by its elected Board and Council and not by the state public utility commission.

Before SolarCity's rapid growth in the Phoenix area, the District had provided incentives for customers to install rooftop solar. In 2011, the District introduced its own "Community Solar" program, allowing customers to buy solar-generated electricity that the District acquired from solar farms. In late 2013, the District lowered pricing under the Community Solar program and subsequently eliminated incentives for customers to install their own solar systems. In February 2015, following public hearings, the District's Board approved new Standard Electric Price Plans ("SEPPs") that included dramatic rate increases for customers that generate their own electricity, including additional charges applicable only to those customers and reductions in bill credits for excess power sold back to the grid by those customers. That triggered SolarCity's filing of a Complaint in March 2015.

Solar City's Complaint included counts alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; unreasonable restraints of trade and exclusive dealing arrangements in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act, respectively; violations of state antitrust law; and interference with prospective economic advantage and contract. The Association and the District moved to dismiss all counts.

The Court granted the Association's motion in full on the grounds that the Complaint failed to directly implicate the Association in any of the challenged conduct, and that the Association was not an alter ego of the District. Order at 8-11. As already noted, however, the Court allowed some of the claims against the District itself to proceed.

Antitrust claims require the plaintiff to allege that the defendant has market power in a "relevant market," which is generally defined to encompass the product or service at issue and their economic substitutes. SolarCity alleged the relevant market to consist of the provision of power to end-use residential, governmental and business customers. The Court upheld this definition of the market as "not facially unsustainable" since customers may switch to self-generation with inexpensive solar power, reducing the electricity they would otherwise buy from the utility, and there are no other economically feasible electricity sources for customers. Order at 12-14. The fact that customers who self-generate remain partially dependent on the utility did not undermine the interchangeability of the products, according to the Court. Order at 13.

The Court next disposed of the District's claim that SolarCity's Complaint failed to allege "antitrust injury," i.e., "injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes the defendants' acts unlawful." Order at 14, quoting from Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977). The Court relied in part on SolarCity's allegations that at least one SRP employee had referred to SolarCity as "the enemy," and "a trade group with which SRP corresponded during the SEPPs' approval process has published a report noting that distributed solar is one of many 'disruptive technologies ...that may compete with utility-provided services' and that '[a]s the cost curve for these technologies improves, they could directly threaten the centralized utility model.'" Order at 15 (emphasis in original). This and other allegations sufficed in the Court's view to establish that SolarCity had adequately pleaded injury to competition.

The Court found merit in the District's motion to dismiss SolarCity's claims that the District had entered into unlawful agreements with customers to restrain trade. Those claims must fail, the Court reasoned, because SolarCity did not allege that the customers agreed to restrain trade by raising prices (as required for SolarCity's Sherman Act Section 1 agreement or conspiracy claim), and because SolarCity failed to allege an agreement by the customers to deal exclusively with the District (as required for the Clayton Act Section 3 exclusive dealing claim). Order at 16-18. The Court also upheld the District's argument that SolarCity failed to allege unlawful tying of grid access to the purchase of electricity from the District, on the ground that grid access and electricity are not separate products. Order at 18-19.

The Court declined to dismiss the monopolization claims on the ground that SolarCity had alleged facts similar to those found by the Court to constitute unlawful monopolization in Aspen Skiing. Aspen Skiing involved a suit by a ski resort operator alleging that a competing owner of three nearby ski resorts monopolized the market for downhill skiing services by opting out of an interchangeable lift-ticket program that had provided customers access to all four resorts. The parties had jointly offered the program for several years, but after the defendant dropped out, plaintiff's market share dropped significantly. The defendant argued that while it had monopoly power, it had no duty under the antitrust laws to cooperate with the plaintiff. Aspen Skiing, 472 U.S. at 594-600.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the defendant, holding that the right of a monopolist to refuse to deal with other firms is not unqualified. It said that a decision to make a change in a pattern of distribution that had persisted for several years is not necessarily anticompetitive unless "the conduct in which it engaged to implement that decision...can fairly be characterized as exclusionary..." Id., 472 U.S. at 604. Whether conduct is exclusionary depends on "its impact on consumers and whether it has impaired competition in an unnecessarily restrictive way." Order at 21, quoting from Aspen Skiing, 472 U.S. at 605. The Supreme Court found that the evidence supported an inference that the defendant was motivated not be efficiency concerns but rather a desire to take business from its smaller competitor. Order at 21, quoting from Aspen Skiing, 472 U.S. at 610.

The Arizona Court found that SolarCity's allegations of monopolization stated a plausible cause of action because of their similarity to Aspen Skiing:

[SolarCity] alleges the District is a monopolist and imposed the SEPPs to exclude SolarCity from a market that was previously supporting such competition. "SRP has reversed a long-time course of conduct that had generated customer goodwill, benefitted SRP in the short-[term] and medium term... for the sake of excluding long-term competition by preventing customers in its service area from installing distributed solar from competitors like SolarCity. [citation omitted] SolarCity claims the SEPPs limit the choices of consumers because they will decide against purchasing SolarCity's products. These allegations plausibly allege anticompetitive conduct by an alleged monopolist.

Order at 21.

Because Aspen Skiing has never been overruled, the Supreme Court's subsequent characterization of Aspen Skiing in Trinko as being "at or near the outer boundary" of unlawful monopolization doctrine under Section 2 of the Sherman Act does not mean that the Arizona Court was unjustified in relying on it. Whether the Court focused on that aspect of Trinko is unclear, however. The Court did cite Trinko, albeit for another point, i.e., that an antitrust plaintiff must demonstrate both monopoly power of the defendant in a relevant market and the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development due to a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident. The Court also noted that the District had argued that "Aspen Skiing applies only in rare circumstances," but dismissed that argument on the ground that the District "fail[ed] to explain why it does not apply to this case."Order at 21.

However, allowing the SolarCity monopolization claim to proceed appears to raise some of the concerns that formed the basis for the Supreme Court's narrowing of the monopolist's duty to deal with competitors in Trinko. Among those concerns was the risk of "false positives," by which the Court was referring to mistaken inferences that a monopolist's challenged conduct was intended to be exclusionary when a more benign explanation for the conduct might exist. 540 U.S. at 514.That concern is particularly apt in SolarCity. Unlike firms in most competitive markets, utilities like the District operate under the principle of "cost-of-service" rates, meaning that the utility is assured of the opportunity to recover all of its prudently incurred costs in rates. As such, if revenues decline, as may occur if increasing numbers of customers install rooftop solar panels, the burden falls in the first instance on other customers, who must pay higher rates, rather than on the utility's shareholders.8

It is unclear how the issue of rate impacts on other customers will play out in SolarCity. While the Court does not explicitly mention it in its discussion of the monopolization claims, it arguably left the door open for the District to raise the issue when it stated that "Whether conduct is exclusionary depends on 'its impact on consumers and whether it has impaired competition in an unnecessarily restrictive way." Order at 21, quoting from Aspen Skiing, 472 U.S. at 605. The District may argue that any impairment to competition arising out of its rate structure is necessary to protect against higher rates to its other, captive customers.

In fact, the District did raise the rate impact argument, but in a different context. The District claimed that it was immune from SolarCity's state law damages claims under an Arizona statute that provides immunity for a public entity's exercise of a judicial or legislative function or of an administrative function involving the determination of fundamental governmental policy. Order at 23. Rate-setting, the District argued, is a legislative function; and the need to increase rates to customers installing solar panels so that the District can cover its fixed costs so that it can provide electricity and water to its customers is a policy issue. The Court stated that neither of these arguments provided a basis to dismiss SolarCity's state law claims, as they both raised issues of fact. Order at 23-24.9

Another concern cited by the Court in Trinko as a basis for limiting Aspen Skiing was that the challenged conduct might be "beyond the practical ability of the ability of a judicial tribunal to control." 540 U.S. at 514, citing Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 223 (1993). Assuming the Court ultimately finds that the District's rates for customers with rooftop solar violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, administering a remedy could require the Court to supervise the District's rate structure, something that it is not well equipped to do.

While the denial in part of the motions to dismiss opens the door to consideration of these complex issues, two other considerations bear on the potential precedential significance of this case. The first stems from the fact that the District is more akin to a municipal utility than a traditional, investor-owned utility. Because its rates are not as heavily supervised as those of investor-owned utilities (whose rates are typically overseen by public utility commissions), the District is less likely to prevail on an argument that its conduct deserves antitrust immunity under the "state action" doctrine. Accordingly, a favorable outcome on the merits here may not be readily transferable to actions challenging attempts by investor-owned utilities to raise barriers to rooftop solar installations.

Second, the Court ruled that the District is immune from damages (but not injunctive relief) under the antitrust laws by virtue of the Local Government Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 35(a). The inability to recover monetary damages will lessen the incentive to sue other municipal utilities for antitrust violations, even if SolarCity ultimately prevails on its claims for injunctive relief.

Nonetheless, the partial denial of the motions to dismiss leaves the case in an interesting posture. Perhaps most important, a decision on the merits will reveal whether antitrust doctrine trumps policies underlying utility rate-setting. If SolarCity is successful, it may open a front where its odds of prevailing are better than they have proven to be before state legislatures and regulators.


[1] See Vance, A., "Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future" (Ecco/Harper Collins 2015).

[2] Warrick, J., "Utilities Wage Campaign Against Rooftop Solar," Washington Post (March 7, 2015), accessible at https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/utilities-sensing-threat-put-squeeze-on-booming-solar-roof-industry/2015/03/07/2d916f88-c1c9-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html/.

[3] See Adelberg, A., "Solar Panel Antitrust Case May Test Monopolization Law" (Law360, August 10, 2015), accessible at http://www.law360.com/articles/689204/solar-panel-antitrust-case-may-test-monopolization-law.

[4] SolarCity Corp. v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, et al., No. CV-15-00374-PHX-DLR, Order (D. Ariz. Oct. 27, 2015)("Order").

[5] Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398, 409 (2004)("Trinko").

[6] Commentators now regularly characterize the disputes between solar panel firms and utilities as "war," especially in Arizona. See, e.g.,"Arizona Gears up for Full Cost-Benefit Solar Value Proceeding: Can a Combination of Cost of Service and Value of Service End the State's Metering Wars" (November 2, 2015), accessible at http://www.utilitydive.com/news/arizona-gears-up-for-full-cost-benefit-solar-value-proceeding/408375/; "AZ's electric utilities' unrelenting war on solar" (September 7, 2015), accessible at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/07/1418971/-AZ'-s-electric-utilities-unrelenting-war-on-solar/; "The utilities' war on solar won't work because Americans have already decided the outcome" (April 7, 2015), accessible at http://safeenergy.org/2015/04/07/the-utilities-war-on -solar-won't-work/.

[7] The factual background of the dispute comes from the Order which, in turn, relied on allegations in SolarCity's Complaint. Because the Court was ruling on a motion to dismiss the complaint, it accepted the factual allegations as true. Order at 7, citing Smtih v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1996).

[8] While District doesn't have shareholders in the same sense as investor-owned utilities, the issue is essentially the same. Because the District transfers net revenues to the Association rather than applying them to reduce electricity rates, the Association in effect takes the place of shareholders.

[9] The Court also held that the District's argument that it was immune from antitrust liability under the "state action" doctrine raised factual issues that could not be addressed in ruling on a motion to dismiss. Order at 24-25. Under that doctrine, antitrust immunity exists where the conduct is undertaken pursuant to state law or regulation if the state has articulated a clear and affirmative policy to allow the anticompetitive conduct and provides active supervision of anticompetitive conduct undertaken by private actors. FTC v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 504 U.S. 621, 631 (1992).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions