Summary

Owen J. Roberts Tennessee Electric Power Company v…

The appellants urge that the Tennessee Valley Authority, by competing with them in the sale of electric energy, is destroying their property and rights without warrant, since the claimed authorization of its transactions is an unconstitutional statute. The pith of the complaint is the Authority's competition. But the appellants realize that competition between natural persons is lawful. They seek to stigmatize the Authority's present and proposed competition as 'illegal' by reliance on their franchises which they say are property protected from injury or destruction by competition.
Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts Tennessee Electric Power Company v…

But it is nothing more than an incident of competition; it is but a method of seeking and assuring a market for the power which the Authority has for sale, and a lawful means to that end. [26] The sale of government property in competition with others is not a violation of the Tenth Amendment. As we have seen there is no objection to the Authority's operations by the states, and, if this were not so, the appellants, absent the states or their officers, have no standing in this suit to raise any question under the amendment.
Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts Tennessee Electric Power Company v…

The franchise to exist as a corporation, and to function as a public utility, in the absence of a specific charter contract on the subject, creates no right to be free of competition, [7] and affords the corporation no legal cause of complaint by reason of the state's subsequently authorizing another to enter and operate in the same field. [8] The local franchises, while having elements of property, confer no contractual or property right to be free of competition either from individuals, other public utility corporations, or the state or municipality granting the franchise.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature