Cozy With Corporations? The FTC's Enbridge Decision Raises Red Flags

When Enbridge Inc., a titan in the energy world, slipped out from under a decade-old regulatory leash last December, it barely made a ripple. The Federal Trade Commission, tasked with guarding competition, waved through the Canadian giant’s petition to ditch a 2017 consent order tied to its merger with Spectra Energy Corp. The reasoning? Enbridge sold off its stake in the Discovery Pipeline, a competitor to its own Walker Ridge Pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico. On its face, it looks clean, a neat little bow on a messy antitrust knot. But peel back the layers, and this decision reeks of a system too cozy with corporate power, leaving everyday Americans to foot the bill.

This isn’t just about pipelines or natural gas; it’s about who holds the reins in an industry that heats homes, powers factories, and shapes our economy. The FTC’s 2017 order wasn’t some bureaucratic overreach. It was a hard-fought shield against Enbridge gaming the market, locking out rivals, or jacking up prices by exploiting sensitive intel on the Discovery Pipeline. Now, with that shield gone, the agency’s quick approval feels less like vigilance and more like a shrug, a signal that big energy can wriggle free if it waits long enough.

For anyone paying their utility bills or watching grocery prices climb, this matters. Natural gas isn’t an abstract commodity; its costs ripple through everything. When competition weakens, companies like Enbridge don’t just win, working families lose. The FTC’s decision came out of nowhere, and it’s a stark reminder: regulators need to stop hitting snooze on corporate accountability.

Let’s be clear: the natural gas market isn’t a free-for-all where everyone gets a fair shake. It’s a chessboard dominated by a handful of players, and pipelines are the kingpins. Owning one, as Enbridge does with Walker Ridge, isn’t just about moving gas; it’s about controlling access, setting prices, and squeezing out smaller fry. The FTC knew this in 2017 when it slapped firewalls on Enbridge to keep its merger with Spectra from tanking competition in the Gulf. That merger handed Enbridge a peek into Discovery’s playbook, a rival it could’ve kneecapped or colluded with to rig the game.

Fast forward to 2025, and the landscape’s shifted. Enbridge offloaded its Discovery stake to Williams Companies, Inc., and the FTC bought the line that this erases all worries. Really? Selling a stake doesn’t undo the years Enbridge had to study its rival’s moves or the market power it’s amassed. Research backs this up: pipeline ownership bends competition, especially in tight markets like offshore natural gas. Studies from the Biden era, when antitrust hawks cracked down on oil giants for price gouging, show how fast consolidation turns into higher costs for consumers.

Some might argue Enbridge’s exit proves the system works, that divestitures fix overlaps. Nice try, but that’s a Band-Aid on a broken leg. The FTC’s own data from recent merger busts, like the $5.6 million fine on XCL Resources and Verdun Oil for pre-merger coordination, screams that energy firms don’t play nice without a referee. Letting Enbridge off without fresh scrutiny risks a rerun of history, think Standard Oil 1911, where unchecked power choked markets until the feds finally swung the axe.

Here’s what keeps me up at night: the FTC’s laissez-faire nod isn’t just a win for Enbridge; it’s a loss for anyone who isn’t a shareholder. Natural gas prices are already edgy, with Henry Hub pegged at $4.20 per MMBtu this year, squeezed by coal’s fade and renewables’ slow grind. When pipeline titans like Enbridge face less heat, they can flex muscle downstream, hiking transportation fees or favoring their own gas over independents’. That’s not theory; it’s the playbook from the pre-deregulation days when pipeline monopolies ruled under the Natural Gas Act of 1938.

The Biden administration got this. Its ‘whole of government’ push nailed energy collusion, from shale to pipelines, because it saw the human toll: families choosing between heat and food. Today’s FTC, though, seems to have forgotten that lesson. Approving Enbridge’s petition with a 2-0 vote and no public grilling feels like a backroom deal, not a public service. Advocates for fair markets, like the Open Markets Institute, have long warned that lax merger oversight breeds oligopolies, and the data agrees, mergers in concentrated sectors like energy often spike prices 5 to 10 percent.

Sure, Enbridge’s defenders might crow about efficiencies, claiming mergers streamline operations and cut costs. History begs to differ. The FTC’s own merger guidelines, refreshed in 2023, flag how vertical tie-ups, like Enbridge-Spectra, can choke competition even without direct ownership overlaps. Firewalls worked in 2017 because they boxed in Enbridge’s reach. Ditching them now, without proving the market’s safe, gambles with consumers’ wallets.

This isn’t about punishing Enbridge; it’s about protecting the rest of us. The FTC’s job isn’t to rubber-stamp corporate pivots but to dig in, ask hard questions, and prove competition’s alive. Reopening the 2017 order was a chance to flex that muscle, to show energy giants that selling a stake doesn’t wipe the slate clean. Instead, the agency punted, leaving us to wonder if it’s too stretched or just too soft.

America’s energy future hinges on regulators who don’t flinch. The natural gas market’s evolving, with LNG exports booming and Asia’s pipeline race heating up. If the FTC lets firms like Enbridge roam unchecked, we’re not just risking higher bills; we’re ceding control of a vital resource. It’s time to demand more, tougher rules, sharper teeth, and an FTC that fights for Main Street, not Bay Street.