Aug 5 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday revived

an antitrust lawsuit accusing Duke Energy ( DUK ) of

monopolizing the wholesale power market in North Carolina,

unlawfully blocking competition from rival power company NTE

Carolinas.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a judge's

order that said Duke's business practices did not violate U.S.

antitrust law.

The appeals court in a 3-0 panel ruling said there were

sufficient disputes over facts to let a jury weigh the case and

that the trial judge should have allowed the lawsuit to proceed.

Florida-based NTE provided evidence that Duke tried to bar

it from competing for business, U.S. Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer

wrote in the ruling, joined by Circuit Judges Stephanie Thacker

and Diana Motz. NTE had said Duke Energy ( DUK ) violated antitrust law

in part by terminating an agreement providing access to its

energy transmission network.

The court said there was "much from which a jury could

conclude that Duke's actions were illegitimate anticompetitive

conduct."

A representative from Duke Energy ( DUK ) said it was reviewing the

court's decision.

NTE in a statement said it welcomed the 4th Circuit's ruling

and looks forward "to persuading a jury that Duke's actions

violated the antitrust laws."

NTE is an independent power producer that generates energy

at plants but does not own transmission lines for delivering

electricity to wholesale customers, including cities. NTE relies

on transmission lines of other energy companies such as Duke

Energy ( DUK ).

In 2019, NTE accused Duke of violating antitrust law in the

wholesale energy market in the Carolinas. U.S. District Judge

Kenneth Bell in 2022 said Duke Energy ( DUK ) had not engaged in

anticompetitive conduct and granted summary judgment in its

favor.

The appeals court said Monday that NTE's case should be

reassigned to a different judge.

Bell had earlier stepped aside from hearing the case based

on his affiliation with one of his former law partners at

McGuireWoods who was a lawyer for Duke. Bell later reversed that

decision after finding the conflict was "abated," and he denied

NTE's request that he recuse himself.

The 4th Circuit panel said it found, like other courts,

"that once a judge recuses himself from a case, he should remain

recused from that case," even if recusal from the beginning were

not required.

The case is Duke Energy Carolinas LLC and Duke Energy Corp ( DUK )

v. NTE Carolinas II et al, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,

No. 22-2168.

For Duke: Morgan Ratner of Sullivan & Cromwell

For NTE: Derek Ho of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &

Frederick

Read more:

Duke Energy ( DUK ) inks deals with Amazon, Google, Microsoft on

clean energy supply