to the consuming public upon the franchised retailers” at the state level. Tracy, 519 U.S. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 820. Es sentially, utilities were principally an intrastate concern at this point. This began to change in the early twentieth century, when the natural gas industry, and later the electric industry, developed into more interstate concerns. As a corollary, the Supreme Court eventually confronted the issue of whether state regulation of the sale of natural gas in interstate commerce violated the Commerce Clause. Through its disposition of several eases, the Supreme Court devised a bright-line test to determine whether a state regulation of natural gas sales violated the Commerce Clause. See generally Missouri v. Kansas Gas Co., 265 U.S. 298, 44 S.Ct. 544, 68 L.Ed. 1027 (1924) (<HOLDING>); Pub. Util. Comm’n for Kansas v. Landon, 249
holding that state restrictions on electronic license plates might constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce so the claim fell within the zone of interests protected by the dormant commerce clause holding that attempt by state to fix rates chargeable in sale of natural gas to distributor in another state is direct burden on interstate commerce holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce holding that commerce clause authorizes congress to punish any particular criminal action even without proof of a relation to interstate commerce when the activity is part of a class of activities determined by congress to affect interstate commerce