As the authors note the spirit of competition law is for every actor in a market to stand alone and act in their own interest compared to the other actors and the many variables that exist within the marketplace. However, sustainability as a societal goal mean that actions are contrary to the spirit of competition law, in that individual actors standalone. Here, we have state actors, regulators, and international organizations who wish to influence the actions of the individual within the energy markets. Recognizing that often, these secondary actors in what could be a “free-market” are not a bad thing. Often times, the secondary actors demand of participants certain actions that are deemed good for society, but run contrary to efforts to obtain additional profits; the main concern of corporations in the modern context. This box that the energy markets are put in is a consequence of the totally liberalizing force that international organizations have been asked to do. While they have generally been successful, more often than not, they still have additional work to do to ensure that the innovation in the markets continue. Understandably, the consequences of not regulating the energy markets mean that the international regulators have failed on their goals of ensuring the slow of global climate change. Yet, there are often circumstances where globalization leave behind entire groups of individuals and their means of livelihood because they do not have the ability to compete in the regulated markets. Even if they are not completely successful in doing so, they need to balance the ideals of a freer-market when it can be feasible to do so. Competition law ideals can help to frame the policies to do so.