• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Electric Power Supply Association

  • Podcast
  • About EPSA
    • Our Policy Principles
    • EPSA Members
    • Our Staff
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • FAQ
EPSA

EPSA

  • Filings
    • Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    • Federal
    • Judiciary
    • State
    • ISOs/RTOs
  • Newsroom
    • Press Releases
    • Media Contacts
    • Power Moves Newsletter
    • Factsheets and White Papers
    • Opinion and Commentary
    • Social Media
    • Podcast
  • Competitive Solutions
    • Reliable Power
    • Cost Savings
    • Environmental Progress
      • Competitive Emissions Policy Primers
    • Energy Innovation
    • In Your State
  • For Members
    • EPSA Membership
    • Committees
  • PowerFacts Blog
Home / Filings / EPSA and P3 Motion to Strike Brief Filed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Solicitor

September 8, 2022

EPSA and P3 Motion to Strike Brief Filed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Solicitor

By EPSA

Date Filed: Sept 7, 2022

Venue: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Case: PJM Power Providers Group and Electric Power Supply Association v. FERC

Case Nos. 21-3068 & 21-3205 (consolidated with 21-3243, 22-1158)

Filers: Electric Power Supply Association, The PJM Power Providers Group

Summary: Petitioners EPSA and P3 in the appeals of PJM’s Focused MOPR FERC proceeding have filed a motion to strike the Respondent brief filed with the 3rd Circuit by FERC’s Solicitor as the brief does not represent the Commission as a body because the Commission did not vote on an order addressing the issues put forth in the brief. Rather, the purported Respondent’s brief reflects the views of two Commissioners as set out in a joint statement, which is not a majority here. The brief adopts and advocates legal and policy positions that have never received the support of a majority of Commissioners and thus the Court should strike it. The brief is simply not what it claims to be—it does not represent the views of the Commission, and the Solicitor should not be permitted to suggest otherwise in this proceeding. More, the misattribution of the Solicitor’s positions to the Commission would have substantial, adverse effects. In particular, it changes both the deference the Court owes to those arguments and the legal effects those arguments may have in this and future proceedings. The Court should remedy the prejudice to this litigation by striking the Solicitor’ Brief.

Primary Sidebar

Download PDF

Share

Home Page Help Area

Sign up for EPSA’s Power Moves newsletter – a monthly update on the road to a cleaner, affordable and reliable energy future that works for all Americans.

LEARN MORE

Footer

1401 New York Ave. NW
Suite 950
Washington, DC 20005

p 202.628.8200
f 202.628.8260

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About EPSA
  • Filings
  • Newsroom
  • For Members
  • Contact
  • PowerFacts Blog
  • FAQ

Copyright © 2023 | Electric Power Supply Association. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy >