In partnership with AESP: The increasing roles of DERs, connected technology and Big Data are driving rapid change in energy efficiency. As we shape the Utility of the future, this community will help you keep up with the latest developments. 

Other Resource

Case 19-3652 - Motion to hold case in abeyance for 60 days

Access Other Resource

The DOE may be preparing to withdraw its defense in the litigation regarding General Service Lamps based on this recent motion to hold the case in abeyance for 60 days pending the outcome of a new internal review of the original Final Rules.

Access Other Resource

Matt Bowgren's picture
Thank Matt for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Discussions

Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Apr 8, 2021

Does an action like this, pulling the litigation defense with a new Administration in office, have precedence in these type of EE measures, or is this a first? 

Matt Bowgren's picture
Matt Bowgren on Apr 10, 2021

A motion to hold a proceeding in abeyance can happen for any number of reasons. What may be a first here is that in a transition of administration there is a swift presidential order that essentially says, "We don't like what they did and we're going to re-evaluate (i.e. determine what we can legally overturn)." The petitioner is completely okay with it because they believe they understand the trajectory of the process and that putting a pause on the case will produce a better, faster outcome than proceeding. The reality is that the case was moving slowly anyhow - they haven't scheduled oral arguments yet, so a 60-day hold doesn't change the timeline of the case all that much, but it does allow for the chance of a faster outcome without the additional risk or expense of oral arguments and putting it to a decision from a judge. The petitioners could have objected to the motion and the judge may have not granted the abeyance. Without an order from a judge, however, they may have to undo a few procedural restrictions put in place in order to change their position (you'll see them start that process on Monday, 4/12). If they flip-flop illegally, it's just as possible that an organization supporting the previous changes files a petition to challenge the DOE for not following procedure.

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Apr 12, 2021

Thanks for the follow up, Matt. So interesting to see how the judicial system plays into this-- not sure that was foreseen back in the days of EISA 1992, but compelling to watch it play out today. 

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »