18 C.F.R. § 385.2202
Separation of functions (Rule 2202)
In any proceeding in which a Commission adjudication is made after hearing, or in any proceeding arising from an investigation under part 1b of this chapter beginning from the time the Commission initiates a proceeding governed by part 385 of this chapter, no officer, employee, or agent assigned to work upon the proceeding or to assist in the trial thereof, in that or any factually related proceeding, shall participate or advise as to the findings, conclusion or decision, except as a witness or counsel in public proceedings.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case: F.E.R.C. v. Silkman, 359 F. Supp. 3d 66 (D. Me. 2019).
F.E.R.C. v. Silkman, 359 F. Supp. 3d 66 (D. Me. 2019). “Under FERC's Separation of Functions Rule ( 18 C.F.R. § 385.2202 ), a "wall" went up between agency decisional staff - the Commissioners and the staff that may advise them - and the Enforcement staff serving a prosecutorial role in the proceedings.”
Alabama Power Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 993 F.2d 1557 (D.C. Cir. 1993). “18 C.F.R. § 385.2202 . Though we do not resolve the issue, we note that the settlement review procedures may plausibly be read to prohibit the trial staff, as a participant in the proceedings, from filing a formal request for investigation, but not to inhibit the Commission from…”
BP Am. v. FERC (5th Cir. 2022). “See 18 C.F.R. § 385.2202 (implementing regulation).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.