The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a petition for review filed by the Independent Market Monitor for PJM Interconnection, ruling that the monitor lacked standing to challenge a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decision regarding meeting access rights.
The case, decided Dec. 30, 2025, centers on Market Monitoring Analytics LLP's role as the independent market monitor for PJM Interconnection LLC, which manages an electrical grid spanning 13 states and the District of Columbia. The dispute arose when PJM decided to exclude the monitor from meetings between the PJM Board of Managers and the PJM Liaison Committee.
Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote the opinion for the court, with Senior Circuit Judge Harry Edwards filing a concurring opinion. The three-judge panel also included Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas.
According to the court's opinion, PJM had previously allowed the Independent Market Monitor to attend meetings between the Board of Managers and the Liaison Committee, a nonvoting body that serves as a forum for open communications between PJM members and the board. However, PJM later decided to enforce a provision in the Liaison Committee's charter that limits attendance to end-use customers and regulated utilities serving the PJM market region.
The Independent Market Monitor complained to FERC about this policy change, arguing that the exclusion undermined its ability to effectively monitor market conditions in PJM's region. The Commission sided with PJM, prompting the monitor to petition the D.C. Circuit for review of FERC's decision.
The D.C. Circuit's dismissal for lack of standing represents a procedural victory for both FERC and PJM. Standing requires that a petitioner demonstrate they have suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, traceable to the challenged action, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
The court's background section notes that since the 1990s, FERC has encouraged transmission providers to establish independent market monitors as part of its efforts to promote competitive electricity markets. These monitors play a crucial role in overseeing market operations and identifying potential market manipulation or other irregularities.
PJM Interconnection operates one of the largest regional transmission organizations in the United States, coordinating the movement of wholesale electricity across a region that includes all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
The case was argued Sept. 18, 2025, with Jeffrey W. Mayes representing the Independent Market Monitor. Jason T. Perkins, an attorney with FERC, argued for the Commission, supported by Acting General Counsel David L. Morenoff and Solicitor Robert H. Solomon.
Dominion Energy Services Inc. and other entities intervened in support of FERC's position. Steven M. Nadel argued for the intervenors, supported by a team of attorneys including Christopher R. Jones, Miles H. Kiger, William M. Rappolt, Gary E. Guy, John Longstreth, Donald A. Kaplan, and Chimera N. Thompson.
The standing issue that led to dismissal suggests the court found the Independent Market Monitor failed to demonstrate sufficient concrete harm from being excluded from the meetings. Courts require petitioners to show they have been injured in a way that gives them a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation.
This decision could impact the ongoing relationship between independent market monitors and the regional transmission organizations they oversee. Market monitors serve as watchdogs for competitive electricity markets, and their ability to access information and participate in key discussions can affect their effectiveness in identifying market problems.
The case also highlights the complex governance structures within regional transmission organizations like PJM. These entities operate under FERC oversight while managing relationships with numerous stakeholders, including utilities, end-use customers, and independent monitors.
While the court dismissed the petition on standing grounds rather than reaching the merits of the dispute, the decision leaves FERC's original ruling in place. This means PJM can continue to exclude the Independent Market Monitor from Board-Liaison Committee meetings based on the charter provisions limiting attendance.
The dismissal represents the latest development in ongoing tensions over market monitoring and transparency in regional electricity markets. As these markets have evolved since deregulation began in the 1990s, questions about monitor independence and access to information continue to arise.
The procedural nature of the dismissal means the underlying policy questions about market monitor access remain unresolved. Future cases involving similar disputes could potentially reach the merits if standing requirements are satisfied.
The D.C. Circuit's jurisdiction over FERC appeals makes it a key venue for resolving disputes about federal energy regulation. The court's decision not to reach the substantive issues in this case reflects the importance of procedural requirements in federal appellate litigation.