D.C. Circuit Vacates Energy Department Emergency Order That Kept Michigan's Campbell Coal Plant Running
A three-judge panel ruled unanimously on September 11, 2026 that the Energy Department stretched its Federal Power Act emergency power beyond what the statute allows; the department says the orders prevented blackouts and is weighing an appeal.
A Court Says One Word Doesn't Mean What the Energy Department Says It Means
The J.H. Campbell coal plant in West Olive, Michigan, was supposed to shut down on May 31, 2025[1][2]. Instead, it's still running, kept alive by a federal order that used a single word to override the plant's own retirement date: "emergency"[1][2].
On September 11, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled unanimously that the Energy Department stretched that word further than the law allows[1][2][11]. The court vacated the department's original order from May 2025, the one that first forced Campbell to keep operating[1][2][11]. The states of Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, along with environmental groups, had sued to stop it[2][11].
Here's the tension at the center of the case: the plant did generate real power during a real cold snap this year, running above 650 megawatts every day from January 21 to February 1[13]. And it also cost hundreds of millions of dollars to keep online, money that consumers ultimately help cover[12][14]. Both of those things are true. The fight is over which one the law was built to weigh.
What "Emergency" Is Supposed to Mean, and Why the Difference Matters
Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act lets the Energy Secretary order a power plant to keep running during an emergency[2]. Historically, that's meant something narrow and sudden: a hurricane knocks out transmission lines, or a generator fails without warning, and a region risks losing power within days[2][5].
Energy Secretary Chris Wright used the provision differently. His argument was that the Midwest grid could run short of power in coming seasons, so keeping a retiring coal plant on standby counted as emergency action, too[2][5]. That's a much bigger claim. It treats a general worry about future supply the same way the law treats a storm bearing down tonight.
The court didn't accept that. It wrote that the text, structure and history of the statute don't support what it called "DOE's sweeping conception" of emergency power[1][2]. In the panel's reading, Section 202(c) is meant for situations that need immediate federal action, not standing insurance against a future shortfall[1][2].
Why does that distinction matter so much? Because if "emergency" can mean "we're worried about six months from now," the Energy Department could use it to keep almost any retiring plant open, almost indefinitely. That's the tool DOE wants to preserve, and it's the tool the challengers say was never meant to exist.
Six Emergencies, One Plant
The record made the challengers' case for them. DOE didn't invoke emergency power once for Campbell — it did so six times, reissuing the order every 90 days, most recently on August 14, 2026[2][12]. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who led the lawsuit, argued that an emergency renewed six times in a row isn't really an emergency at all[11][2]. It's a policy, she said, imposed without the normal process of hearings and evidence that energy regulation usually requires[11][3].
There's also a cost question sitting underneath the legal one. Consumers Energy, the utility that owns and runs Campbell, says it spent $164 million keeping the plant available through the first order and part of the second, and took an $80 million loss doing it[12]. Total figures for the whole stretch run higher — about $259 million by one count, $295 million by the company's own financial filings through June 30, 2026, with the gap likely reflecting different end dates and counting methods rather than a real disagreement over the number[2][12].
Consumers isn't fighting the order; it's complying with a federal directive while trying not to eat the cost. It has sought to recover its spending through a mechanism approved by the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC), which spreads the bill across customers in MISO's central and northern zones — the regional grid that includes Michigan and neighboring states[12][14]. The challengers say that violates a principle called "cost causation," the idea that the people who benefit from a cost should be the ones paying it, not customers elsewhere in the region who had no say in the decision[12][14]. That fight is still going on at FERC, separate from the court ruling[12][14].
The Case for Keeping Campbell Running
DOE's strongest argument isn't really about Campbell specifically — it's about what happens when a power plant goes away and doesn't come back. Once a coal unit retires, workers leave, fuel contracts end, and restarting the plant later can take months or years[8][2]. A retirement, in other words, is close to permanent. Whoever controls the power to delay one effectively controls part of the region's fuel mix.
DOE points to hard numbers to back its case. During Winter Storm Fern in January, coal generation across the affected region rose 25% compared with the same period a year earlier, and Campbell itself ran above 650 megawatts every day for eleven straight days[13]. The department says its orders "prevented blackouts and likely saved hundreds of lives"[13][2]. Coal, in this argument, offers something wind and solar can't guarantee on demand: fuel stored on site, ready to burn the moment the grid calls for it.
The coal industry's own trade group, America's Power, took the argument further, dismissing the ruling in a post titled "The Baseload: Federal Court in DC Relies on Pixie Dust and Fairy Sprinkles," and argued that judges applying dictionary definitions of "emergency" aren't equipped to judge grid engineering[8]. Behind that argument sits a plainer interest: every avoided retirement extends the life of coal mines, rail contracts and plant jobs tied to plants like Campbell[8].
This is also playing out against a backdrop of genuinely rising demand. Electricity forecasts across MISO and other regional grids have jumped after years of flat growth, driven by data centers and new manufacturing[2][5]. That rising demand is real, and it's part of what makes DOE's emergency argument plausible to grid planners even without a storm on the radar[2][5].
What the Ruling Actually Changes, and What It Doesn't
The panel vacated only the first order, the one from May 2025[11]. DOE had already reissued the Campbell order five more times since then, and the ruling doesn't automatically erase those later orders[2][12]. Hours after the decision came down, Wright issued a fresh 90-day emergency order for a coal plant in Washington state, a sign the department isn't backing off the broader strategy[2].
Campbell is one of roughly six coal-fired plants DOE has ordered to keep running under this emergency authority since January 2025, with others located in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Washington state[2][5]. A narrower reading of Section 202(c) weakens the legal ground under all of those orders, even though this ruling technically applies only to Campbell's first one[2][5]. DOE hasn't conceded any error and can still ask the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case, or take it to the Supreme Court[2][13].
Coverage of the ruling split along familiar lines. Left-leaning and climate outlets led with cost and the word "illegal" — Inside Climate News called the plant "costly" in its headline, and Common Dreams quoted advocates calling it "old, expensive, and dirty," while largely leaving out DOE's Winter Storm Fern data[3][4]. Right-leaning coverage was thinner and leaned on the reliability argument, with the Washington Examiner framing the ruling as narrowing federal power to only "immediate" action[7]. Al Jazeera and Bloomberg treated it mainly as a check on presidential power, largely skipping the grid-engineering dispute that drives the U.S. debate[2][5].
What happens to the other five orders, and to the hundreds of millions already spent, is still an open question. The FERC cost fight continues on its own track, separate from anything the D.C. Circuit decided[12][14]. And DOE's next move — appeal, rehearing, or simply issuing more orders like the one it signed hours after losing this one — will decide how much this ruling actually restrains[2][13].
Summary
On Friday, September 11, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Energy Department went beyond its legal authority when it ordered a Michigan coal plant to keep running past its retirement date[1][2]. The three-judge panel was unanimous. It vacated the department's May 2025 emergency order for the J.H. Campbell Generating Plant in West Olive, Michigan, owned and run by Consumers Energy[1][11].
The order was issued under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act. That provision lets the Energy Secretary order power plants to run during an emergency — the classic case is a hurricane or a sudden generator failure that could black out a region within days. Energy Secretary Chris Wright used it differently. He argued the Midwest grid could fall short of power in coming seasons, so keeping a retiring coal plant available was itself emergency work[2][5]. The court disagreed. It wrote that the text, structure and history of the statute do not support 'DOE's sweeping conception' of emergency power, and said the provision is meant for situations needing immediate federal action — not general worries about future supply[1][2].
The two sides disagree about what the case is really about. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who sued alongside Illinois and Minnesota and several environmental groups, casts it as a limit on an agency rewriting a word — 'emergency' — to mean whatever it wants, while customers pay[11][2]. The Energy Department casts it as a court overriding engineers on grid safety, and says its orders, including at Campbell, 'prevented blackouts and likely saved hundreds of lives' during peak demand over the past year[13].
The most important open question is practical: what the ruling actually stops. The panel vacated the first order[11]. DOE had already reissued the Campbell order five more times, most recently on August 14, 2026[2][12]. Hours after the ruling, Wright issued a fresh 90-day emergency order for a different coal plant, in Washington state[2]. DOE can ask the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case or go to the Supreme Court[2]. A separate fight over who pays the hundreds of millions of dollars in costs is still running at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission[12][14].
The Event
On September 11, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously vacated the U.S. Department of Energy's emergency order requiring the J.H. Campbell Generating Plant in West Olive, Michigan, to keep operating past its scheduled May 31, 2025 retirement[1][2][11]. The panel held that DOE exceeded its statutory authority under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, writing that its 'reading of the text, structure, and history leaves us unpersuaded by DOE's sweeping conception of its "emergency" authority'[1]. The challengers were the states of Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, together with environmental organizations[2][11]. DOE said in response that its orders prevented blackouts and that it will continue to defend energy security; later the same day, Energy Secretary Chris Wright issued a new 90-day emergency order for a coal plant in Washington state[2][13].
Undisputed Facts
- The J.H. Campbell coal plant in West Olive, Michigan, was scheduled to retire on May 31, 2025[1][2].
- In May 2025, days before that date, DOE issued an order under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act requiring the plant to stay available[3][2].
- DOE reissued the Campbell order five more times in 90-day increments, the latest on August 14, 2026[2][12].
- The D.C. Circuit panel ruled unanimously on September 11, 2026, and vacated DOE's order[1][2][11].
- The challengers included the attorneys general of Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota plus environmental groups[2][11].
- Campbell is one of about six coal-fired plants DOE has ordered to keep running under emergency authority since January 2025, with others in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Washington state[2][5].
- FERC has approved a preliminary MISO mechanism allowing the plant's owners — Consumers Energy, Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative and the Michigan Public Power Agency — to recover their compliance costs from grid customers[12][14].
- DOE has not conceded error and retains the option to seek rehearing by the full D.C. Circuit or review by the Supreme Court[2][13].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Load growth is real and fast
- Demand forecasts across MISO and other grids have jumped after years of flat load, driven by data centers and new factories. That pressure is what makes an 'emergency' argument plausible to grid planners even when no storm is on the radar[2][5].
- Retirement is a one-way door
- Once a coal unit is shut, staff leave, fuel contracts end, and restarting takes months to years. Whoever holds the authority to delay a retirement effectively holds a veto over the grid's fuel mix[8][2].
- Someone always pays the bill
- Running an uneconomic plant costs real money — $164 million through the first order and part of the second, with an $80 million loss to the owner[12]. The only live question is whether that lands on shareholders, Michigan customers, or the whole MISO footprint, which is why the FERC cost-allocation case matters as much as the court ruling[12][14].
- Emergency statutes are the contested frontier
- This is one of a series of disputes over how far an administration can stretch words like 'emergency' written decades ago. A narrow ruling here constrains the same move in other agencies[5][1].
Material realityThe Campbell plant is a roughly 60-plus-year-old coal station in West Olive, Michigan. Its capacity is reported at about 1,420 MW in some accounts and 1,560 MW in others — a discrepancy that likely reflects summer-rated versus nameplate capacity, and one readers should treat as unsettled[2][12]. It was slated to close on May 31, 2025, and instead has run under a chain of federal orders ever since[1][2]. It did generate power during the January 2026 cold snap, above 650 MW daily from January 21 to February 1[13]. It also cost hundreds of millions of dollars to keep available, an amount reported between about $259 million and $295 million depending on the end date and source[2][12]. The court ruling vacates the first order; it does not by itself demolish the plant, refund the money, or automatically void the five later orders[11][2]. What happens next depends on DOE's appeal choice, on FERC, and on the utility's own schedule.
Narrative as a weaponThree groups are actively shaping how this reads. DOE and the coal industry want you to believe the case is about grid physics and judicial overreach — that a court applied a dictionary to a question that belongs to engineers, and that the proof is Campbell's output during Winter Storm Fern. Environmental groups and the Democratic attorneys general want you to believe it is about a fake emergency and a hidden tax — six renewals of a 90-day order, and a bill sent to people in other states. Most of the left-leaning coverage was built from Earthjustice, NRDC and Vote Solar press releases issued within hours of the ruling, which is why the same adjectives recur across outlets. The narrowest and most defensible description is the one the panel itself used: this was a ruling about the meaning of one word in one statute, not a finding about whether the Midwest grid is safe.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asReliability is not a future abstraction; it is a physical margin that shrinks the moment a big generator is unplugged. DOE's case is that Congress wrote Section 202(c) precisely so the federal government could act before the lights go out, not after — waiting for a blackout to become 'imminent' is waiting too long, because a retired plant cannot be un-retired in a week. It points to hard operating data: during Winter Storm Fern in January, coal generation in affected regions rose 25% over the same period a year earlier, and Campbell ran above 650 MW every day from January 21 to February 1[13]. DOE argues its orders 'prevented blackouts and likely saved hundreds of lives,' and that 'taking reliable generation offline compromises energy reliability and needlessly raises energy costs'[13][2].
WhyTo preserve a broad, fast-acting federal tool for keeping fossil generation online, which is central to the administration's energy agenda and to its stated goal of meeting rising demand from data centers and manufacturing[2][5].
Impact on themA narrowed reading of 202(c) weakens the legal basis for the other five coal-plant orders and any future ones; DOE kept issuing orders anyway, including a new one for a Washington state plant hours after the ruling[2].
Frames it asTheir argument is about who decides and who pays. They say an 'emergency' that is renewed six times in a row for the same plant is not an emergency — it is a policy, imposed without the notice, evidence and hearings that normal energy regulation requires[11][3]. A regional grid operator's planning process, state regulators and the utility itself had all worked toward a retirement date; one cabinet officer overrode that with a stroke of a pen. They also argue the bill lands on households who get no benefit: costs are spread across MISO's central and northern zones, which they say breaks the Federal Power Act's 'cost causation' rule — the principle that you pay for costs you cause[12][14].
WhyNessel is an elected Democratic attorney general with a record of intervening in Campbell proceedings to keep costs off Michigan ratepayers; the environmental groups want the retirement schedule that utilities already agreed to to actually hold[11][12].
Impact on themThe ruling gives them precedent to use against the remaining orders, and strengthens their position in the FERC cost fight — though the money already spent is unlikely to be undone by this decision alone[11][12].
Frames it asThe utility is a compelled party, not a combatant. It had planned the retirement, and it must obey a federal order while it stands. Its position is essentially cost-neutrality: if the government orders a plant to run, the government's process should make the owners whole. Consumers has sought recovery through the FERC-approved MISO mechanism rather than absorbing the loss[12][14].
WhyTo avoid shareholder losses from running an uneconomic plant, and to keep its long-term clean-energy plan and rate case intact regardless of who wins the legal fight[12].
Impact on themConsumers reported spending $164 million to run the plant through the first order and part of the second, taking an $80 million loss in the process[12]. Reported totals for the whole period vary: about $259 million per figures cited by critics in wire coverage, and $295 million from May 2025 through June 30, 2026 per the company's own financial filings — a gap that reflects different end dates and counting methods, not a settled single number[2][12].
Frames it asTheir strongest version is not 'coal is good' but 'firm capacity is scarce.' A coal unit stores months of fuel on site and runs when it is called, which is what a grid needs during a multi-day Arctic freeze when wind drops and solar output is short. They argue judges applying dictionary definitions of 'emergency' are not equipped to judge loss-of-load risk, and that the penalty for being wrong is asymmetric: an unnecessary $200 million is recoverable, a winter blackout is not. The industry outlet America's Power derided the opinion as resting on 'pixie dust and fairy sprinkles'[8].
WhyEvery avoided retirement extends the life of coal mines, rail contracts and plant jobs, and each emergency order sets a precedent for the next one[8].
Impact on themIf the narrow reading holds, the retirement queue resumes on its old schedule and the emergency-order tool largely closes[2][5].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 5
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Press | U.S. center | 2 | 'Federal court rejects Trump order keeping Michigan coal plant open' — straight account of the holding, with Wright's reliability rationale stated and the ~$259 million cost attributed to critics[6]. | Frames the case around 'Trump' rather than DOE, which personalizes an agency-authority ruling; otherwise attributes the cost figure rather than asserting it. |
| Utility Dive | U.S. trade press, utility-sector readership | 3 | 'Court rejects DOE "emergency" order delaying coal plant retirement as overstep' — leads with the statutory holding and the panel's quoted language[2]. | Puts 'emergency' in scare quotes in the headline, adopting the challengers' characterization; compensates with the most complete record of DOE's rebuttal, appeal options and the FERC cost track. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 3 | 'US court rejects Trump's emergency order keeping Michigan coal plant open' — positions the story as a judicial check on presidential power[5]. | Executive-power frame crowds out the grid-engineering dispute that actually divides U.S. experts. |
| The Epoch Times | U.S. right, Falun Gong-affiliated | 4 | 'DC Appeals Court Voids Federal Order Keeping Michigan Coal Plant Open' — procedural headline, with DOE's blackout-prevention claim given prominent placement[15]. | Neutral verb choice, but the outcome is reported largely through DOE's response rather than the opinion's reasoning. |
| Washington Examiner | U.S. right | 5 | 'Federal court knocks down order saving Michigan coal plant' — 'saving' the plant frames the vacated order as a rescue rather than a mandate[7]. | Emphasizes that 202(c) is limited to 'immediate federal action,' a framing that keeps the loss narrow and technical; the repeat-order pattern and cost totals get little space. |
| Inside Climate News | U.S. left-leaning, nonprofit climate newsroom (foundation-funded) | 6 | 'Court Rules Against Trump Order to Keep Costly Michigan Coal Plant Running' — the word 'costly' carries a verdict in the headline[3]. | Cost to ratepayers leads; DOE's Winter Storm Fern operating data appears late or not at all. |
| Common Dreams | U.S. progressive advocacy news | 8 | 'Federal Appellate Court Kills Trump Bid to Keep "Old, Expensive, and Dirty" Coal Plant Open' — built almost entirely from advocacy-group statements[4]. | 'Kills' and the quoted epithet do the argument's work; no reliability evidence from DOE is engaged. |
| America's Power (Opinion) | U.S. coal industry trade association | 9 | 'Federal Court in DC Relies on Pixie Dust and Fairy Sprinkles in Decision Revoking DOE Emergency Order Authority'[8]. | Ridicule substitutes for engagement with the statutory text; useful as the industry's undiluted position, not as reporting. |
References
- DC Circuit Rejects Energy Department's Claim of "Emergency" Authority to Order Coal Plant to Remain Open — Reason (Volokh Conspiracy) · U.S. libertarian; legal-academic blog hosted by a libertarian magazine
- Court rejects DOE 'emergency' order delaying coal plant retirement as overstep — Utility Dive · U.S. trade publication for the utility industry, ad-supported
- Court Rules Against Trump Order to Keep Costly Michigan Coal Plant Running — Inside Climate News · U.S. left-leaning nonprofit climate newsroom, foundation-funded
- Federal Appellate Court Kills Trump Bid to Keep 'Old, Expensive, and Dirty' Coal Plant Open — Common Dreams · U.S. progressive advocacy news nonprofit
- US court rejects Trump's emergency order keeping Michigan coal plant open — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded international broadcaster
- Federal court rejects Trump order keeping Michigan coal plant open — Associated Press · U.S. nonprofit wire cooperative, centrist
- Federal court knocks down order saving Michigan coal plant — Washington Examiner · U.S. conservative
- The Baseload: Federal Court in DC Relies on Pixie Dust and Fairy Sprinkles in Decision Revoking DOE Emergency Order Authority — America's Power · U.S. coal industry trade association (advocacy)
- Trump Administration Loses First Court Case Challenging DOE Orders for Coal Plants — Earthjustice · U.S. environmental litigation nonprofit; a party to the case
- Court Overturns DOE Order Forcing Michigan Coal Plant to Stay Open — Natural Resources Defense Council · U.S. environmental advocacy nonprofit
- Federal Appeals Court Vacates First DOE Order Forcing Operation of J.H. Campbell Coal Plant — Michigan Department of Attorney General · U.S. state government; office held by a Democrat and a party to the case
- Nessel vows another challenge as DOE issues 6th order keeping Campbell plant open — Michigan Advance · U.S. left-leaning nonprofit state newsroom (States Newsroom network)
- Energy Secretary Prevents Closure of Coal Plant That Provided Essential Power During Winter Storm — U.S. Department of Energy · U.S. federal agency; a party to the case
- Groups challenge MISO cost allocation plan for coal power plant — Utility Dive · U.S. utility-industry trade publication
- DC Appeals Court Voids Federal Order Keeping Michigan Coal Plant Open — The Epoch Times · U.S. right-leaning outlet affiliated with the Falun Gong movement