DC Circuit Rejects Energy Department's Claim of "Emergency" Authority to Order Coal Plant to Remain Open

Reason · collected 2026-09-15 · by Jonathan H. Adler
Read the original at Reason ↗

Summary

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against the Department of Energy’s claim that it had emergency authority under the Federal Power Act to keep a coal-fired power plant operational in Michigan. The decision, written by Judge Pillard and joined by Judges Srinivasan and Wilkins, questions whether DOE has the legal grounds to force closure-deferred operations on private businesses like Consumers Energy Company, which planned for the retirement of its J.H. Campbell Generating Plant with regulatory approval.
Written by the local model on 2026-09-15, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
41
claim-shaped sentences
Uncertain
2%
1 of 41 hedged
Leaning
Leans left
of the writing, not the subject
Correction & hedging signals
92.6
corrections and hedging in what we collected; not a measure of accuracy
Outlets on this story
1
Politics
Narrative spread
1
articles carrying this framing
Analyzed 2026-09-15 · how these are computed

AI analysis (generated at analysis time, not now)

Story summary

In Michigan, a federal appeals court rejected the Department of Energy (DOE)'s claim that it had emergency authority under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to order Consumers Energy to keep its J.H. Campbell coal plant operational despite plans to close it. The decision, authored by Judge Pillard and joined by Chief Judge Srinivasan and Judge Wilkins, concluded that such orders were not legally justified. This ruling is seen as significant because the Trump Administration had used similar authority to mandate the continued operation of several coal plants nationwide, arguing they ensured energy security during emergencies. Given the importance of this issue to the administration's policy, there are likely to be further legal challenges ahead.

Written for “Energy Department Emergency Authority…” on 2026-09-17, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The article's own words the score was based on. Each is quoted verbatim and was checked against the article text before being stored, so you can find it in the original.
Score -0.35 Confidence high
Leaning score -0.35 for article 10380 (high confidence, 3 verified quotes) · logged 2026-09-15

Story

📰 Energy Department Emergency Authority…
Politics · 1 article(s) covering the same event. This is the one the site leads with.

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans left and hedges 2% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Times of India
⚖️ Leans strongly right further right than this 🔴 21% hedged 7 of 33 📰 publisher trust 94
“Article A discusses the EPA's move to scrap carbon limits on power plants under Trump, while Article B reports a court decision rejecting the Energy Department's authority to keep coal plants open.”

Publisher

Reason · 181 article(s) · 1 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 1 correction(s)
2026-09-05
Lawyers' Responsibility for Hallucinations in Briefs That They Sign

Who wrote this

Jonathan H. Adler
4 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 Given the panel's makeup, and the importance of this issue to the Trump Administration, I suspect a petition for en banc rehearing or certiorari will soon follow.
🔮 It "makes me proud to be a lawyer and proud to be a judge," Sutton said, because he can "guarantee" the administration would've won the cases it lost if those matters were put to the Republican-controlled Congress.
🔮 So it is understandable why some may find the postliberal critique engaging, and perhaps even refreshingly transgressive.
2026-09-11 · assertive framing · Why Postliberalism Failed--And Is Likely to Fail Again
🔮 The federal government may not devote significant resources toward enforcing federal marijuana prohibition, but the fact that marijuana is illegal under federal law can still have meaningful consequences (though fewer for gun owners than before, thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Hemani).
Also by Jonathan H. Adler
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.

Topics

Campbell Consumers Energy DOE Michigan the Department of Energy

Subjects

DOE ORG · 6× Michigan GPE · 5× Campbell PERSON · 3× Consumers Energy ORG · 3× Company ORG · 2× Department ORG · 2× Pillard PERSON · 2× the Department of Energy ORG · 2× Department of Energy ORG · 1× the Trump Administration's ORG · 1×

Narrative

By its terms, section 202(c) allows DOE to command certain action "[d]uring the continuance of any war in which the United States is engaged," or when the Secretary determines that "an emergency exists" due to "a sudden increase in the demand for electric energy, or a shortage of electric energy or of facilities for the generation or transmission of electric energy, or of fuel or water for generating facilities, or other causes . . . ." 16 U.S.C. § 824a(c)(1).
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-15
🔮 Given the panel's makeup, and the importance of this issue to the Trump Administration, I suspect a petition for en banc rehearing or certiorari will soon follow.

Claims (41 extracted, 1 hedged)

One of the more unusual, and controversial, elements of the Trump Administration's energy policy has been to force some coal plants slated for closure to remain open and operational. asserted
One → force → closure
From the start, some have questioned whether the Department of Energy has the legal authority to issue such orders. asserted
Department → question → orders
Today, in Michigan v. Department of Energy, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that it does not. asserted
it → conclude → Circuit
Judge Pillard wrote for the court, joined by Chief Judge Srinivasan and Judge Wilkins. asserted
Pillard → write → Srinivasan
Given the panel's makeup, and the importance of this issue to the Trump Administration, I suspect a petition for en banc rehearing or certiorari will soon follow. asserted
petition → give → rehearing
Judge Pillard's introduction to her opinion is lengthy, but provides a useful overview of some of the issues. asserted
introduction → provide → issues
It's reproduced below the jump. asserted
It → reproduce → jump
Consumers Energy Company is a private business that owns and operates the J.H. Campbell Generating Plant, an aging coal-fired power plant in Michigan that was scheduled to shut down last year. asserted
that → own → Michigan
The Company worked for several years to develop plans and secure regulatory approval to retire the old Campbell plant and replace it with a mix of expanded and new electricity-generation sources. asserted
Company → work → sources
Consumers Energy coordinated its planning with Michigan regulators and the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO)—the 15-state regional transmission organization in which Michigan and Consumers Energy participate. asserted
Michigan → coordinate → which
The Company's closure-and-replacement proposal received comprehensive scrutiny from the public, private industry, and expert regulators. asserted
proposal → receive → public
Finding that Consumers Energy's substitute sources would meet applicable reliability criteria, provide less polluting electricity at lower prices, and more than offset generation lost when the old plant closed, the Michigan Public Service Commission and MISO expressly approved the plan. asserted
Commission → find → plan
Shortly before Campbell's scheduled retirement, the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) unilaterally commanded the unit's continued operation. asserted
Department → schedule → operation
The Department invoked a rarely used, short-term, federal emergency authority conferred in section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to order the Campbell coal unit to stay open. asserted
Department → invoke → unit
Michigan petitioned for review of DOE's order. asserted
Michigan → petition → order
Illinois and Minnesota also petitioned, as did a group of environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Michigan Environmental Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Vote Solar, the Ecology Center, Urban Core Collective, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. asserted
group → petition → Scientists
Consumers Energy intervened to "protect[] the company's right to recover the costs associated with DOE's order" from ratepayers, which is at issue in separate proceedings regarding recovery and allocation of costs currently pending before FERC. asserted
which → intervene → FERC
We evaluate Petitioners' challenge to DOE's interpretation of its emergency power under section 202(c) by reference to statutory text and structure. asserted
We → evaluate → text
And we deploy those interpretive tools against the backdrop of states' exclusive regulatory power over the generation of electricity. asserted
we → deploy → electricity
The plain meaning of the text limits section 202(c) emergency authority to address an identified risk of a substantial energy supply shortfall that calls for immediate action. asserted
that → limit → action
Section 202(c) gives DOE limited authority to sidestep states' jurisdiction over electricity generation to briefly compel generation or interconnection in times of war or other "emergency" situations. asserted
Section → give → war
By its terms, section 202(c) allows DOE to command certain action "[d]uring the continuance of any war in which the United States is engaged," or when the Secretary determines that "an emergency exists" due to "a sudden increase in the demand for electric energy, or a shortage of electric energy or of facilities for the generation or transmission of electric energy, or of fuel or water for generating facilities, or other causes . . . ." 16 U.S.C. § 824a(c)(1). asserted
emergency → allow → facilities
The structure of the Federal Power Act and the history of the respective regulatory roles of federal and state governments show that Congress intended to further limit DOE's section 202(c) emergency power to circumstances necessitating action by DOE in particular, as opposed to action by states. asserted
Congress → show → states
Start with the Act's structure: The statutory provisions immediately preceding section 202(c)—sections 202(a) and (b)—confirm the primacy of states and their utilities in planning to prevent and responding to emergency electricity shortfalls. asserted
provisions → start → shortfalls
First, section 202(a) facilitates states' and utilities' planning to generate and contract for adequate supplies of electrical power. asserted
section → facilitate → power
It does so by enabling them to coordinate their efforts through voluntary participation in Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs). asserted
It → do → Organizations
Next, section 202(b) provides for coercive federal action to ensure adequate supply—but only at the request of states or their utilities. asserted
section → provide → states
When "necessary or appropriate in the public interest," a state or utility may request that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order a generator to connect to and sell or exchange energy with other facilities. uncertain
generator → request → facilities
Lastly, section 202(c) authorizes DOE to intervene to temporarily order similar action—connection of facilities and provision of electricity—to avert an emergency. asserted
DOE → authorize → emergency
Congress's placement of section 202(c) after subsections (a) and (b), which more broadly authorize state-level means of preventing and responding to emergency electricity shortages, strongly implies that it meant use of subsection (c) to be essentially the last alternative among the three. asserted
use → authorize → three
Consider next the history of states' jurisdiction over generation of electricity: The last-resort character of section 202(c) is strongly supported by the respective regulatory powers of states and the federal government under the Federal Power Act. asserted
character → consider → Act
There is no dispute that for almost a century states have exercised authority, preserved by the Federal Power Act, to regulate in-state power plants for the economic and environmental benefit of their citizens. asserted
states → be → citizens
It is the states—informed by federal, regional, and load-serving entities' assessments of available supply and reliability needs—that bear the responsibility to plan for and avert reliability risks on an ongoing basis. asserted
that → inform → basis
To that end, states decide which generation resources must be built, expanded, reduced, or shut down. asserted
resources → decide → end
The Act empowers the federal government, in contrast, to regulate wholesale marketing and interstate transmission of electricity. asserted
Act → empower → electricity
That demarcation of federal and state regulatory power is further reason to treat DOE intervention under section 202(c) as rare and authorized only when states, their utilities, and RTOs are unable or unwilling to respond. asserted
states → treat → section
That is exactly how the federal government has used its section 202(c) authority until today—to address short-term crises, such as blackouts caused by war or extreme weather events, not as a substitute for the states' long-term reliability planning. asserted
government → use → planning
Our reading of the text, structure, and history leaves us unpersuaded by DOE's sweeping conception of its "emergency" authority under section 202(c). asserted
reading → leave → section
The Department's position would empower it to pick its preferred power sources in Michigan—or, presumably, any other state—and order them to operate without regard to the multiple procedural and substantive constraints built into state reliability planning processes. asserted
position → empower → processes
We hold that section 202(c) is best read to apply where the Department identifies a risk of substantial harm from inadequate electricity supply that calls for immediate action by DOE in particular, as opposed to by the states. asserted
that → hold → states
…and 1 more, not listed.
💬 Give feedback
🕘 History 🎫 Support