Product2 publishers3 min readPublished
A three-judge panel rejects the emergency DOE used to keep a Michigan coal plant open
The J.H. Campbell plant kept running on 90-day orders. The DC Circuit held that the Energy Department's evidence of tight summer margins is not the shortage section 202(c) describes, and Ars Technica says the reasoning reaches other blocked closures.
The Product Desk · Product desk
What happened
- A unanimous three-judge panel of the DC Circuit ruled on Friday that the Energy Department's emergency declaration keeping Michigan's J.H. Campbell coal plant open was contrary to the statute.
- The panel rejected the government's two exhibits, one of them a Midwestern grid reserves report that said the system has "adequate anticipated resources" for "peak load conditions".
- The judges also found the department never explained why or how keeping Campbell open would avert the emergency it had described.
- Ars Technica reported that closing the plant would have caused no disruption, because Michigan's multi-year planning process with the major grids had already covered it.
- Environmentalists brought the challenge, and Ars Technica reported it is the first case against these declarations to make its way through the courts.
Compiled by The Product DeskSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- constraint DOE can still invoke 202(c), but the department now has to put severity, timing, location and likelihood in the record before an order will survive review, and a seasonal reserve chart will not carry it.
- decision For planners who have been carrying two closure dates per unit, the filed one and the one that survives the next renewal, the filed date is now the one with a court behind it.
- precedent Parties fighting other blocked closures have a standard to test DOE's existing records against, so the challenge work moves from arguing the statute to reading each order's evidence.
- contradiction Gizmodo counts six 90-day orders at Campbell and Ars Technica counts five, so both the length of the extension record and any per-order cost figure depend on which count you take.
The order that kept J.H. Campbell running was the cheapest instrument the Energy Department had. One declaration bought 90 days, and five in sequence bought 450, about 15 months past the date the plant was supposed to stop burning coal [3][21]. Renewal took no hearing and no revised state plan. For anyone maintaining a retirement schedule, the same closure date moved five times [3].
The panel asked for specifics. The judges wrote that "Those indeterminate assertions of summer electricity shortfalls are not what Congress meant by 'emergency' in section 202(c)" [8], and they said the bare possibility of an electricity supply shortfall, with no specifics about its potential severity, timing, location or likelihood, does not warrant an emergency federal response [9]. A reserve margin that gets thin in July supplies none of those four.
The second holding is the one that touches capacity models. The department never explained how keeping Campbell online would avert the shortfall it described [10], and the panel wrote that the order "interferes with ordinary methods to assess a region's true generation capacity and distorts price signals that otherwise prompt appropriate capacity investments" [11]. A unit held online outside of merit changes the observed picture that everyone else's forecast is built from.
According to Bridge Michigan, keeping Campbell open has cost $259 million, while the original plan to close it and switch to natural gas would have saved $600 million [12][13]. Spread across five orders, the spend works out to roughly $52 million per 90-day extension [22]. Coal-fired generation on the US grid has been falling for nearly two decades, Ars Technica reported [20].
The two accounts of the ruling's reach differ. Gizmodo writes that the case only applies to the Michigan plant [16]. Ars Technica writes that the reasoning of the decision "will apply to every coal plant closure that has been blocked by the DOE" [15], and counts 55 such orders issued this year [14]. Both readings can hold: the judgment binds one declaration, and the standard governs the records behind the others in whichever court hears them next.
For anyone holding a retirement date, the check is two questions per unit. First, whether someone can write a single sentence describing the shortfall the unit is supposed to cure, with a megawatt figure, a set of hours, and a zone. Second, whether the closure sits in a filed multi-year plan the grid operator has already reviewed. A unit with a specific, located shortfall behind it and no filed plan is where a 202(c) order still has room to work. A unit with a filed plan and nothing behind the federal case but a seasonal margin chart is the position the department just lost [1].
What to watch
- Whether DOE seeks further review of the panel's decision, and whether Campbell's owner sets a new closure date.
- Whether the other pending challenges from states with blocked closures now cite this panel's reasoning.
- Whether DOE keeps issuing 202(c) orders on records built the same way, with seasonal margin evidence.