Court Limits DOE Emergency Power in Campbell Plant Case
The D.C. Circuit ruled that DOE cannot use Section 202(c) to replace long-term state and regional reliability planning, although a separate Campbell plant order remains in effect.
Published · 4 min read
A federal appeals court has sharply limited DOE emergency power over electricity generation, ruling that Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act cannot be used to replace long-term state and regional reliability planning.
In a unanimous September 11 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the Energy Department’s original 2025 order requiring Consumers Energy to keep Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant operating beyond its planned retirement. The court held that DOE had not identified the kind of acute electricity shortage requiring immediate, last-resort federal intervention.
The ruling does not establish that the Campbell plant immediately shuts down. The order before the court had already expired, and Consumers Energy said it was continuing to comply with a separate 90-day directive that runs through November 14 while it reviews the decision. The legal precedent, however, creates a significant new test for that order and other federal efforts to delay generator retirements.
Court says DOE emergency power is a last resort
Section 202(c) allows temporary federal action during war or an electricity emergency. DOE argued that the risk of supply shortfalls in MISO and the loss of thermal generation justified keeping Campbell available.
The court rejected that interpretation. It said DOE emergency power applies when officials identify a substantial supply shortfall that is acute, is not being addressed in time by a state, utility or regional transmission organization, and requires DOE itself to act immediately.
Long-term resource-adequacy risks generally belong in the ordinary planning system, the opinion said. That system includes state review of utility resource plans, regional capacity requirements, transmission development, demand-response measures and new generation.
The decision matters beyond one plant because DOE has relied on the same section of federal law for a series of temporary interventions. Microgrid Media previously reported on the latest order keeping two Eddystone generating units available in PJM and a separate heat-driven emergency order for Duke Energy Carolinas.
Michigan and MISO had approved a replacement plan
Consumers Energy had worked for years on Campbell’s retirement and a portfolio of replacement resources. According to the opinion, the Michigan Public Service Commission and MISO approved the plan after determining that the substitute resources would satisfy reliability criteria, reduce pollution and provide lower-cost electricity while more than replacing the retired generation.
DOE intervened shortly before the scheduled closure in May 2025. The agency cited the potential for electricity supply shortfalls and later pointed to longer-term reliability concerns across MISO.
The court said those explanations were too indefinite. It distinguished a specific blackout threat caused by an unexpected event from a general possibility of future tightness that existing institutions are already equipped to manage. It also noted that MISO had tools available, including load-modifying resources, power transfers from neighboring systems and emergency alerts.
The ruling leaves current operations and costs unresolved
Because the challenged order had expired, the court said vacating it would not itself be disruptive. That procedural detail is important: the ruling defines the scope of DOE emergency power but does not directly decide the validity of every later extension or every order involving another power plant.
It also does not resolve who ultimately pays Campbell’s operating costs. Consumers Energy intervened in the case to protect its ability to recover costs from ratepayers, with recovery and allocation questions pending separately before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Published cost figures are not fully consistent. The Associated Press reported about $259 million based on recent financial filings, while Reuters cited a $295 million figure from the Michigan attorney general’s office for the period from May 2025 through June 2026. Both indicate that the ratepayer exposure has moved well beyond a theoretical dispute.
DOE defended its broader use of emergency orders after the ruling, saying the directives had helped prevent blackouts during periods of elevated demand. On the same day, the department announced another 90-day order requiring TransAlta’s Centralia Unit 2 in Washington to remain available from September 13 through December 11.
Future orders will need a more specific emergency record
The immediate consequence is a stricter evidentiary threshold. A broad forecast of higher demand, generator retirements or reliability risk is not enough under the court’s reading. DOE would need to identify a concrete, substantial shortage, show why ordinary state and regional mechanisms cannot address it in time, and explain why immediate federal action is necessary.
That standard does not eliminate federal emergency authority. It confines DOE emergency power to short-term conditions that resemble the historical use of Section 202(c), including unexpected outages, fuel shortages and severe weather events, rather than using the statute as a substitute for integrated resource planning.
The next practical questions are whether DOE seeks further review, how the decision is applied to the current Campbell directive, and whether litigants use the ruling against similar extensions elsewhere. Until those steps occur, the most accurate conclusion is that the court has narrowed the government’s legal pathway—not ordered the immediate closure of the plant.
Jonas Muthoni is Editor-in-Chief of Microgrid Media, where he oversees reporting and analysis on microgrids, energy storage, distributed energy resources, data center power demand, grid modernization, resilience, renewable energy, and electricity policy and markets. His work focuses on the infrastructure, technologies, and regulatory developments reshaping the power system.
As Editor-in-Chief, Jonas leads Microgrid Media’s editorial strategy and standards, including story selection, source verification, technical accuracy, and the development of original reporting and analysis. His coverage draws on regulatory filings, government records, utility and company disclosures, technical documentation, and independent industry sources to explain significant developments across the evolving energy system.
