Michigan AG Challenges Order Keeping Coal Plant Open After $180 Million Hit to Ratepayers
Updated
Updated · Planet Detroit · May 9
Michigan AG Challenges Order Keeping Coal Plant Open After $180 Million Hit to Ratepayers
1 articles · Updated · Planet Detroit · May 9
$180 million in extra costs had piled up through March to keep Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant running past its planned May 31, 2025 retirement, prompting Attorney General Dana Nessel to challenge the federal order in court.
Consecutive 90-day emergency extensions blocked the plant from locking in cheaper long-term coal contracts, while Consumers Energy had said in 2022 that retiring the facility and replacing it with solar and batteries would save customers $600 million by 2040.
The latest extension took effect Feb. 17 and runs through May 18; Consumers is asking FERC to spread operating costs from the first 90 days across customers on the broader Midwest grid.
The Energy Department says the orders averted blackouts and likely saved lives during peak-demand events, citing a 25% year-over-year jump in coal generation during Winter Storm Fern.
Nessel argues the administration manufactured an energy emergency while also rolling back cheaper clean-energy programs, including Michigan’s expected $156 million Solar for All funding for about 16,300 households.
With cheaper, cleaner energy available, why are Michigan ratepayers paying $180 million to keep a retiring coal plant alive?
If retiring the Campbell plant saves $600 million, what emergency justifies forcing it to run at a massive loss?
D.C. Circuit Showdown: Trump’s Emergency Coal Orders, Multi-State Ratepayer Costs, and the Battle Over Federal Energy Powers
Overview
On May 15, 2026, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear a major case about the Department of Energy’s use of emergency powers to keep coal plants like Michigan’s J.H. Campbell running, even after they were set to close. This action follows an executive order from President Trump and relies on rarely used authority under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act. The hearing will examine whether the DOE’s broad interpretation of emergency powers is lawful, as state officials argue these orders bypass normal rules and impose costs on many states. The outcome could reshape federal control over state energy decisions.