The J.H. Campbell generating station in West Olive, Michigan, has been operating since 1962 and once supplied 1,420 MW of coal-fired electricity from three separate units. On September 11, 2026, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals found the Department of Energy's claim of an "energy emergency" to justify keeping the plant open was fictitious. The ruling came after the administration issued six consecutive 90-day emergency orders under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, a provision the New York Times reports has rarely been used and typically only for a few days during extreme weather.
Consumers Energy, the plant's owner, had already won approval from Michigan state regulators and MISO, the regional grid operator, to replace the aging facility with methane, solar, and battery storage. The state of Michigan, joined by Minnesota, Illinois, and a coalition of climate organizations, sued the administration. Judge Cornelia Pillard, writing for the three-judge panel, emphasized that states should decide how to manage power generation and that federal intervention is only appropriate when states and grid operators are unable or unwilling to respond. Earthjustice lead attorney Michael Lenoff said the court agreed emergency authority is for actual emergencies, not picking preferred resources.
The decision has direct financial implications for ratepayers in the area, who have already been forced to pay more than $248 million to keep the J.H. Campbell facility functioning. A report from the consulting firm Grid Strategies indicates the administration's broader emergency orders could cost consumers at least $3 billion per year for the duration of Trump's term. Kathryn McGrath of Earthjustice said the court affirmed that DOE "grossly overstepped its authority" and cannot invoke Section 202(c) without establishing a genuine emergency.
What remains unclear is how quickly Consumers Energy can resume its approved retirement and replacement plan, and whether the administration will attempt further legal maneuvers or new emergency declarations. The dossier does not specify the exact timeline for plant closure or the status of any appeals. It also does not detail how the $248 million in consumer costs will be addressed or whether any refunds or rate adjustments are under consideration.