DOE emergency orders keeping retiring coal plants open at ratepayers' expense Case Wright's Energy Department has used Federal Power Act 202(c) 'emergency' orders, renewed every 90 days, to stop utilities from retiring coal and gas plants. Electric customers pay the cost, which passed $300 million by mid-2026, while the plants have supplied very little power. Documentation More than two dozen emergency orders over about 15 months, each lasting 90 days and repeatedly renewed. IEEFA (June 2026) estimated at least $300 million in extra costs, rising more than $30 million a month. Michigan's J.H. Campbell plant alone cost at least $185 million over 10 months. Coal burned under the orders amounted to only 0.86% of US coal generation over the period. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers says one order is costing that state's ratepayers $117 million. On Sept. 10, 2026 a unanimous three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled against DOE's emergency order for Michigan's J.H. Campbell plant, holding that the Federal Power Act section Wright invoked is meant for situations requiring immediate federal action, not broader concerns about whether enough electricity will be available in the future. Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota and environmental groups had sued. Earthjustice attorney Michael Lenoff said DOE had "grossly overstepped" its authority. In late September 2026, about two weeks after the ruling and without mentioning it, Wright ordered the Craig coal unit in Colorado to remain available for another 90 days. He has issued similar orders for retiring fossil plants in Indiana, Pennsylvania and Washington state. Perspectives Expert view — Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) IEEFA estimated in June 2026 that the orders had cost at least $300 million in extra costs, rising more than $30 million a month. It put the Campbell plant in Michigan at at least $185 million over 10 months and found coal burned under the orders was only 0.86% of U.S. coal generation over the period. Critic — Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers Evers says one of the orders is costing Wisconsin ratepayers $117 million. S&P Global reported in August 2026 that costs were soaring for coal and gas plants under DOE emergency orders. Editorial read — The Author (site author) The Author's view is that charging customers for plants that supply very little power is a subsidy to coal that should be justified plant by plant. This is interpretation. DOE's stated reason, per the entry's dispute note, is preventing blackouts as data-center demand grows, and some grid operators and regulators say the plants were not needed; the sources cited here do not include DOE's own statement. Official position — Energy Secretary Chris Wright and the Energy Department Wright argued the Campbell plant was needed to ensure reliable electricity in the region and prevent blackouts. Announcing the Craig order in late September 2026, he said state and federal leaders had for a decade harmed Coloradans' wallets and energy security by forcing reliable generation off the grid, and that Americans deserve affordable, reliable, secure energy at all hours, regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Legal view — D.C. Circuit panel (Sept. 10, 2026) The three-judge panel unanimously held that section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act is for situations needing immediate federal action, not long-range concerns about future supply, which utilities call resource adequacy and which states and utilities mostly plan. Colorado Newsline notes the law had rarely, and never before, been used for that purpose. The ruling concerned the Campbell order; the sources reviewed do not say how it affects the other orders. Note DOE says the orders prevent blackouts as data-center demand grows; some grid operators and regulators say the plants were not needed. Sources [1] S&P Global, Aug 24, 2026 (https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/articles/2026/8/costs-soaring-for-coal-gas-plants-under-doe-emergency-orders-105228519) [2] WisPolitics (https://www.wispolitics.com/2026/evers-says-trump-order-to-keep-coal-plants-open-is-costing-ratepayers-117-million/) [3] IEEFA (https://ieefa.org/resources/cost-coal-plant-emergency-orders-already-more-300-million) [4] Colorado Newsline: Implications of Michigan case for Craig coal unit in Colorado (https://coloradonewsline.com/2026/09/30/craig-coal-unit-colorado/) · 2026-09-30 [5] Washington Examiner: Federal court knocks down order saving Michigan coal plant (https://washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-and-environment/4724489/federal-court-knock-down-michigan-coal-plant-only-allowed-immediate-federal-action) · 2026-09-11 Connections Related — Coal ash and power-plant wastewater: deadline extensions and proposed relaxations (2025-2026) Both ease the costs of keeping coal plants running: relaxed waste and wastewater rules here, DOE orders against retirement there. Related — Environmental deregulation under EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin Same 'energy dominance' agenda. Related — Oil and gas insiders running the energy agencies: Wright, Burgum, and the appointee pipeline Same actor: Wright's DOE issues the orders. Related — Power plant pollution rules: repeal of the 2024 mercury standards and of most greenhouse-gas standards (2025-2026) Both support coal and fossil power plants: this entry covers relaxed pollution limits, that one covers DOE orders keeping retiring plants open. Related — Synthesis: Big Oil's return on investment across the whole administration Propping up fossil generation at ratepayers' expense. Related — Tilting the energy market to fossil fuels: clean-energy funding cuts and rising bills Cause/effect: emergency orders keep fossil plants in the market at ratepayers' cost.