People of the State of Michigan v. U.S. Department of Energy

Challenges to Secretary of Energy’s order determining that an emergency existed in the Midwest due to shortages of electric energy and electric generation facilities and ordering Campbell coal-fired power plant to remain available to operate.

Challenges to Secretary of Energy’s order determining that an emergency existed in the Midwest due to shortages of electric energy and electric generation facilities and ordering Campbell coal-fired power plant to remain available to operate.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) filed a petition for rehearing en banc or panel rehearing of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals September 2026 decision holding that DOE exceeded its statutory authority when it unilaterally ordered that the coal-fired J.H. Campbell Generating Plant continue to operate instead of closing under a plan approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission and the Midwest Independent System Operator. DOE’s petition for rehearing argued that the D.C. Circuit’s decision erred by interpreting Section 202(c) to require deference to state actions

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) exceeded its statutory authority when it unilaterally ordered that the coal-fired J.H. Campbell Generating Plant continue to operate instead of closing under a plan approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission and the Midwest Independent System Operator. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the text, structure, and history of the Federal Power Act did not support DOE’s “sweeping conception” of its emergency authority. The court held that Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act was “best read to apply where the Department identifies a risk of substantial harm from inadequate electricity supply that calls for immediate action by DOE in particular, as opposed to by the states.” The D.C. Circuit found that the circumstances DOE identified in the challenged order¬—including “the mere possibility of an electricity supply shortfall” without specific details regarding potential severity, timing, location, or likelihood of such a shortfall—did not warrant emergency action under Section 202(c). The D.C. Circuit decision noted that states were “largely responsible for meeting the core policy goal of achieving ‘resource adequacy,’” and noted that in doing so state regulators also have other legal obligations and policy priorities that may include climate change.

Challenges to Secretary of Energy’s order determining that an emergency existed in the Midwest due to shortages of electric energy and electric generation facilities and ordering Campbell coal-fired power plant to remain available to operate.

Challenges to Secretary of Energy’s order determining that an emergency existed in the Midwest due to shortages of electric energy and electric generation facilities and ordering Campbell coal-fired power plant to remain available to operate.