Bookmark Lawsuits piling up to challenge “Energy Emergency”
The Trump administration has moved at lightning speed to lower barriers for coal. This includes rewriting or rescinding numerous environmental rules, slicing the red tape required to permit new coal mines, accelerating leasing of federal coal, and embedding tax or other incentives for coal production and use. The administration has also erected new barriers for wind and solar, all to change the economics of fossil fuels and renewable energy.
The pace of the changes has been remarkable. Much of this was done through Executive Order 14156: “Declaring a National Energy Emergency.” This order along with subsequent orders underpinned a lot of the actions that is shaping the coal industry today. It allowed the administration to bypass Congress and enact its policy agenda.
However, Executive Orders are subject to judicial review and, unsurprisingly, nearly all actions of this administration will be challenged – but it will take a while. This includes the revocation of the Endangerment Finding which has been the subject of multiple lawsuits including one filed last week by 24 states.
The Department of Energy’s 202(c) orders which are based on the “Energy Emergency” using the Federal Power Act to force retiring coal units to remain operable. To date, nine 202(c) orders have been issued for the coal units. The affected units are at Consumers Energy’s JH Campbell, TransAlta’s Centralia (Unit #2), TriState’s Craig Unit #1, NIPSCO’s RM Schahfer Units #17 & #18, CenterPoint Energy’s FB Culley Unit #2. Additionally, Constellation’s Eddystone oil and gas units have also received these orders.
Each of the above 202(c) orders is being challenged in court and as of this moment, no opinion has been rendered. In each, the US Department of Energy must defend its action.
The lawsuits have mostly been filed in the D.C. Circuit. The plaintiffs are generally the attorneys general for each state where the plant is located except for Indiana. Other environmental advocacy groups have also petitioned the courts including but not limited to the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Earthjustice. There are other regional rate-payer advocates who have joined these lawsuits.
In each case, the plaintiffs argue that the use of Federal Power Act 202(c) orders in this fashion is “abusive.” That section 202(c) is meant for “imminent and unexpected” events (example: severe weather or other natural disaster) and not as a tool to reverse planned unit retirements. The plaintiffs also claim that the use of 202(c) in this fashion does not cover its expected costs and that the federal action violates state laws and is a Constitutional overreach (federalism versus state sovereignty.)
The DOE claims that the use of the 202(c) orders is to halt the “political” closure of coal units. Further, that the baseload (i.e. dispatchable) power is critical to reliability and national defense. The administration also points to the rapid buildout of data centers that are driving record electricity demand and the need to prevent the loss of any more baseload capacity. The DOE has leaned heavily on reports from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and from regional transmission organizations such as the PJM.
The first hearing will most likely be The People of the State of Michigan v. United States Department of Energy and Chris Wright which was filed on July 24, 2025. Briefs have been filed but no formal date has been set for oral arguments. A decision in this case will most likely be appealed, meaning a formal resolution is, at a minimum, a year away.
This case has the hallmark of setting precedence for the remaining court actions regarding 202(c) orders.
Article by Andy Blumenfeld