Several States Contest Federal Orders Keeping Coal-Fired Power Plants Open
by John Haughey via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
A three-judge federal appeals panel is expected to issue a decision by year’s e
What the Documents Show
Two coal-fired generators at this facility—built in 1983 and 1986—were scheduled for retirement on December 31, 2025, after the utility determined they were economically obsolete. Instead, they remain operational under mandate. The same pattern repeats across four : Michigan, Washington, Indiana, and Colorado. All told, Wright has frozen the retirement of capacity that utilities themselves determined was no longer cost-competitive to run. President Trump's January 2025 National Energy Emergency declaration provided the legal architecture for this intervention.
Follow the Money
Wright justified his authority under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, which permits emergency orders to maintain adequate electrical capacity during grid stress. But here's what the mainstream accounts miss: utilities don't voluntarily retire profitable plants. When NIPSCO and others scheduled these retirements, they had already calculated that coal's operating costs—fuel, labor, environmental compliance, maintenance—exceeded revenues even in tight grid conditions. Keeping them open means either subsidizing their losses through ratepayers or accepting lower wholesale margins. In his April 2025 executive orders and subsequent budget hearings for Fiscal Year 2027, Wright argued these orders prevent grid instability during extreme weather. The framing is compelling: winter and summer peaks require baseload capacity.
What Else We Know
But this elides a crucial structural question. The regional transmission operators (RTOs) that manage grid reliability—PJM Interconnection covers the Indiana territory, MISO serves Michigan—already incorporate reserve margins into their planning. If Wright's orders were truly about grid adequacy, they would have been targeted to specific peak hours, not blanket 90-day extensions repeatedly reissued for the same plants. Instead, these are indefinite subsidies wrapped in emergency language. Sixteen Democratic state attorneys general filed suit on May 9 in Seattle's U.S. District Court, contesting whether Trump's declared energy emergency even exists.
What I find striking about this story is how nakedly it reveals the machinery of regulatory capture: when markets move against you, simply declare an emergency and rewrite the rules through executive order. The pattern here is coal industry protection masquerading as grid reliability.
Coal plants retire because they're economically obsolete—generators themselves made that calculation. Wright and Trump have inverted the regulatory hierarchy: rather than let utilities and state commissions manage capacity decisions, they've centralized power in the Energy Department and justified it with emergency language that's difficult to challenge in real time.
Who benefits? Coal operators who would have idled capacity. Who pays? Ratepayers in Indiana and Michigan, whose bills rise to cover the operating losses on these mandatory plants. The RTOs and grid operators who now operate with artificial constraints that prevent more efficient dispatch.
Watch the D.C. Circuit's decision. If those judges allow this emergency framework to stand, expect it to spread. Every regulated industry will have learned that sufficiently framed emergencies can override state regulators and market signals. That's not grid reliability. That's regulatory state capture in real time.
Primary Sources
- Source: ZeroHedge
- Category: Money & Markets
- Cross-reference independently — don't take our word for it.
Disclosure: NewsAnarchist aggregates from public records, API feeds (Federal Register, CourtListener, MuckRock, Hacker News), and independent media. AI-assisted synthesis. Always verify primary sources linked above.
This article is produced by NewsAnarchist's AI reporting system, not a human staff reporter. It's built from the primary source cited above (wire-service reporting (Reuters, AP, AFP), an official government or military statement, or a named NGO/UN report) and reports what that source states, attributed to it — casualty and battlefield claims in active conflicts are frequently contested by the parties involved, and we attribute them to whichever source made them rather than presenting them as settled fact. Part of our Conflict & Wars hub. Found an error? Tell us.