|
|
|
|
|
Appeals Court Vacates Dept. Of Energy 202(c) Emergency Generation Order (Costs Of Such Orders Are Generally Allocated To LSEs)
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated an order from the U.S. Department of Energy which had directed, based on DOE's assertion of emergency power, continued operation of Consumers Energy's Campbell coal-fired power plant.
While the court's order only addresses the Campbell unit (located in MISO), the court's order more broadly implicates any such DOE emergency orders under section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, whose costs in PJM are generally allocated to LSEs and, as previously reported, are, in some states, not being included in full requirements SOS bids, but rather are being assumed by the utility as a pass-through to SOS customers
In brief, the Court found that DOE's emergency powers to compel generation operation are limited to, "a narrow, last-resort backstop," which was not the case for Campbell which was subject to a planned retirement
The Court said that any broader DOE emergency power would disturb the Federal Power Act's intentional preservation of the states’ jurisdiction over
electricity generation
The Court said, "The statutory limits in section 202(c) confine DOE’s
authority to temporary emergencies that the [DOE] Secretary
reasonably determines are and will be unmet by the state’s
resource planning."
"We hold that a section 202(c) 'emergency' means a grid-reliability risk that calls for an immediate response by DOE in
particular. If the Department finds the state has not and will
not timely take steps that must be taken immediately to avert
unacceptable risk to reliability, the need for immediate action
can trigger statutory authority for DOE to step in," the Court said
Citing statutory text, DOE had argued that a "sudden
increase in the demand for electric energy", or a, "shortage of
electric energy or of facilities," allows DOE to use its emergency powers.
But the Court said that, "the
mere possibility of an electricity supply shortfall -- with no
specifics about its potential severity, timing, location, or
likelihood -- does not warrant an emergency federal response.
Rather, reasonable alternatives to DOE’s intervention were
available, and in fact appear to have forestalled outages".
"Permitting DOE to compel
generation in a situation that can be resolved through the
ordinary resource adequacy planning mechanisms or a request
under section 202(b) would render meaningless the constraints
on federal power that Congress imposed throughout the Act," the Court said
The Court concluded that, "the Department’s reading of 'emergency' invites
frequent federal interventions that are unsupported by the
statute and threaten the stability of the energy market. By
directing a generator approved for retirement to remain
operative while effectively walling it off from planning and
market frameworks, the Order challenged here interferes with
ordinary methods to assess a region’s true generation capacity
and distorts price signals that otherwise prompt appropriate
capacity investments."
Docket No. 25-1159
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
September 14, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Enrollment & Rate Management Director - Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Strategic Sales Channels Manager - Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Controller - Retail Provider
• NEW -- Manager, Product I - VXRetail (Retail Energy)
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|