DOE Orders on Availability of Coal-Fired Power Plants Challenged in Court
Since May 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") has issued emergency directives under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act requiring that balancing authorities and reliability coordinators "take all measures necessary to ensure that" certain coal-fired units remain "available to operate" notwithstanding planned retirements (the "202(c) Orders"). The orders have prompted petitions for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The 202(c) Orders have targeted facilities including the Centralia plant in Washington state, the F.B. Culley and R.M. Schahfer generating stations in Indiana, the J.H. Campbell plant in Michigan, and Craig Station in Colorado.
DOE Issuance of Section 202(c) Orders
Section 202(c) authorizes DOE, during an emergency, to order "temporary connections of facilities and such generation . . . as in its judgment will best meet the emergency and serve the public interest." DOE has framed its recent orders as necessary to address reliability risks associated with rising electricity demand and the retirement of dispatchable generation. Section 202(c)(4) specifies that orders that may conflict with a requirement of any Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation must expire within 90 days, though the orders may be renewed. The 90-day terms of the 202(c) Orders have expired, but they have been subsequently renewed.
Challenges to the Orders in the D.C. Circuit
In petitions for review, environmental and public interest organizations, along with several states, contend that Section 202(c) is designed for sudden and imminent emergencies and does not provide a general mechanism to manage long-term resource adequacy or to override retirement decisions. They also argue that Congress addressed bulk-power-system reliability through Section 215 of the Federal Power Act and that DOE's use of Section 202(c) risks displacing that framework.
Petitioners have further pointed to grid operator data suggesting that the relevant regions have adequate capacity through at least May 2027, which they argue undercuts DOE's asserted emergency. DOE stated that the shortfall is due to increased replacement generation from wind and solar sources that are weather dependent, but the Petitioners argue that the initial retirement dates for coal-fired power plants were based on increased oil-and-gas generation, even before accounting for new solar and battery capacities.
DOE's Defense of the Orders
DOE has urged the D.C. Circuit to uphold the 202(c) Orders. In a March 2026 brief, DOE argued the statute "broadly defines what constitutes an emergency" for Section 202(c) and affords DOE broad discretion both to determine that an emergency exists and to craft a response. DOE also characterized the petitioners' proposed constraints as "nonexistent limitations" that are inconsistent with the statutory text, context, and historical practice. DOE defended its emergency declaration by stating it was needed to protect from increasing dependence on weather-reliant renewable sources.
Currently, all petitions for review are being held in abeyance until the resolution of the consolidated petition in People of the State of Michigan v. DOE, No. 25-01159 (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2025). Oral arguments for this petition were held on May 15, 2026. Industry participants should follow these proceedings closely, as the D.C. Circuit's treatment of Section 202(c) could shape how, and how often, DOE may invoke emergency authority to affect generation retirements going forward.
