An aging coal power plant that was supposed to shutter last week will run throughout the summer at the order of President Donald Trump’s Energy Sec. Chris Wright, a decision that could cost Midwest energy customers tens of millions of dollars. The last-minute federal order to keep the J.H. Campbell plant operating came as a surprise to Michigan officials, including the head of the state’s Public Service Commission, given it was at the tail end of a multi-year retirement process that was approved in 2022. “The grid operator hadn’t asked for this, the utility hadn’t asked for this, we as the state hadn’t asked for this,” said Dan Scripps, chair of the Michigan Public Service Commission. “We certainly didn’t have any conversations with the (Energy Department) in advance of the order, or since.” Wright’s May 23 emergency order cited concerns the Midwest could face a summer electricity shortage due to a lack of available coal, gas and nuclear plants that can provide stable baseload power. But Consumers Energy, the utility that owns the coal plant, told CNN in an email it already purchased another natural gas-fired power plant to carry the load when the coal plant went offline. Scripps said the cost to keep the over-60-year-old plant operating, even for 90 days, will be high, and customers in 15 states will foot the bill. “I can say with a pretty high degree of confidence that we’re looking at multiple tens of millions of dollars at the low end,” Scripps said. “I think there’s a range between there and the high end of getting close to $100 million.” It’s unclear so far what that will mean for individual electricity bills, Scripps added, given the uncertainty about final cost. “For years, American grid operators have warned decommissioning baseload power sources such as coal plants would jeopardize the reliability of our grid systems, which has raised alarm bells,” Energy Department spokesperson Ben Dietderich said in a statement. Dietderich didn’t say whether the Energy Department had conducted a cost analysis before issuing the emergency order. It’s unclear whether the department realized the company already had a plan to maintain baseload power after its closure. Wright issued another emergency order last week to keep a Pennsylvania power plant that runs on natural gas and oil open past its May 31 retirement date. Coal is the dirtiest fuel large plants still burn for electricity, and it’s now the most expensive as renewable energy sources like solar have become increasingly cost-effective. Although natural gas is a fossil fuel and contributes significantly to warming the planet, it is still considered a cheaper and less-polluting option. Gas generates 43% of the country’s electricity. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said she is considering legal action against the federal government. Nessel and energy experts said such an emergency order from the federal government is extremely rare and usually reserved for the aftermath of severe storms or natural disasters. “This is a novel case for us,” Nessel said. “We’ve not had to do this before.” She reiterated keeping the plant open would “significantly” raise electricity rates, saying, “The whole point of closing this plant down was to save money.” More electric utilities are retiring their coal plants because they are old and especially expensive to run. In 2021, the average coal-fired power plant was 45 years old, according to a report from the Energy Information Administration. The Energy Department’s order didn’t specify exactly how much the Michigan coal plant should run, saying it was requiring the utility to “take all measures necessary to ensure that the Campbell Plant is available to operate.” Scripps and energy experts said that means the coal plant would likely run continuously at a lower level throughout the summer, or until Wright’s order ends. Unlike gas plants, coal plants can’t be easily turned on and off with the flip of a switch and take time to ramp up and come online. The Campbell plant is so old — it has been operating since 1962 — that Michigan energy regulators feared it could not physically turn back on once it was powered off. The utility will also have to buy more coal to keep it going. Consumers Energy said it has “arranged for new shipments of coal to keep the plant operating.” A new report from think tank Energy Innovation found the cost of coal-fired power has grown faster than inflation in the last few years — collectively costing US consumers $6.2 billion more in 2024 than it would have cost in 2021. “Even existing coal where it has fully depreciated and been paid off, the cost of coal is more than solar and storage at this point,” said Doug Lewin, a Texas based energy expert who authors the Texas Energy and Power Newsletter and host of the Energy Capital Podcast. Lewin covers the energy transition in deep red Texas, where power companies are building wind, solar and battery storage at an incredible pace. Of the significant amount of new electricity added to the Texas grid in the last four years, 92% has been wind, solar and storage, Lewin said. That has paid dividends, keeping energy prices relatively low and meeting the state’s exploding power demand from air conditioning, data centers and big industry. “All throughout the summer months, you’re getting maximum solar output,” Lewin said. “It’s very well correlated to peak demand. For a place with massive AC load like Texas, it’s fantastic.” Texas has also invested a lot in big batteries that can keep power flowing to the grid after the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing. Energy Sec. Wright, however, has panned renewables, saying they are not a reliable replacement for fossil fuels. “There is simply no physical way that wind, solar and batteries could replace the myriad uses of natural gas,” he said at Houston energy conference CERAWeek in March. “I haven’t even mentioned oil or coal yet.” Read more • Trump EPA drafting a rule that would undo decades of progress on limiting pollution from power plants • The jobs and tax credits that could disappear if the ‘big, beautiful’ bill passes the Senate • A polluting, coal-fired power plant found the key to solving America’s biggest clean energy challenge
The Trump admin ordered a coal power plant to stay on past retirement. Customers in 15 states will foot the bill
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump Administration Orders Continued Operation of Aging Coal Plant Amid Electricity Concerns"
CNN
7.9
TruthLens AI Summary
The Trump administration has mandated the continued operation of the J.H. Campbell coal power plant in Michigan, which was scheduled to retire last week. This unexpected order, issued by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, comes amid concerns about potential electricity shortages in the Midwest during the summer months. The decision has drawn criticism from Michigan officials, including Dan Scripps, chair of the Michigan Public Service Commission, who noted that neither the state's utility nor regulators had requested this measure. The coal plant, which has been operational since 1962, is expected to incur substantial costs for its continued operation, estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars, with some projections approaching $100 million. Consumers Energy, the utility that operates the plant, had already arranged for alternative energy sources, including a natural gas-fired power plant, to ensure stable power supply after the Campbell plant's closure. The emergency order raises questions about the federal government's planning and whether a cost analysis was performed before issuing the directive.
In response to the order, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is contemplating legal action against the federal government, highlighting the rarity of such emergency orders, which are typically reserved for crises like natural disasters. The order's implications could lead to increased electricity rates for customers across 15 states, contradicting the original goal of retiring the plant to achieve cost savings. As the energy landscape shifts towards more sustainable options, coal plants are increasingly viewed as outdated and financially burdensome. Renewable energy sources have become more competitive, and experts argue that the costs associated with coal-fired power have risen significantly, making it less viable compared to alternatives like solar and wind. Despite this, Energy Secretary Wright has expressed skepticism about the reliability of renewables, maintaining that fossil fuels remain essential for meeting energy demands. This situation underscores the ongoing debate over the future of energy production in the U.S., particularly as states transition away from coal and adapt to new energy technologies.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article outlines a significant decision made by President Trump's Energy Secretary regarding the J.H. Campbell coal power plant, which was set to retire but will now continue operating through the summer. This decision raises concerns over financial implications and the impact on energy reliability in the Midwest.
Financial Implications for Consumers
The unexpected order will lead to substantial costs for energy customers across 15 states, with estimates ranging from tens of millions to potentially close to $100 million. This financial burden could affect individual electricity bills, though precise impacts remain uncertain. The decision to keep an aging plant running, despite prior plans for its retirement, suggests a lack of coordination between state officials and the federal government, raising questions about the decision-making processes involved.
Concerns Over Energy Reliability
The article emphasizes that the Energy Department's rationale for extending the plant's operation was to prevent a potential electricity shortage during the summer months. However, the utility company had already made arrangements for alternative energy sources, indicating that the federal intervention may not have been necessary. This raises alarms about the reliability of the energy grid and the implications of decommissioning baseload power sources, such as coal plants.
Public Perception and Political Ramifications
This decision may be viewed as politically motivated, potentially aimed at appeasing certain voter bases that favor traditional energy sources. The article reflects a tension between state-level energy strategies and federal interventions, which could lead to public dissatisfaction and distrust in energy policy decisions. The lack of prior communication between state authorities and the Energy Department suggests a disconnect that could further fuel public debate on energy independence and sustainability.
Potential Market Effects
The news could have ripple effects on the energy market, particularly for companies involved in coal, natural gas, and renewable energy sectors. Investors may respond to the uncertainty surrounding this decision, which could influence stock prices related to energy companies. The implications for the broader energy market could also prompt discussions around long-term energy strategies in the context of climate change and sustainable practices.
Global Context and Strategic Considerations
From a global perspective, this decision aligns with ongoing discussions about energy transitions and the role of fossil fuels. It highlights a tension between maintaining traditional energy sources and moving towards more sustainable alternatives. This news could resonate with global efforts to address energy shortages and the balance of power in energy markets.
In terms of the writing style, it's plausible that AI tools were used in drafting the article, particularly in structuring the information and presenting it in a clear manner. However, identifying specific AI models or their influence in the narrative is challenging without explicit indications.
In summary, the reliability of this news is reinforced by the detailed accounts from officials and the financial implications presented. However, the motivations behind the decision and its broader impact on energy policy and public perception warrant skepticism.