As of 2026-09-11 18:35 UTC, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had vacated the Department of Energy’s first emergency order compelling Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant to stay open after its planned retirement. The court held that Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act is a narrow emergency power, not a way to override ordinary state and regional electricity planning for a generalized future risk those processes can address.[1]

But the ruling did not switch off Campbell. The order before the court was issued on May 23, 2025 and had already expired. A separate sixth order, issued on August 14, 2026, directs the plant to remain available from August 17 through November 14. Consumers Energy said after the decision that it was reviewing the ruling while continuing to comply with that current order.[1][2][3]

That split—an important legal loss for DOE alongside no immediate operational change—is the fact readers, ratepayers and other plant operators need to keep straight. The judgment establishes a demanding test for federal intervention. Applying that test to the still-live order, however, requires another official act or court ruling.

What was verified at the cutoff

The court rejected a planning risk dressed as an emergency

Campbell’s retirement was not sudden. Consumers Energy had spent years planning to close the plant and replace its output with other resources. Michigan regulators and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator had approved that plan after concluding the replacement portfolio would satisfy reliability criteria, cost less and more than offset the retiring generation.[1]

Days before the scheduled May 31, 2025 closure, DOE invoked Section 202(c). The statute allows temporary federal action during war or an electricity emergency caused by a sudden demand increase, a shortage of energy or generating facilities, fuel or water constraints, or other causes. DOE argued that the possibility of summer shortfalls and longer-term resource-adequacy concerns justified keeping Campbell online.[1]

The panel drew a much tighter boundary. In its reading, state regulators, utilities and regional transmission organizations have the first responsibility—and a suite of planning, conservation, transfer and market tools—to prevent shortages. Federal compulsion is a “narrow, last-resort backstop,” available when a concrete supply problem calls for immediate DOE action rather than ordinary planning.[1]

DOE’s order did not identify the potential shortfall’s specific severity, timing, location or likelihood, the court found. Its separate reference to unacceptable reliability risks within five years was even less like an emergency: long-range resource adequacy is precisely what state and regional processes are built to manage. Because that statutory flaw resolved the case, the panel did not reach the challengers’ separate claims about evidentiary support or whether Campbell was the right plant to run.[1]

Vacatur was straightforward for an unusual reason. The legal defect could not be repaired on remand without a different understanding of DOE’s authority, while vacating the challenged order would cause no operational disruption because that order had expired. That final point explains today’s apparent contradiction: the challengers won, yet the plant stayed available.[1]

Why one victory does not erase five successor orders

DOE issued serial, separately numbered 90-day directives. The court calls the first four successors “extension orders,” but its judgment reviewed only Order No. 202-25-3; the August 2026 directive is Order No. 202-26-39 and has its own effective period.[1][2] The published judgment therefore does not, by itself, vacate the current order. Consumers Energy’s post-ruling statement confirms the practical position: compliance continues unless DOE or a court changes it.[3]

The current order is nevertheless exposed to the new precedent. It invokes the same statute, determines that an emergency exists in portions of the MISO region, and again requires Campbell to remain available. Michigan’s attorney general said in August that five rehearing requests and four petitions for review had already been filed against the serial orders and that a challenge to the sixth would follow.[2][6] Consumers’ latest quarterly filing likewise says challenges to successor orders are underway.[5]

It is an inference—not a holding in today’s case—that challengers will ask the D.C. Circuit to apply the same legal rule to those orders. The live questions will be document-specific: Did DOE identify a concrete supply risk requiring immediate federal action? Did it explain why state, utility and MISO measures could not address it? And can any newer evidence distinguish the sixth order from the first? The decision makes those questions harder for DOE to avoid; it does not answer them on a record that was not before the panel.

Nor does the opinion automatically dispose of other emergency orders involving plants in Indiana, Colorado, Florida, Washington or Pennsylvania. AP and Reuters report that DOE has used the authority at several facilities.[3][4] Parties will cite the Campbell precedent, but the relevant orders, records, courts and procedural stages differ.

The cost ledger is still open

The cleanest current number comes from Consumers’ SEC filing: from the first order’s start through June 30, 2026, compliance produced a $259 million net financial impact after $239 million in MISO revenues. For the first 90-day order alone, Consumers sought FERC approval to recover and allocate a $42 million net impact after $78 million in MISO revenue. The filing says approval remained pending and that the company intended to seek recovery for later orders through the same federal process.[5]

Michigan’s attorney general described $295 million in costs over the period through June 30, a state figure Reuters repeated and attributed to that office.[3][6] The public sources reviewed here do not reconcile that total with the company’s $259 million net measure. They should not be collapsed into a single “ratepayer bill”: one is described as costs, the other as net financial impact after market revenue, and ultimate recovery and allocation remain contested.

The court itself noted that Consumers intervened to protect its ability to recover costs and that the recovery dispute sits in separate FERC proceedings.[1] Michigan argues that invalidating the underlying order should affect recovery, but the panel did not decide that question.[6] The opinion does not calculate a refund, assign liability or close the FERC docket. Today’s ruling settles the scope of emergency authority before it settles who pays.

The next 24 hours, seven days and 30 days

Over the next 24 hours, the operating baseline is continuity. Watch for a written DOE response, a request affecting the judgment, a withdrawal or modification of the current order, or a Consumers Energy/MISO notice changing availability. Without one of those, “court vacates order” must not be shortened to “plant shuts down.”

Over the next seven days, attention moves to the successor-order dockets. The most informative filing would identify the sixth order and ask for relief on the basis of the new statutory holding. DOE’s response will matter most if it points to newer, concrete reliability evidence rather than repeating a general forecast. Any claim that the present order survives on different facts should name those facts.

Over the next 30 days, the precedent reaches beyond Campbell. Track whether DOE withdraws or rewrites other Section 202(c) directives, whether utilities revise retirement plans, and whether courts distinguish situations demanding immediate DOE action from long-term adequacy risks manageable through ordinary planning. At FERC, separately track what happens to Campbell cost recovery; a generation order and a bill-allocation order are related, but they are not the same legal instrument.

Three paths from here

These scenarios measure speed and clarity of resolution, not a forecast of electricity demand.

Base case — the current order remains operative while its challenge accelerates. Campbell stays available, litigants place the September 11 holding into the successor cases, and DOE defends the sixth order on its own record. Trigger: no rescission or stay, followed by a filing that squarely addresses Order No. 202-26-39.

Upside case — agencies and courts align the live status quickly. DOE withdraws the sixth order or a court grants effective relief, allowing Consumers and MISO to execute an orderly retirement rather than wait for November 14. Trigger: a written rescission, stay or vacatur that names the current order, accompanied by an operating notice.

Downside case — appeal and serial orders prolong the mismatch. DOE seeks further review while continuing to issue or defend materially similar directives, operations and disputed costs continue, and each expired order requires another round of litigation. Trigger: a request that delays finality plus a new order beyond November 14 without a materially more specific emergency record.

What to do with today’s ruling

• Consumers Energy and MISO: keep operational notices tied to the exact order number. Publish any change in availability, dispatch or retirement timing only after the controlling directive changes.[2][3]
• DOE: state whether it will seek further review and explain what happens to Order No. 202-26-39. Any future emergency finding should identify the shortfall’s magnitude, place, timing and probability—and why ordinary state or regional tools cannot respond.[1]
• Michigan and other challengers: distinguish relief already won from relief still requested. A filing against an expired order is not a substitute for a clear public status update on the live one.[1][6]
• FERC and state regulators: keep gross costs, MISO revenues, net financial impact, recovery requests and ultimately allocated customer charges in separate columns.[5]
• Newsrooms: do not report that the court closed Campbell, voided every DOE coal order or resolved the full $259 million. The verified result is narrower and more important: the court defined the boundary of federal emergency power.[1][3][4]

Update and invalidation conditions: this report’s operational conclusion should change immediately if DOE rescinds or modifies the sixth order, a court stays or vacates it, or Consumers/MISO announces a controlling status change. Its legal assessment would need revision if the full D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court alters the panel’s interpretation. Its cost account should be updated when Consumers files a later total or FERC issues a recovery decision.

The first Campbell order is now both expired and vacated. The sixth is neither. The distance between those two facts is where the next legal fight—and the next dollar of operating cost—sits.

Sources

1. U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Michigan v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 25-1159 and consolidated cases (September 11, 2026) — unanimous opinion, statutory holding, remedy and procedural scope.
2. U.S. Department of Energy, “Federal Power Act Section 202(c): MISO Order No. 202-26-39” (August 14, 2026) — current Campbell directive and August 17–November 14 effective period.
3. Nichola Groom, Reuters, “US court blocks Trump administration bid to keep Michigan coal plant open” (September 11, 2026) — immediate reporting and Consumers Energy’s post-ruling operational statement.
4. Matthew Daly, Associated Press, “Federal court rejects Trump order keeping Michigan coal plant open” (September 11, 2026) — independent account, national context and DOE response status.
5. CMS Energy and Consumers Energy, Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2026 (filed July 28, 2026) — net financial impact, MISO revenues, recovery proceedings and successor-order litigation.
6. Michigan Department of Attorney General, “AG Nessel to Challenge 6th Unlawful DOE Order Forcing Operation of J.H. Campbell Plant” (August 17, 2026) — challenge history, state cost figure and announced response to the sixth order.
7. USDA Farm Service Agency / U.S. Geological Survey, The National Map NAIP Plus ImageServer export — site-specific aerial photograph acquired September 1, 2022, showing the Campbell plant, Lake Michigan shoreline, rail yard and coal stockpile.