Trump’s emergency orders to keep aging coal plants open are drawing legal challenges, with scholars calling them a misuse of wartime-era authority. The Department of Energy invoked Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act—a tool last used in 1941 during WWII—to override decisions by utilities and grid operators to retire coal plants. Legal experts, including University of Michigan professor Alexandra Klass, argue the orders undermine long-term energy planning and harm consumers by prioritizing politically favored industries over grid reliability and affordability.

The policy has revived plants like the JH Campbell plant in Michigan, which Consumers Energy planned to replace with cheaper renewables and natural gas. Instead, the administration forced its continued operation, costing the utility $135 million in customer-funded expenses since May 2025. Similar orders have targeted plants in Pennsylvania, Washington, Indiana, and Colorado, including a natural gas facility. Critics warn this disrupts states’ ability to plan decarbonization and maintain affordable power.

Environmental advocates and state officials have sued, with cases pending in the D.C. Circuit Court. Klass co-authored an analysis highlighting how the orders ignore evolving energy markets and climate goals. The Trump administration frames the moves as necessary for “reliable and affordable” electricity, citing rising prices in states that shuttered coal plants. However, analysts counter that the policy accelerates coal’s decline by discouraging investment in cleaner, cost-effective alternatives.

With over 40,000 megawatts of coal capacity slated for retirement by 2029, the orders could delay the grid’s transition to renewables. Energy Secretary Chris Wright defends the actions as vital to national energy security, but legal scholars stress the emergency powers were never meant for permanent industry intervention. If upheld, the precedent risks politicizing grid management and stalling progress on climate targets.