Beginning May 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) has issued numerous emergency orders pursuant to section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure the continuing operation of various generation units across the contiguous United States and Puerto Rico. More recently, in December 2025, the DOE utilized its 202(c) power to issue four emergency orders to keep coal plants in the states of Colorado, Indiana, and Washington open, where those plants were scheduled for retirement by the end of 2025.
FPA Section 202(c) Authority
FPA section 202(c) allows the DOE to order temporary connections of facilities and generation of electric energy to address an emergency either in the form of (1) a sudden increase in the demand for electricity or (2) a shortage of electric energy or facilities for the generation or transmission of electric energy. The DOE may also issue such orders during the event of war.
A Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report issued on July 1, 2025 provided analysis of section 202(c) authority. The CRS Report discussed emergency orders in May 2025 and how those orders interpreted section 202(c) emergency authority. The DOE had ordered delays in the retirement of the J.H. Campbell Power Plant, a coal-fired power plant in Michigan, and the Eddystone Generation Station, a natural gas/oil dual-fired power plant in Pennsylvania, in response to an elevated risk of supply shortages determined by the DOE. CRS noted that such emergency orders were unlike orders issued prior to 2025 as relevant grid operators did not request DOE action prior to the issuance of such orders, nor did grid operators identify reliability risks associated with the specific retirement of the power plants targeted by the DOE’s orders. On page 3 of the report, the CRS provided a table describing events for which the DOE issued emergency orders from the year 2000 through its emergency order issued June 24, 2025.
DOE’s May Emergency Orders and Ongoing Challenges
DOE’s May 23, 2025 emergency order No. 202-25-3 first directing the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) and Consumers Energy Company to ensure that the 1,560 MW J.H. Campbell Power Plant in Michigan remains available for operation can be found here. The DOE issued two subsequent emergency orders directing the plant to remain open, with the most recent emergency order No. 202-25-9 issued on November 18, 2025, directing the plant to remain in operation until February 17, 2026. DOE’s May 30, 2025 emergency order No. 202-25-4 that first directed the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) and Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (CEG) to ensure that generation units comprising 760 MW at the Eddystone Generation Station in Pennsylvania remain available for operation can be found here. The DOE issued two subsequent emergency orders directing the units to remain open, with the most recent emergency order No. 202-25-10 issued on November 25, 2025, directing the plant to remain in operation until February 24, 2026.
Public interest organizations, the Michigan Attorney General, the states of Minnesota and Illinois, and other state utility regulators requested rehearing on various of these DOE orders, but such requests have since been denied (order No. 202-25-3; order No. 202-25-4) prior to orders addressing arguments raised on rehearing (order No. 202-25-3; order No. 202-25-4).
Review of J.H. Campbell Power Plant Emergency Order. Following the rehearing denials, the States of Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, as well as various public interest organizations (including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists), petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of DOE’s emergency order No. 202-25-3 regarding the J.H. Campbell Power Plant in Michigan. The opening briefs of the states and public interest organizations were filed on December 19, 2025. DOE must file its opening brief by February 24, 2026. Final briefs are due on March 20, 2026. Oral argument is yet to be scheduled. The People of the State of Michigan also petitioned the court to review an August 15, 2025 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order allowing for the recovery of costs incurred as a result of complying with the DOE emergency order, further discussed below. That petition came after FERC denied rehearing of its order after requests from the Michigan Attorney General, various public interests organizations, and numerous state utility regulators. On January 9, 2026, the People of the State of Michigan moved the court, unopposed by FERC, to hold the petition in abeyance pending the resolution of the petition against the DOE’s emergency order. As of the date of this posting, the court has yet to act on the motion.
Petitioner Arguments. The petitioners’ briefs request the court to set aside the DOE’s emergency order, arguing against the DOE’s determination of an emergency under FPA section 202(c) and, even assuming the emergency determination was appropriate, that the DOE’s actions exceeded the limits of section 202(c). Specifically, the petitioners argue that the DOE failed to demonstrate that the claimed electricity shortage and accompanying long-term reliability concerns qualify as section 202(c) emergencies because, first, section 202(c) contemplates imminent shortages and not long-term resource adequacy concerns, and second, the DOE misconstrued quotes and ignored contradictory evidence to conclude insufficient capacity. The petitioners then argued that even if the DOE appropriately determined a 202(c) emergency, it went beyond its 202(c) authority by failing to demonstrate that operation of the power plant would “best meet the emergency,” that requiring generation without minimizing hours of operation goes beyond operation “during hours necessary to meet the emergency” and fails to “minimize[] adverse environmental impacts,” quoting relevant 202(c) language.
Review of Eddystone Generation Station Emergency Oder. The Illinois Office of Attorney General, Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, and New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel, as well as some of the same public interest organizations as in the J.H. Campbell Power Plant case, also petitioned the court for review of DOE’s emergency order No. 202-25-4 regarding the Eddystone Generation Station in Pennsylvania in September 2025, requesting the court to set aside the DOE’s emergency order. As of the date of this posting, the briefing schedule has yet to be set.
December 2025 Emergency Orders
Centralia Generation – Washington. On December 16, 2025, the DOE issued emergency order No. 202-25-11. The order determined that an emergency – due to a shortage of electric energy, as well as facilities for generation of electric energy, and other causes – exists within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) Northwest assessment area and directed TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC (TransAlta) to ensure Unit 2 of TransAlta Centralia Generation, a 729.9 MW coal-fired generation unit located in Centralia, Washington, remains operational until March 16, 2026. TransAlta posted on its website that it was evaluating the DOE’s emergency order and commits to work with state and federal governments but that its plans to convert the unit to natural gas by 2028, which was announced on December 9, 2025, remain a priority.
R.M. Schahfer and F.B. Culley Generating Stations – Indiana. On December 23, 2025, the DOE issued emergency orders No. 202-25-12 and No. 202-25-13, which both determined that the same shortage of electric energy emergency exists in portions of the Midwest. Emergency order No. 202-25-12 directed the Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) and MISO to ensure that Units 17 and 18 of the R.M. Schahfer Generating Station, coal-fired generation units comprising 847 MW located in Wheatfield, Indiana, remain operational until March 23, 2026. Emergency order No. 202-25-13 directed CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (CenterPoint) and MISO to ensure that Unit 2 of the F.B. Culley Generating Station, a 90 MW coal-fired generation unit located in Warrick County, Indiana remains operational also until March 23, 2026.
As reported by its parent company, NiSource Inc., NIPSCO provided that it will comply with the DOE’s emergency order and any subsequent orders but it recognizes the importance of reliability and cost management for its customers and plans to continue engaging with stakeholders. CenterPoint also committed to comply with the DOE’s emergency order while also identifying affordability and energy security as a priority for continuing collaboration.
Craig Station – Colorado. On December 30, 2025, the DOE issued emergency order No. 202-25-14. The order determined again the same emergency in the WECC Northwest assessment area and directed Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Tri-State), Platte River Power Authority, Salt River Project, PacifiCorp, and Xcel Energy to ensure Unit 1 at Craig Station, a 446.4 MW coal-fired generation unit located in Craig, Colorado, remains operational until March 30, 2026.
Common Themes among the Orders
All of these targeted generation units were slated to retire in December 2025. In all of the relevant emergency orders, the DOE recognized that, as coal-fired facilities, it would be difficult for the generating units to resume operations once retired, and so the DOE concluded that continuous operation of these facilities is to be required so long as the DOE determines that a shortage of electricity persists. The orders do not include any reference to requests from grid operators for DOE action or identifying specific reliability risks associated with the retirements of the targeted generation units.
Issues Raised by Opposition to the Emergency Orders
Operational Feasibility. Some opposition to the section 202(c) orders have expressed concern with the operational capability of the facilities to which DOE has directed continued operations. For example, public interest organizations have stated that Units 17 and 18 at the R.M. Schahfer Generating Station in Indiana have been facing mechanical issues, including undergoing a 2,890-hour forced outage from February 16, 2025 to June 23, 2025 due to a turbine blade separating from its root and a subsequent 1,996-hour outage starting on July 9, 2025 due to damage to condenser tubes. During a December 2, 2025 Winter Reliability Forum held by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC), NIPSCO executives discussed Unit 18’s continuing forced outage, stating that it would take time and effort to ensure its operation and even suggesting a need to be rebuilt, also noting that Unit 17 would likely need work as well.
Costs. Concerns also raise the question of who will bear the costs of necessary repairs and the required operation of the targeted generating facilities. In the CRS report, CRS highlighted that for both delayed retirements of affected plants in Michigan and Pennsylvania as a result of the DOE’s May emergency orders, it was unclear how the resulting costs would be shared among electricity consumers in affected regions.
J.H. Campbell Power Plant Cost Allocation. Specifically in response to emergency order No. 202-25-3, Consumers Energy Company filed a complaint with FERC on June 6, 2025 proposing revisions to the MISO Open Access Transmission, Energy and Operating Reserve Markets Tariff to add provisions to allocate the costs of keeping the J.H. Campbell Power Plant in Michigan operational. FERC issued the subsequent order on August 15, 2025 granting the complaint and determining that the proposed revisions were just and reasonable. MISO made a compliance filing on September 15, 2025 proposing to adopt such revisions, which provided for a proportional allocation of the recoverable costs of operating the plant to load-serving entities (LSEs) within the MISO North and MISO Central regions served by the plant pursuant to a future FERC petition to be filed by Consumers Energy Company. As of the date of this posting, FERC has yet to act on MISO’s compliance filing.
Following the filing of a petition for review of FERC’s order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as noted above, FERC addressed arguments raised on rehearing in the J.H. Campbell Power Plant cost allocation proceeding on December 22, 2025, though it reached the same conclusion as in its August 15, 2025 order. FERC provided, among addressing other issues raised, that its order did not violate cost causation principles, rejecting arguments that costs would be improperly allocated to utilities which do not materially benefit from the plant’s continued operation as the directed allocation aligns with the scope of the emergency as described in the DOE’s emergency order – the intended beneficiaries of the emergency order were the entities located within the MISO North and MISO Central regions. FERC also rejected requests to delay action on the proposed tariff revisions, stating that it utilized its discretion to mitigate potential regulatory uncertainty and that motions for stay failed to demonstrate that MISO ratepayers would face irreparable financial harm which could not otherwise be relieved.
Eddystone Generation Station Cost Allocation. On June 26, 2025, PJM filed with FERC to amend its Reliability Assurance Agreement Among Load Serving Entities (RAA) to establish a cost allocation methodology through which PJM would recover costs from each LSE within the PJM region, associated with operating the Eddystone Generation Station units in Pennsylvania, as incurred by CEG, to comply with emergency order No. 202-25-4. By agreement between PJM and CEG, as owner of the Eddystone Generation Station, compensation will be calculated based on the Deactivation Avoidable Cost Credit (DACC)-based formula rate methodology and processes set forth in PJM’s Open Access Transmission Tariff (PJM Tariff) to dictate recovery of incurred costs, to include maintenance and repairs. PJM proposed to allocate such costs to all LSEs in the PJM region in proportion to their Daily Unforced Capacity Obligations – the capacity obligation of an LSE during the Delivery Year as defined by the RAA. FERC accepted PJM’s revisions in its August 15, 2025 order, finding that it is just and reasonable to allocate costs in accordance with the scope of the emergency as described in DOE’s emergency order – based on the overall resource adequacy need within the entire PJM footprint, and denied subsequent requests for rehearing.
FERC later addressed arguments raised on rehearing on December 22, 2025, though it reached the same conclusion as in its August 15, 2025 order, and largely echoed the same statements provided in its response to arguments raised on rehearing in the J.H. Campbell Power Plant cost allocation proceeding, which was issued the same day. FERC provided, among addressing other issues raised, that its order did not violate cost causation principles and again reiterated that the benefits derived from the continued operation of the Eddystone Generation Station units were roughly commensurate with the allocation of costs as the DOE’s emergency order identified the emergency to be regionwide across PJM’s region. FERC also rejected requests for stay based on a failure to demonstrate that PJM ratepayers would face irreparable financial harm which could not otherwise be relieved.
On October 6, 2025, PJM submitted another filing to revise its RAA to generally establish a regionwide cost allocation methodology to allow PJM to recover costs associated with maintaining the operation of resources subject to DOE 202(c) emergency orders, limiting such proposed methodology to situations where (1) such orders direct a resource to maintain operations for resource adequacy purposes for the PJM region generally and (2) the resource’s owner agrees to a DACC-based rate for compensation. The cost allocation methodology is identical to the FERC-accepted cost allocation methodology for the Eddystone Generation Station units in its August 15, 2025 order – allocation will be to all LSEs in the PJM region in proportion to their Daily Unforced Capacity Obligations. FERC accepted PJM’s proposed revisions as a generic method by which PJM will allocate costs incurred by generation owners to comply with DOE 202(c) emergency orders, where such limiting conditions are met, on December 5, 2025. The previous FERC-accepted revisions only incorporated language specific to the operation of the Eddystone Generation Station to comply with order No. 202-25-4; the instant revisions generalize such language, allowing for applicability to subsequent DOE 202(c) emergency orders for other generating facilities. As of the date of this posting, no petitions for review of these PJM orders from FERC have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
FERC Proceedings Regarding December Emergency Orders. On December 29, 2025, NIPSCO filed a complaint against MISO to request that FERC establish a rate schedule in the MISO Tariff to provide a mechanism for NIPSCO to recover costs associated with NIPSCO’s compliance with emergency order no. 202-25-12 directing the continued operation of the R.M. Schahfer Generating Station units in Indiana. Similar to the language proposed by MISO in the J.H. Campbell Power Plant cost allocation proceeding, NIPSCO proposes the adoption of revisions providing for a proportional allocation of the recoverable costs of operating the units to LSEs within the MISO North and MISO Central regions pursuant to a future FERC petition to be filed by NIPSCO.
Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company d/b/a CenterPoint Energy Indiana South (SIGE), the operating utility subsidiary of CenterPoint, also filed a complaint against MISO to request that FERC order MISO to adopt tariff revisions to provide a cost recovery and allocation mechanism for costs incurred to operate the F.B. Culley Generating Station unit in compliance with emergency order No. 202-25-13. SIGE proposes the adoption of revisions providing for allocation of the recoverable costs of operating the unit to LSEs within the MISO North and MISO Central regions based on a load ratio share basis, consistent with that proposed by MISO in the J.H. Campbell Power Plant cost allocation proceeding, pursuant to a future FERC petition to be filed by SIGE.
Conclusion
Certain issues involving DOE’s authority and scope of that authority to issue the 202(c) orders in question may be addressed by federal appellate courts. FERC may also further address cost allocation questions. Continued observation of these proceedings may provide insight on future actions involving FPA section 202(c).
For more information, please contact Andrea I. Sarmentero Garzón, Sean M. Neal, or Paige Punzalan. This update is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance specific to your situation, please contact your attorney.
