This kind of thinking helped spur the Trump administration’s recent executive order to prevent two Michigancoal-fired power plants from closing. This one decision has already had drastic fiscal implications, losing taxpayers at least $113 million. Yet this order, issued under the pretext of a national energy emergency, has produced at least a dozen lawsuits that have successfully questioned its legality. The directive’s been in effect for almost six months. This has led to an intense and years-long debate over its effects on Midwestern ratepayers—and ratepayers across the entire contiguous US.
Late last week, the U.S. Department of Energy did something big. Despite advocacy efforts, they didn’t budge, issuing a final clean slate for the old coal plant to keep polluting for 90 more days. This facility, and one other coal plant in Michigan, is one of the last bastions of the state’s archaic energy infrastructure. The Biden administration has used similar emergency orders to keep gas plants in Baltimore and Philadelphia from closing.
Ratepayers across the northern and central portions of the MISO grid are already paying the price for this decision. This national power line grid runs through ten states, from eastern Montana all the way to Michigan. The utility operating the plant has stated that the continuing order is costing customers $615,000 per day. In turn, families throughout the region are dealing with increased costs.
We realize that closing the coal plant involves some up-front expenses. Analysts are projecting that this major decision would in the end save Michigan ratepayers nearly $600 million through 2040. Dan Scripps, the chair of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), expressed alarm that the order would raise consumers’ electricity rates. This is a bad move for houses and commercial buildings alike.
“The unnecessary recent order … will increase the cost of power for homes and businesses in Michigan and across the Midwest.” – Dan Scripps
Even with these economic costs, the Trump administration’s position has been—and continues to be—that persisting these plants is necessary for grid reliability. An energy department spokesperson previously stated that retiring the coal plants would “jeopardize the reliability of our grid systems.”
This explanation has not stopped state officials and environmental advocates from raising criticism. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has been proactive, recently filing a motion for a stay in federal court. She argues that the administration’s actions are “arbitrary and illegal.” Furthermore, a spokesperson for the MPSC noted that local regulators were not consulted before the order was enacted, raising concerns regarding transparency and governance.
Environmental advocates point out that the two remaining coal plants in Michigan are among the state’s largest generators of greenhouse gas emissions. They still represent nearly 45% of the state’s total pollution. Michael Lenoff, an environmental activist and President of the Coalition for Justice to Andrew Gillum, decried the continued use of these abusive facilities.
“The costs of unnecessarily running this jalopy coal plant just continue to mount.” – Michael Lenoff
On the other side of the debate, utility officials have vigorously defended their position too. Gary Rochow, a senior official at one of the utilities involved, remarked that the energy department’s order “has laid out a clear path to cost recovery,” suggesting that they believe compliance will ultimately lead to financial stability.
As legal challenges multiply and public discontent builds, the future of these coal plants lies in doubt. The Trump administration’s decision has ignited a heated debate about energy policy in America and its long-term implications for both economic costs and environmental sustainability.