Trump’s forced coal plant extensions thrown out by judge

法官驳回特朗普强制延长燃煤电厂运营的命令

The use of coal to generate electricity on the US grid has been plunging for nearly two decades, and the first Trump administration was unable to affect the trend. So his second administration has attempted more aggressive interventions to prop up coal use. One of its most direct means of doing so is to order coal plants that were scheduled to close to remain open, even if there is no need for them. 近二十年来，美国电网的燃煤发电量一直在急剧下降，特朗普的第一届政府未能扭转这一趋势。因此，他的第二届政府试图采取更激进的干预措施来支撑煤炭使用。其最直接的手段之一，就是下令那些计划关闭的燃煤电厂继续运营，即便这些电厂并无必要。

The administration’s justification for these orders is a statute that allows the Department of Energy (DOE) to declare an emergency in the case of wartime or a sudden shortfall in generation. A number of parties, including states where coal plants have been slated to close, have challenged this declaration. And on Friday, in the first of these cases to make its way through the courts, the declaration was judged to be contrary to the statute. While this only affects a single coal plant in Michigan, the reasoning of the decision will apply to every coal plant closure that has been blocked by the DOE. 政府为这些命令辩护的理由是一项法规，该法规允许能源部（DOE）在战时或发电量突然短缺的情况下宣布进入紧急状态。包括那些燃煤电厂计划关闭的州在内的多个当事方对此提出了质疑。周五，在首个进入司法程序的此类案件中，法院裁定该声明违反了法规。虽然此案仅涉及密歇根州的一家燃煤电厂，但该裁决的逻辑将适用于所有被能源部阻挠关闭的燃煤电厂。

No emergency

并非紧急状态

The decision was issued by a unanimous three-judge panel from the DC Circuit’s Court of Appeals. It focuses on the J.H. Campbell Generating Plant, which was scheduled to close last year but has been kept open by a total of five emergency declarations by the DOE, each limited to 90 days by the Federal Power Act. At issue was section 202(c) of that Act, which allows the DOE to declare emergencies when the US is at war or when “an emergency exists by reason of a sudden increase in the demand for electric energy, or a shortage of electric energy.” 该裁决由哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院的三名法官一致作出。裁决重点关注了 J.H. Campbell 发电厂，该厂原定于去年关闭，但因能源部发布的五项紧急状态声明而被迫继续运营，根据《联邦电力法》，每项声明的有效期仅限 90 天。争议焦点在于该法案的第 202(c) 条，该条款允许能源部在国家处于战争状态，或“因电力需求突然增加或电力短缺而存在紧急情况”时宣布进入紧急状态。

Michigan and a collection of environmental organizations contested whether an emergency existed. They pointed out that the plant was old, inefficient, and highly polluting—the court cited estimates that its pollution would kill 30 people a year. Its closure was first considered years before, but the state utility commission had a process in place to ensure that doing so wouldn’t endanger service. It held hearings, managed appeals in Michigan courts, and evaluated the utility’s plans to bring cheaper and less polluting power sources into service instead. The closure plan was only approved because it was concluded that it would not lead to any shortfalls. It was also evaluated and approved by MISO, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator that manages a grid that stretches from Louisiana to Minnesota across the Midwest. 密歇根州和多家环保组织对是否存在“紧急情况”提出了质疑。他们指出，该电厂陈旧、效率低下且污染严重——法院援引的评估显示，其污染每年会导致 30 人死亡。该厂的关闭计划早在几年前就已提出，州公用事业委员会已建立了一套流程，以确保关闭不会危及电力供应。委员会举行了听证会，处理了密歇根州法院的上诉，并评估了公用事业公司引入更廉价、污染更少的电源来替代该厂的计划。关闭计划之所以获批，是因为结论显示其不会导致任何电力短缺。该计划还经过了中大陆独立系统运营商（MISO）的评估和批准，该机构负责管理横跨中西部地区（从路易斯安那州到明尼苏达州）的电网。

The government, in defending its order, offered two items in defense of the existence of an emergency. One was a report that said MISO was simply at risk of having low generating reserves, which are typically deployed during unexpected短缺. The court noted that the same report concluded that MISO had “adequate anticipated resources” for “peak load conditions,” and was specific to conditions in 2024. The second one was a slide deck that suggested the grid was at greatest risk of electrical demand approaching the limits of supply in the summer months, something the court concluded was simply a seasonal comparison and not an evaluation of the state of the grid. In other words, the court found that the DOE could not provide any evidence of a critical supply shortage that would typically be considered an emergency. That left the question of whether the statute required that degree of specificity for the government to act. 政府在为其命令辩护时，提出了两点证据来证明存在紧急情况。其一是报告称 MISO 仅面临发电储备不足的风险，而储备通常是在意外短缺时调用的。法院指出，同一份报告也得出结论，MISO 在“峰值负荷条件下”拥有“充足的预期资源”，且该报告仅针对 2024 年的情况。其二是演示文稿，暗示电网在夏季面临电力需求接近供应极限的最大风险，法院认为这仅仅是季节性对比，而非对电网状态的评估。换言之，法院发现能源部无法提供任何证据证明存在通常被视为紧急情况的严重供应短缺。这留下了一个问题：政府采取行动是否需要法规所要求的这种具体程度的证据。

Not the DOE’s job

这不是能源部的工作

The court spends a fair bit of time analyzing the history and structure of the regulation of the US electric grid. With very little in the way of exceptions, this leaves regulation of generating capacity to the states; the federal government only gets involved when it comes to interstate transmission lines. It notes that the same Federal Power Act that’s at issue here, for example, “expressly denies [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] authority to regulate generation facilities directly.” The court interprets this as an indication that Congress had intended for federal intervention at the level of generation facilities to be rare and only in cases where there was an immediate shortfall that could only be addressed through federal action. And it notes that this is exactly how the authority had been used throughout its history. 法院花费了相当多的篇幅分析美国电网监管的历史和结构。除了极少数例外，发电能力的监管权属于各州；联邦政府仅在涉及州际输电线路时才会介入。法院指出，本案所涉及的《联邦电力法》明确规定，“明确拒绝（联邦能源监管委员会）直接监管发电设施的权力”。法院将其解读为国会意图让联邦政府对发电设施层面的干预变得罕见，且仅在存在必须通过联邦行动才能解决的迫切短缺时才进行干预。法院指出，这正是该权力在其历史上一直被使用的方式。

“Indeterminate assertions of summer electricity shortfalls are not what Congress meant by ’emergency,’” the judges conclude. Here, in contrast, we had a carefully planned closure that included ensuring a newer generating facility compensated for the plant’s closure. “Permitting DOE to compel generation in a situation that can be resolved through the ordinary resource adequacy planning mechanisms or a request under section 202(b) would render meaningless the constraints on federal power that Congress imposed throughout the Act,” the decision concludes. 法官总结道：“对夏季电力短缺的不确定性断言，并非国会所指的‘紧急情况’。”相比之下，本案中存在一个经过精心规划的关闭方案，其中包括确保有更新的发电设施来弥补该厂关闭后的缺口。裁决总结称：“如果允许能源部在可以通过常规资源充足性规划机制或第 202(b) 条下的请求来解决的情况下强制发电，将使国会在整个法案中对联邦权力施加的限制变得毫无意义。”

As a result, the court voided the DOE’s emergency declaration. Barring an appeal, this means that Michigan can finally continue with its planned shutdown process, relieving the local ratepayers from the costs incurred to maintain the coal plant to a state where it could be brought back online. Perhaps more significantly, however, is that the same logic will apply to all other cases where the DOE has attempted to force plants to stay open. So, as long as someone is willing to challenge them and the decision doesn’t get overturned on appeal, it’s likely that all the other coal plants the Trump administration has kept open, and possibly its other actions under the same emergency authority, will be reversed. According to the DOE, it has issued over 55 emergency orders in 2026 alone. (For the curious, that’s more than double the total number issued between 2000 and 2025.) 因此，法院撤销了能源部的紧急状态声明。除非提出上诉，这意味着密歇根州终于可以继续其计划中的关闭程序，使当地纳税人免于承担维持该燃煤电厂运营以备随时重启所需的成本。然而，更重要的是，同样的逻辑将适用于能源部试图强制其他电厂保持运营的所有案件。因此，只要有人愿意提出挑战，且该裁决在上诉中未被推翻，特朗普政府维持运营的所有其他燃煤电厂，以及它在同一紧急权力下采取的其他行动，很可能都会被撤销。据能源部称，仅在 2026 年，它就发布了超过 55 项紧急命令。（好奇的话，这比 2000 年到 2025 年间发布的总数还要多出一倍以上。）