DOE extends Campbell emergency order with Sept. 8 response

The Department of Energy may face a substantial legal battle to keep the lights on at the Campbell mine thanks to a motion submitted by several environmentalist groups that challenge the DOE’s decision to keep the plant operational under the “emergency orders” that the government has implemented. DOE Secretary Chris Wright announced that the site would be ordered to delay plans to shut down by the operator, Consumers Energy, for 90 days at least. However, since that order has been implemented, the high cost of keeping the site operational has come to light.

The evidence against the Department of Energy’s order to keep Campbell online is overwhelming

While we understand the need to provide the American people with a reliable energy grid, one questions whether the Department of Energy made the right decision in ordering the Campbell site operational. Environmental groups have presented clear and concise evidence that proves the site is not needed to provide power to the region.

The group noted that in June, the DOE stated that energy capacity from Campbell was necessary, when in fact the evidence shows that there was a surplus of more than ten times what the site was producing, according to MISO, the regional transmission organization that controls the Midwest grid.

The group went on to state that the DOE’s order to keep the site online was not logical, as only one Campbell unit was even producing power. The other two units were broken for weeks and abruptly shut down during the supposed emergency period.

“The Administration again tramples the long-planned retirement of an unneeded and expensive power plant. This is the Trump Administration playbook – issue emergency orders without support in fact or law, and let ordinary people suffer the consequences: in this case, skyrocketing electricity bills and toxic pollution in the air and water. While propping up the dirtiest sources of electricity, this Administration is simultaneously thwarting the development of cheaper, cleaner energy from wind and solar and not acting to expand the transmission grid to bring cheaper power to more people. But the market will force the Administration’s hand and we will go to court to do so too.” – Michael Lenoff, Senior Attorney for Earthjustice

The cost of keeping the Campbell site operational is astronomical

The American people need reliable forms of energy production to deliver crucial electricity during periods of high demand. What is worrying is the fact that Consumers Energy made alternative arrangements to provide sufficient power during peak demand long before the Campbell site was due to close its doors. However, just days before that was due to happen, DOE Secretary Chris Wright ordered the site to remain open. On 8 September, the DOE issued a response to the rehearing request.

That decision would prove to be a costly one, as the initial order to keep the site operational cost nearly $29 million in just the first five weeks. That amounts to $1 million per day. Several organizations have filed a motion to ask the DOE to reopen hearings on the matter. One could speculate on the effect that keeping the site operational would have on the environment.

The Department of Energy has 90 days to reply to the motion

If the DOE does not reply, the environmental groups may take further action in the courts to stop the order completely. The US court system is no stranger to intervening in cases that pose a significant threat to the local economy or environment. Estimated costs to keep the site open come in at around $140 million per year, while the actual cost could be double that. The case needs to be handled with care, as several states will feel the brunt if Consumers Energy aims to recoup its losses from FERC.