DOE §202(c) emergency coal-retention order log through May 2026: 43+ orders, ~4.4 GW stalled across 6 plants, D.C. Circuit challenges filed

Opening

Between May 16, 2025 and June 4, 2026, the Department of Energy issued at least 43 emergency orders and extensions under Federal Power Act §202(c), requiring scheduled-retirement coal and gas plants to remain operational under the umbrella of EO 14156’s National Energy Emergency declaration. The program stalled approximately 4.4 GW of coal-capacity retirements as of April 2026, produced the lowest U.S. coal-retirement year since 2010 (2.6 GW actually retired in 2025 vs. 8.5 GW planned), and generated parallel legal challenges across multiple federal circuits. As of May 2026, six plants covering approximately 4,446 MW remain under active retirement-deferral orders.

What Happened / Key Facts

Order Count and Scope

Total orders: 43+ emergency orders and extensions issued May 2025 through June 2026 (POWER Magazine running log; DOE.gov official pages).

Mechanism: Each §202(c) order is limited to 90 days under the Federal Power Act. DOE renews each order before expiry rather than issuing a single continuous order. This procedural practice empties the statutory 90-day time limit of practical force while maintaining the appearance of compliance with it.

Legal umbrella: All orders invoke EO 14156 (January 20, 2025 National Energy Emergency declaration) as constitutional cover for the “unusual and extraordinary threat” determination required by §202(c). The theory: AI-datacenter and crypto-mining load growth constitutes an emergency justifying retention of scheduled-retirement coal capacity.

The Six Active Retirement-Deferral Plants (as of April/May 2026)

Total active retirement-deferral capacity: approximately 4,446 MW

Additional ongoing orders: PREPA (Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority) orders for generation and transmission facilities have been renewed continuously since May 2025 (Orders 202-25-1 through 202-25-2D, 202-26-1D, 202-26-2D), reflecting ongoing reliability concerns on the island grid separate from the continental coal-retention program.

Short-duration emergency orders (Winter Storm Fern, January 2026): In late January 2026, DOE issued 15+ short-duration orders covering PJM, NYISO, ERCOT, ISO-NE, Duke Energy Florida, and multiple Florida utilities for backup generating units. These orders lasted days to a week and addressed an acute weather emergency, not plant-retirement deferral.

2025 Order Chronology (First Phase, May–December 2025)

DOE’s first 14 orders ran May through December 2025, establishing the six-plant retirement-deferral program:

• May 16, 2025 (Orders 202-25-1, 202-25-2): PREPA (Puerto Rico) — generation and transmission facilities
• May 23, 2025 (Order 202-25-3): J.H. Campbell (Michigan, MISO/Consumers Energy)
• May 30, 2025 (Order 202-25-4): Eddystone Units 3 & 4 (Pennsylvania, PJM/Constellation Energy)
• June 24, 2025 (Order 202-25-5): Duke Energy Carolinas — short-duration weather emergency
• July 28, 2025 (Order 202-25-6): Wagner Generating Station Unit 4 (Pennsylvania/Maryland, PJM/Talen Energy)
• Aug 20, 2025 (Order 202-25-7): J.H. Campbell renewal
• Aug 28, 2025 (Order 202-25-8): Eddystone renewal
• Aug 14, 2025 (Orders 202-25-1A, 202-25-2A): PREPA renewal
• Oct 24, 2025 (Order 202-25-6A): Wagner renewal
• Nov 12, 2025 (Orders 202-25-1B, 202-25-2B): PREPA renewal
• Nov 18, 2025 (Order 202-25-9): J.H. Campbell renewal
• Nov 25, 2025 (Order 202-25-10): Eddystone renewal
• Dec 16, 2025 (Order 202-25-11): Centralia Unit 2 (Washington, TransAlta) — first new plant added in second half of 2025
• Dec 23, 2025 (Orders 202-25-12, 202-25-13): Schahfer Units 17 & 18 and F.B. Culley Unit 2 (Indiana, NIPSCO/CenterPoint) — two Indiana plants added; 90-day effective period beginning December 23 runs to March 23, 2026
• Dec 30, 2025 (Order 202-25-14): Craig Station Unit 1 (Colorado, Tri-State) — first Colorado plant added

Macroeconomic Impact

Coal retirements in 2025: Only 2.6 GW of coal capacity actually retired in 2025, per EIA — “the least since 2010” and the lowest annual retirement total in fifteen years. Operators had planned 8.5 GW of retirements; only 2.6 GW occurred. EIA attributes the gap to: 4.8 GW delayed to future years (largely due to §202(c) orders), 1.1 GW cancelled outright by plant operators, and additional cancellations extending into 2027/2029.

2025 retirements that did occur (not covered by §202(c) orders): Indian River Unit 4 (Delaware, 410 MW), Cholla Units 1 and 3 (Arizona, 383 MW), Intermountain Power Project Units 1 and 2 (Utah, 1,800 MW), and Prairie Creek Unit 1 (Iowa, 15 MW).

Ratepayer cost: Sierra Club estimated that 13 orders issued by early 2026 cost Americans $235 million. The order count has since grown to 43+, and ratepayer costs have not been updated in public documents through May 2026; the $235 million figure covers only the first third of the order series.

Winter Storm Fern (January 2026): DOE claimed that more than 17 GW of coal-powered generation was “saved” via the §202(c) framework during Winter Storm Fern in January 2026 — though this figure conflates the six retirement-deferral plants (which would have already been retired) with the broader universe of coal plants kept marginally operational through the storm period under the short-duration emergency orders.

Litigation

D.C. Circuit challenges (multiple dockets):

• J.H. Campbell (Michigan): Michigan AG + environmental groups filed D.C. Circuit challenge; opening briefs filed December 19, 2025; reply briefs filed April 7, 2026.
• Eddystone (Pennsylvania): Petitioners’ opening brief filed D.C. Circuit May 8, 2026.
• Culley and Schahfer (Indiana): D.C. Circuit petition docket 26-1057, filed by Earthjustice (representing Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Just Transition Northwest Indiana, Hoosier Environmental Council), Sierra Club, and Environmental Law and Policy Center. Filed March 16, 2026. Legal argument: “Federal law simply doesn’t permit the federal government to manipulate power sector assets in this way without a true emergency.”
• Craig (Colorado): D.C. Circuit petitions filed by Colorado (docket 26-1059) and clean energy advocates (docket 26-1060). Rehearing requests filed January 29, 2026.

Ninth Circuit challenge (Centralia, Washington):

• Centralia (Washington): Washington State and environmental advocates filed DOE rehearing requests January 2026; Washington appealed to the Ninth Circuit (docket 26-1252); clean energy advocates’ petition in docket 26-1261.

No court has ruled on the merits of the §202(c) renewal practice as of June 11, 2026. All challenges remain in briefing or early litigation stages. Courts have not yet addressed whether the AI-datacenter load growth rationale constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat” under §202(c), or whether the 90-day renewal practice violates the statute’s time limit.

Synapse Economics analysis (commissioned by Earthjustice): A report attached to the Indiana D.C. Circuit filing found that the Indiana coal plants (Schahfer and Culley) were not needed for grid reliability — MISO’s own assessments indicated the retirements could proceed without reliability impacts.

Why This Event Matters

The §202(c) order series is the most legally exposed element of the five-lever datacenter-permitting package. Levers 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the datacenter-permitting-deregulation-2025 package are administrative actions with at least facial statutory grounding. Lever 3 — §202(c) coal-retention orders — rests on an “unusual and extraordinary threat” determination that courts will scrutinize: the theory that AI-datacenter and crypto-mining load growth in 2025 constitutes a national energy emergency justifying forcing coal plant owners to operate against their commercial judgments. No prior administration has applied §202(c) at this scale or on this theory.

The selectively interventionist character of the package becomes legible through the order series. The administration’s energy policy is not deregulatory: it simultaneously removes regulatory friction from new datacenter buildout (Levers 1-2-4-5) and compels coal plant operation through regulatory intervention (Lever 3). The structural claim is that both moves benefit the same coalition — fossil-fuel incumbents (who get guaranteed revenue from forced operation) and AI-datacenter operators (who get guaranteed baseload capacity). The cost is borne by ratepayers (Sierra Club: $235M for the first 13 orders alone) and by state electricity markets whose planned-retirement economics are overridden by federal emergency authority.

The renewal practice is the structural vulnerability. §202(c) orders are limited to 90 days per the Federal Power Act’s text. DOE’s practice of renewing before expiry — now 43+ orders deep — creates a de facto permanent retention program out of a statute designed for short-duration emergencies. The D.C. Circuit challenges will force courts to address whether this practice is consistent with the statute.

Broader Context

EIA projects that 6.4 GW of coal capacity is scheduled to retire in 2026. As of June 11, 2026, the six-plant retirement-deferral program has already deferred approximately 4.4 GW of that pipeline, and the renewal pattern suggests DOE will continue issuing 90-day extensions through 2026. The practical effect is that coal capacity planned for retirement years ago — including units whose owners had already invested in alternatives and whose grid operators had already planned capacity replacements — remains online, collecting revenue under emergency-order authorization while new capacity investments are delayed or rerouted.

The Indiana coal-plant case is structurally significant because the plants (Schahfer and Culley) had MISO reliability sign-off on their retirements. DOE overrode a grid operator’s own reliability assessment to force retention — which makes the “unusual and extraordinary threat” rationale harder to defend in court, because the body with expert authority over grid reliability had already determined no threat existed.

Research Gaps

• Whether D.C. Circuit or Ninth Circuit issues any ruling on the §202(c) renewal practice before year-end 2026
• Updated ratepayer cost estimate beyond the $235M figure (which covered only the first 13 orders)
• Whether Wagner Generating Station (Pennsylvania/Maryland) is included in the active retirement-deferral set as of June 2026 (first order July 2025; most recent confirmed is October 2025 extension)
• Whether DOE issues new retirement-deferral orders for the 6.4 GW of coal scheduled for 2026 retirement beyond the current six-plant set
• Synapse Economics full report findings from the Earthjustice Indiana filing
• Whether any circuit court grants a stay of a §202(c) order pending litigation

Related Entries

• datacenter-permitting-deregulation-2025
• wright-chris
• 2025-10-23–doe-directs-ferc-anopr-large-load-interconnection
• 2026-04-16–ferc-rm26-4-000-misses-april-30-deadline-intent-to-act-june-2026
• epic-inv6-energy-systems-convergent-demand-shock