In early 2026, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under the Trump administration ordered certain coal‑fired power plants that were set to retire to stay open and keep generating electricity. This move could mean families and businesses in Minnesota and other Midwest states end up paying more on their electricity bills to help cover the costs of keeping these older plants operating.
One major example is the J.H. Campbell Generating Plant, a large coal‑burning facility in West Olive, Michigan. The plant had long been planning to close because it is old, expensive to run and polluting. Regulators and utility officials in Michigan had already agreed it could retire after years of planning and investment in cleaner and cheaper energy like wind, solar and natural gas.
But the DOE used a rarely invoked section of federal law — often reserved for real energy emergencies — to order Campbell to stay open instead of shutting down. The department said this was needed to prevent a possible electricity shortage in the central U.S., even though grid operators and state regulators had said there was enough energy available.
This isn’t just a one‑time extension. The plant has been kept running past its scheduled closure several times, with orders renewed repeatedly. By late 2025, financial records showed the continued operation had cost tens of millions of dollars — roughly $80 million by September from extra fuel, labor and maintenance costs while fighting to comply with federal orders. Those costs keep growing the longer the plant stays open under federal direction.
Because J.H. Campbell serves the electricity grid that covers many states, utility companies are seeking permission from federal regulators to spread these extra costs to customers across the region so they can recoup their expenses. If approved, that means households and businesses in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and other states could see higher energy bills.
Consumer advocates and environmental groups strongly oppose the DOE orders. They argue the federal government hasn’t shown a real emergency that would require these plants to stay open. Many of the utilities ordered to run the plants did not ask to stay open themselves. Advocates also point out that forcing uneconomic coal plants to continue operating blocks the transition to cleaner, cheaper sources of energy and undermines long‑planned retirements that had broad support from officials and regulators.
Beyond the economic cost, critics say this policy could harm health and the environment. Older coal plants emit large amounts of soot, greenhouse gases and other pollutants that are linked to heart and lung problems, and harmful effects on local air quality. Extending the operation of these plants delays reductions in these emissions that communities and state energy plans have been working toward.
Some utilities and states have challenged the DOE’s use of “emergency” powers in court, saying there is no legitimate energy crisis that justifies overriding local regulatory decisions and retirement plans. Legal arguments include claims that the DOE failed to prove a shortage and did not consider how much consumers would have to pay.
At the same time, the Trump administration has stood by its actions, saying that keeping these coal plants available helps maintain power reliability during periods of high demand or severe weather. Officials argue that coal and other traditional energy sources provide “baseload” power that renewable sources like wind and solar can’t always supply. Supporters of this view say these orders protect households from blackouts or power interruptions.
Whether these emergency orders will continue, shrink, or change in future will likely depend on how courts rule in ongoing legal fights, how grid reliability predictions evolve, and whether state regulators successfully push back against federal decisions that override their long‑term planning.
In Minnesota, where officials and utilities have been planning to retire coal plants in favor of cleaner energy, these federal orders are adding uncertainty about future energy costs and could complicate efforts to build a more sustainable power system without imposing costs unfairly on local electricity customers.
