Counterintuitive Questions Raised by Recent DOE Electric Emergency Orders

Last month, we wrote about a suite of energy-focused orders issued by the Trump Administration. Since then, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has issued three additional orders related to electricity generation or transmission in Puerto Rico (here and here) and Michigan (here) under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).

These orders aim to ensure grid reliability amidst challenges involving weather, infrastructure, and shifts in energy policy. As we discuss below, while these orders may appear ideological, they are targeted to specific local problems that could cause blackouts.

Resilience in US Generation Policy

Federal and state governments, along with private actors, play crucial roles in US electric generation policymaking. The DOE and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) set national energy policies, while state governments implement local priorities, leading to a diverse energy landscape. Weather impacts both electric demand and infrastructure itself. Federal and state officials share the responsibility to responding to weather events, with federal officials responsible for setting standards for resilience projects, funding initiatives, and coordinating emergency response.

In April, the president issued an Executive Order titled “Strengthening the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid,” which expanded the role of the federal government in energy policy. Specifically, it authorized the use of emergency powers to require existing fossil fuel-fired power plants to stay online. Citing its earlier declaration of a “National Energy Emergency,” the Administration preemptively invoked Section 202 of the FPA, which allows FERC to require specific energy generation or facility interconnection to meet energy demands in times of war or emergency. The three orders discussed below are the first the Administration has issued under this authority.

May 16 Puerto Rico Orders

Puerto Rico’s electrical grid faces challenges stemming both from geography (i.e., being a tropical island without fossil fuel resources) as well as history (e.g., underinvestment and weather events, including three hurricanes and major earthquakes in the past decade). In April, following an island-wide blackout, the governor of Puerto Rico issued Executive Order EO-2025-016, declaring a state of emergency for Puerto Rico’s electric system.

On May 16, citing Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, DOE issued two emergency orders to the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). The first order sets out emergency measures for generation and the second sets out emergency measures for transmission. The orders together compel short-term actions to address well-known risks to the stability of Puerto Rico’s electric grid.

The risks are both recently chronicled and not in dispute. This year, a systems analysis, conducted by Puerto Rican officials, determined that any major generation unit anywhere on the island would result in significant numbers of Puerto Ricans losing access to power. To minimize potential power losses, DOE ordered that 34 fossil-fuel fired units, some of them mothballed, be made available for 90 days (subject to being extended) to promote grid reliability.

In terms of transmission, DOE’s order also notes that Puerto Rico’s transmission lines are “currently operated with up to 70% derating to avoid failures from infrastructure conditions (e.g. line sagging into vegetation)” and that lack of vegetation control on transmission and distribution rights-of-ways is “one of the main causes of power failures.” Localized transmission failures can cascade into larger issues. Accordingly, DOE ordered PREPA to reestablish rights-of-way by managing vegetation and report back to DOE on its progress in 90 days, with DOE deploying regulatory heft to addressing long-term issues to the Puerto Rico electric grid.

The Michigan Order

A week later, DOE issued an emergency order to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) and Consumers Energy directing them to “take all measures necessary to ensure that the Campbell Plant [set to close on May 31, 2025] is available to operate.” The Campbell plant was rated to produce 1,560 MW of electricity. This order trumps a state order — supported by the facility owner — to shut down the plant.

The Michigan order noted that “[m]ultiple generation facilities in Michigan have retired in recent years” and since “2020, about 2,700 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity have been retired and no new coal-fired facilities are planned.” Indeed, since the middle of 2024, 1,575 megawatts of capacity were retired. A regulatory assessment issued May 14 forecast an increased potential for regulatory shortfalls. To address these forecasted shortfalls, the order requires that, for a period of 90 days, MISO and Consumers must “take all measures necessary to ensure that the Campbell Plant is available to operate. For the duration of this order, MISO is directed to take every step to employ economic dispatch of the Campbell Plant to minimize cost to ratepayers.” The essential effect of this order is that the Campbell Plant will continue to operate for at least the next 90 days to better allow DOE to understand whether shutting down the plant will negatively affect the overall electric grid.

What to Watch

We’ve talked a lot about the Administration’s energy deregulation. How do the DOE orders listed above fit within that deregulation scheme? Here are three notable points about how they may be consistent:

1. The Orders are Not Necessarily Ideological

It is easy to see power generation as an ideological issue particularly in light of the Administration’s desire to “Reinvigorate America’s Beautiful Clean Coal.” But, at least in the short term, fossil fuel generation would continue in Puerto Rico as it always has because, according to federal regulators, fossil fuel plants accounted for 93% of Puerto Rico’s generation capacity in 2024, with petroleum-fired power plants themselves accounting for 62%. Rather than encouraging the reduction of fossil fuels, the orders largely seem focused on minimizing blackouts.

2. Local Control of Power Generation Isn’t Ending

The orders likely reflect a cautious approach intended to promote grid stability and likely do not themselves address the transition from fossil fuels. The orders in both states react to local conditions, such as recent grid instability in Puerto Rico and Michigan’s spate of fossil fuel resource retirement. In both locations, the orders are at least nominally consistent with local political realities. The transmission-focused order in Puerto Rico indicates that some of the concerns raised in the order originated at recent meetings with local stakeholders. Puerto Rican government officials reportedly supported the orders. In Michigan, this order followed a May 7 county commission resolution requesting that state regulators postpone the plant’s retirement.

3. The Orders Will Last Longer Than Previous 202(c) Orders

Finally, the FPA 202(c) orders here initially last 90 days with requirements for reporting back to DOE. When DOE has used emergency orders in the past, the authorizations have generally lasted hours or days — not months — and are frequently tied to specific events like weather. (See examples here and here.) During the first Administration DOE entertained (but denied) a request from coal-related generation concerns to keep a number of coal-fired plants running for grid reliability concerns using the same provision.

The Puerto Rico and Michigan orders were issued under FPA Section 202(c) and were intended to address “emergency” situations, rather than FPA Section 202(b), which federal regulators have historically used to improve operational efficiency and reliability of the electric grid under non-emergency conditions. The longer-than-typical duration of these emergency orders and the nature of the “emergency” is unique and worth monitoring.

Members of the firm’s Environmental, Energy & Cleantech, and Environmental, Social & Governance teams regularly monitor regulatory and court decisions affecting the energy space.