Trump administration's decision to keep Michigan power plant open comes with a hefty price tag for taxpayers, totaling around $113 million so far.
In May, the Trump administration ordered Consumers Energy to keep the aging 63-year-old JH Campbell coal plant in western Michigan online, despite it being scheduled for retirement. The move has been met with outrage from consumer advocates and environmental groups, who argue that the plant is expensive and emits high levels of toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas.
The costs of keeping the plant open will be borne by households across nine states in the Miso grid, stretching from eastern Montana to Michigan. This includes Michigan's northern and central regions. The expenses will be spread out over 90 days, with Consumers Energy estimating daily costs of $615,000.
Consumer advocates claim that the order is arbitrary and has led to unnecessary costs for ratepayers. Earthjustice, an organization suing over the order, described the coal plant as a "jalopy" that continues to rack up expenses. In contrast, Consumers Energy's CEO Gary Rochow argued that the Trump administration's order stated that ratepayers should bear the costs.
However, regulatory data shows that the energy department's claim about grid reliability was incorrect. The Miso grid had excess power during peak demand, and the plant often operated below capacity. Still, the plant costs taxpayers a substantial amount even when not operating at full capacity.
The decision to keep the Campbell plant open is part of a broader trend by the Trump administration to keep two Michigan coal plants online under its national energy emergency executive order. These plants are among the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution in the state.
Critics have accused the administration of ignoring local regulators and failing to consider environmental impacts. The Michigan public service commission (MPSC) has argued that keeping the plant open will increase power costs for homes and businesses across the midwest.
In May, the Trump administration ordered Consumers Energy to keep the aging 63-year-old JH Campbell coal plant in western Michigan online, despite it being scheduled for retirement. The move has been met with outrage from consumer advocates and environmental groups, who argue that the plant is expensive and emits high levels of toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas.
The costs of keeping the plant open will be borne by households across nine states in the Miso grid, stretching from eastern Montana to Michigan. This includes Michigan's northern and central regions. The expenses will be spread out over 90 days, with Consumers Energy estimating daily costs of $615,000.
Consumer advocates claim that the order is arbitrary and has led to unnecessary costs for ratepayers. Earthjustice, an organization suing over the order, described the coal plant as a "jalopy" that continues to rack up expenses. In contrast, Consumers Energy's CEO Gary Rochow argued that the Trump administration's order stated that ratepayers should bear the costs.
However, regulatory data shows that the energy department's claim about grid reliability was incorrect. The Miso grid had excess power during peak demand, and the plant often operated below capacity. Still, the plant costs taxpayers a substantial amount even when not operating at full capacity.
The decision to keep the Campbell plant open is part of a broader trend by the Trump administration to keep two Michigan coal plants online under its national energy emergency executive order. These plants are among the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution in the state.
Critics have accused the administration of ignoring local regulators and failing to consider environmental impacts. The Michigan public service commission (MPSC) has argued that keeping the plant open will increase power costs for homes and businesses across the midwest.
i dont get why they cant just close it already it's only 63 years old... does that even matter? 
and what does it have to do with the grid? shouldn't we be focusing on renewable energy sources instead of keeping an old power plant open? 
anyways, it seems like a lot of people are against this decision so maybe they'll change their minds or something... who knows 
It's just throwing good money after bad, ya know? And it's not just the cost to taxpayers that's the problem - the air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from that plant are a real concern for families with kids. I mean, do we really want our kids breathing in toxic air every time they go outside? 
As a parent, I just want my family to be safe and healthy, not worried about some outdated energy policy. Can't we just focus on progress and moving forward instead of going back to old ways that harm the planet? 
are they kidding me?! $113 million just because some old plant is still kicking? it's like, we're paying to keep an outdated machine running when we could be investing in clean energy? this is so not what I'd call "energy policy" - more like a giveaway to big polluters 
. And don't even get me started on the environmental impact – toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions? Not cool at all 
.
. Can't they see that keeping old, inefficient plants online is just a waste of money and resources? And what about the local regulators who are trying to do their job? Are we really supposed to ignore them? 
.
. We need to start making some serious changes around here – starting with taking care of our environment and our people, not just lining the pockets of corporate interests 
. And let's be real, we all know the environmental impact isn't exactly zero emissions 
. I'm not sure why the administration can't just let the plant retire already 
And what about all those other states that have to chip in too? 
It just seems like a big mess 
.
. Can't wait to see how many more billions we'll be shelling out for these outdated plants 
. I don't get why they're making ratepayers foot the bill for something that's just gonna cost us more in the long run 
This whole thing reeks of greed and short-sightedness 
. This is just another example of government overreach 
.
! I mean, who pays $113 million for a 63-year-old coal plant? 
️ It's like they're trying to make us pay for their environmental mistakes 
. And what's with the arbitrary decision-making process? Did they even consider the grid reliability thingy? 
i mean, who do they think they're helping? ratepayers in michigan and beyond are stuck with the bill 
. Anyway, I'm still hungry, anyone up for pancakes at 11 am on Saturday?
.
. I mean, who thought it was a good idea to keep a 'jalopy' plant online? 
#NotCool #TaxpayerSuckers #RenewableEnergyNow 
They're throwing money at it and still it's struggling. What's wrong with just retiring these outdated plants and moving on? We should be investing in new, cleaner energy sources, not keeping up this fossil fuel mess.
And don't even get me started on the regulatory data showing that the grid had excess power and the plant was always running below capacity... just more proof that this decision is a total farce. The MPSC is right, by the way - keeping this plant open will only increase costs for us in the Midwest. It's just so frustrating! 