The J.H. Campbell coal-fired power plant in western Michigan was mandated to remain operational by the Department of Energy, a move that sparked criticism from Democratic lawmakers and activists.
They argued that this decision would result in millions of dollars in costs for consumers. However, federal emissions and regulatory data shared with The Washington Free Beacon indicate that the plant has been profitable since the order was issued.
Michigan's Attorney General Dana Nessel (D.) claimed that this decision could "potentially put enormous costs onto utility customers who receive no real benefit." She argued that the order had cost the plant's operator, Consumers Energy, $29 million in just five weeks.
This sentiment was echoed by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D., N.M.), Rep. Hillary Scholten (D., Mich.), and leaders of climate groups such as Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund.
"Mandating this half-a-century-old coal plant to stay open will drive up electricity bills and pollution even higher for families and businesses," said Environmental Defense Fund director Ted Kelly. "It already cost nearly $30 million to keep the J.H. Campbell coal plant running for the first five weeks this summer."
These critics were referencing a quarterly financial filing from Consumers Energy, which stated that "the net financial impact of complying with the order was $29 million" by the end of June, 38 days after the order was issued. This figure was also cited by several news outlets, including the New York Times, Politico, and the Guardian.
However, a subsequent study by energy research firm Energy Ventures Analysis found that the $29 million figure did not account for the revenue generated by J.H. Campbell from selling electricity during that period. Power producers are paid on a rolling delay, not daily.
When these payments were factored in, the coal plant generated $33.7 million in revenue between late May and June 30, according to the study. This means that Consumers Energy actually made a profit of nearly $5 million during that period, rather than suffering $29 million in losses.
"We expect to present our full net costs in a filing to FERC later in the year," said Consumers Energy spokesman Brian Wheeler in a statement to the Free Beacon.
These figures seem to support the stance of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who has argued that the United States needs to maintain existing power sources like J.H. Campbell as power demand increases. "We must put an end to the dangerous energy subtraction policies embraced by politicians for too long," Wright said last week.
He renewed his order the day before, requiring J.H. Campbell to remain available through Nov. 19, 2025.
Wright's orders prevent the plant from closing and require it to remain available, but they do not mandate it to operate. However, Consumers Energy has kept the plant running at full capacity, suggesting that its power generation is crucial for maintaining the region's grid.
Energy Ventures Analysis determined in its study that the plant produced 64 percent of its total capacity in June, more than the average power plant.
"It's not losing $29 million a month. That's just not happening," said Phillip Graeter, Energy Ventures Analysis's director of energy markets and the author of the firm's study.
"Just the fact that it operated shows that it was part of the group of power plants that were cheap enough to provide power during that period of time. Without the plant, you would have had to use a unit that was higher in cost," he continued. "It would have been more expensive for electric customers in Michigan without the Campbell power plant."
The J.H. Campbell plant has a generation capacity of approximately 1,450 megawatts, enough to supply power to a million Michigan residents. Despite its size and apparent profitability, Consumers Energy initially planned to close the plant as part of its plans to eliminate its coal fleet, reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent, and comply with Michigan's green energy mandate law phasing out coal-fired power by 2030.
The plant is one of many fossil fuel power plants across the country that have been closed or are planned to be closed in the coming years. However, experts have warned that these plans, largely driven by state and federal climate policies, could severely impact the power grid.
According to the nation's top grid watchdog, the Midwest is at "high risk" of shortfalls largely due to the planned retirements of power plants like J.H. Campbell.
"Closing this plant was done because of political goals for a future that they might want to usher in, not out of actual necessity on the ground," said Joshua Antonini, an energy research analyst for the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy. "Clearly, the actual necessity on the ground is we need these plants open."
"One of the important emphases here is the importance of a continuously running grid. It's a thing we take for granted," he continued. "The entirety of modern society is dependent upon available, affordable, and reliable electricity. To jeopardize that and not have legitimate options in lieu of the status quo is a recipe for catastrophe."
Login