Michigan, environmental groups challenge federal order to keep power plant open
The environmental coalition said there's no energy emergency that would justify keeping Consumers Energy's J.H. Campbell plant alive in Ottawa County, near Lake Michigan.
The U.S. Energy Department 'has no authority to compel Consumers to rehabilitate — and effectively reconstruct — the increasingly unreliable plant, nor to override the state's and utility's decision to replace the plant with less expensive and cleaner sources,' the 54-page petition says.
Consumers Energy had planned to close the power station by May 31 as part of a transition to cleaner energy. But the Energy Department intervened just days earlier, saying the plant must remain open, at least until late August, because of possible electricity shortfalls in the central U.S.
The Midcontinent Independent System Operator, known as MISO, manages the flow of electricity in 15 U.S. states and Manitoba in Canada. MISO has said there should be enough electricity this summer though it cited the potential for 'elevated risk' during extreme weather.
'This type of order is fairly unprecedented,' said lawyer Shannon Fisk of Earthjustice. 'It's a fabricated emergency.'
There was no immediate response to an email seeking comment from the Energy Department. Consumers Energy said it is complying with the federal order.
'The first coal delivery arrived at the plant before the original May 31 decommissioning date,' spokesperson Brian Wheeler said.
It's unclear whether the challenges by Attorney General Dana Nessel and environmental groups would be settled by the end of August when the order expires. Fisk said the order could be extended. A lawsuit also could be pursued.
In Pennsylvania, an oil-and-gas plant was also ordered to keep its turbines running as a hedge against electricity shortages in the 13-state mid-Atlantic grid. The Eddystone plant is just south of Philadelphia on the Delaware River.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
13 hours ago
- The Hindu
PM Surya Ghar scheme: Karnataka moves at snail's pace
The introduction of the Gruha Jyothi scheme, along with the lack of ease in installation process, has contributed to the slow progress of PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojana, under which subsidy is provided for the installation of rooftop solar systems to residential consumers, in Karnataka. The State so far had only 10,022 installations which is the lowest in South India. The latest data by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy to the Rajya Sabha shows that there are 80,856 installations under the scheme in Kerala, 29,211 in Tamil Nadu, 16,556 in Andhra Pradesh, and 13,677 in Telangana. According to data by electricity supply companies (escoms), since the introduction of the scheme in 2022, across five escoms 2,21,273 applications have been received for the scheme, but not all of them have resulted in installations. Bescom has the maximum number of installations (4,245), while Gescom has the least (539), despite the region receiving ample sunlight throughout the year making it ideal for solar generation. 'When the Surya Ghar programme was launched, many people mistakenly believed that it offered fully subsidised rooftop solar systems. They assumed they could install solar panels at no cost, generate electricity for personal use, and earn income by selling the surplus to the grid. This misunderstanding led to a surge in applications,' a senior officer from Gescom explained. The utility has received over 10,000 applications for the scheme. He further cited the State's Gruha Jyothi scheme, which offers free electricity for households consuming up to 200 units a month, as another reason for the limited uptake. 'When people are already receiving free power, they are understandably reluctant to invest their own money in rooftop solar installations,' he said. 'To address this, we are now shifting focus towards households that consume over 200 units per month, as they have a clear incentive to adopt the Surya Ghar programme.' Commenting on the overall slow progress of the State under the scheme, Gaurav Gupta, Additional Chief Secretary, Energy Department, said that the scheme stagnated in the vendor selection stage. 'When the scheme was introduced, everyone applied. But when it came to the selection of vendors and banks online, they did not go ahead with it as they realised they had to take out a loan to get the subsidy. When there is free power under Gruha Jyothi scheme, they were not willing to take out loans to set up solar plants. None of them selected vendors and the process went into limbo.' Out of over 2 lakh people who had applied for the scheme, only 19,103 went for vendor selection, the data shows. The Energy Department now looks to pursue more consumers to opt for gross metering (under which the electricity generated will be sold directly to the grid instead of domestic consumption). 'People now feel that they will not get return on investment if they invest in solar plants residentially. Hence, Energy Minister K.J. George recently held a review and said that in order to provide some kind of benefit to consumers, we will push more electricity into the grid instead of domestic consumption (net metering). The rates will be applicable as per the tariff determined by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC)'. Consumers' side For consumers, what keeps them away from going ahead with the process is the hurdles they face along the way. Many of them complain that vendors and the sub-division officers demand bribes which deters them from going ahead with the installation. Rohit Agasarahalli, a lecturer by profession from Shivamogga district, said that at the time of constructing his house, he had taken permission for the load of 1 kW. But he wanted to extend it to 5 kW to avail himself of the PM Surya Ghar scheme. 'The process of enhancing the load took a lot of time,' he said. At one point he was so fed up that he wanted to give up. However, he continued and got the load extension. 'Finally, it worked out and I got the system installed. The subsidy amount was released once the generation started,' he said. He said that in order to make the scheme attractive, it should be made more consumer friendly. 'The system should be so simple that the beneficiary should be paying the required fee and expense, and the implementing agency or the vendor should be handling the rest of the work, including the extension of the load allotted. Then, people might opt for the scheme,' he stated. (With inputs from Kumar Buradikatti and Sathish G.T.)
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Nato remains ambiguous about goals in new world
At the close of the Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Summit 2025 in The Hague, alliance members made a landmark decision: All 32 nations agreed to raise defence spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. The new pledge, up from the long-standing 2% benchmark, marks the most ambitious military investment target in the alliance's history and reflects mounting security concerns across the Euro-Atlantic space. US President Donald Trump hailed the agreement as a 'monumental win' for Washington, claiming that it corrected longstanding imbalances in Nato's burden-sharing. Despite growing anxiety over global hotspots, the summit avoided direct mentions of several key geopolitical challenges (Bloomberg) The summit declaration outlined that the 5% commitment will be split into two distinct categories. Around 3.5% of GDP will go toward traditional defence spending aligned with Nato capability targets, covering military hardware, force readiness, and interoperability. The remaining 1.5% will be directed toward emerging non-military threats — securing critical infrastructure, cyber defence, civil preparedness, innovation, and the defence industrial base. Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte, hosting his first summit in the role, emphasised that this investment 'will ensure we have the forces, capabilities, resources, infrastructure, and resilience needed to deter and defend in line with our three core tasks: deterrence and defence, crisis prevention and management, and cooperative security.' Yet, despite the show of unity on funding, the summit exposed cracks beneath the surface. Several members, including Spain and Slovakia, pushed back on the timeline. Spain openly stated that it would not be able to meet the 5% target before 2035, while Slovakia argued that competing economic priorities such as improving living standards and reducing debt made the goal unrealistic. France's President Emmanuel Macron offered guarded support for the new defence goals but expressed concern about broader alliance coherence. Stressing that Russia remained Nato's principal threat, Macron warned against allowing intra-alliance trade tensions to escalate. 'We can't say we're going to spend more on defence and then start a trade war within Nato,' he said, alluding to new US tariffs on European goods. 'It's an aberration. It's time we returned to the principle of trade peace among allies.' In a subtle rebuke of recent US actions, Macron added that he had raised this concern directly with President Trump. 'We cannot build a stronger Europe within Nato while undermining our economic unity,' he said. Despite growing anxiety over global hotspots, the summit avoided direct mentions of several key geopolitical challenges. There was no formal communique on Russia, China, the Indo-Pacific, or flashpoints like Gaza and Iran. While leaders addressed some of these issues in sideline meetings, their omission from the official agenda raised eyebrows. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz acknowledged the shifting focus. Merz also lobbied the US for stronger economic measures against Moscow and added that there needs to be more economic pressure, especially 'on those enabling Russia by buying its fossil fuels — namely China and India.' Trump, for his part, maintained ambiguity on Nato's Article 5 — its core clause of mutual defence. When asked during a bilateral with Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof whether he remained committed to Article 5, Trump responded: 'I stand with it. That's why I'm here.' This came just a day after he had publicly remarked there were 'numerous definitions' of the clause, leading to unease among allies. He also made headlines with a controversial comment about the ongoing Israel-Iran tensions. He claimed both nations were 'tired' and ready to 'go home,' though he warned that the conflict could 'perhaps soon' reignite. Is the US hands off or on in the Middle East? In contrast to past summits, where unity against adversaries like Russia or growing concern over China's Indo-Pacific ambitions dominated discussions, this year's gathering seemed adrift in a sea of rising budgets but unclear strategic purpose. Is Nato marooned on an island of anxiety, preparing for unknown threats without a clear definition of who the enemy is? This strategic ambiguity underscored a deeper issue — while Nato is now better funded, questions linger about what exactly it is preparing to confront. With global power dynamics in flux, and transatlantic relationships under increasing strain, the alliance is investing heavily in its future, but the direction of that future remains uncertain. Gurjit Singh is a former ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Asean and the African Union. The views expressed are personal.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
NATO's 5% pledge: Rearming the West or rebalancing the world
In an era where geopolitical boundaries are blurred and warfare has morphed from trenches to tech, NATO 's recent commitment to invest 5% of GDP annually in defence by 2035 sends a thunderous signal—not just to adversaries, but to allies questioning the alliance's strategic relevance. The Hague Summit Declaration, adopted by 32 member states, marked a pivotal moment in transatlantic security thinking. The question now is whether this is a forward-looking strategy or a reactionary bulwark clinging to the past paradigms. At the core of the declaration lies an emphatic reaffirmation of Article 5—the principle that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all NATO members. However, the real headline is the proposed ramp-up in defence and security-related spending: 3.5% of GDP earmarked for traditional defence infrastructure and capabilities, and an additional 1.5% for resilience, critical infrastructure protection, and innovation. This is a fundamental reset of NATO's budgetary posture, reflective of a world no longer anchored to the certainties of post-Cold War peace. The strategic rationale behind this move is evident in the literature. From Russia's protracted war in Ukraine to hybrid warfare tactics deployed through cyberattacks, misinformation campaigns, and economic coercion, the threats facing the Euro-Atlantic region are no longer just physical; they are systemic. However, the implications of NATO's new doctrine stretch far beyond Europe. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo By including Ukraine's security under the umbrella of NATO's own, the alliance is signalling that Kyiv's stability is no longer peripheral—it is central to the European defence architecture. Although the declaration stops short of directly naming Russia as an aggressor, it unequivocally categorises it as a long-term threat. The political calculus here is clear: to maintain unity among diverse member states while advancing a credible deterrent posture. However, pledging 5% of GDP—especially in times of economic uncertainty, rising public debt, and shrinking fiscal room—will not be without domestic blowback. For many European countries, where defence budgets have long played second fiddle to social spending, the pivot will require not only financial reallocation but also political will. The path to 2035 will be fraught with parliamentary debates, economic trade-offs, and inevitable scrutiny from taxpayers questioning the utility of militarisation during peacetime. Live Events That said, NATO's blueprint smartly distinguishes between "hard power" and 'soft shield' spending. By allocating up to 1.5% for cyber defense , critical infrastructure, industrial innovation, and civil preparedness, the alliance acknowledges the multidimensional nature of modern warfare. Drones, AI, satellite technologies, and quantum encryption will define future battles. This is NATO's attempt to future-proof itself. Another compelling aspect of the declaration is its call to dismantle internal defence trade barriers and catalyse transatlantic industrial cooperation. The subtext? Europe's dependence on American defence systems must evolve into a mutual technological collaboration. With U.S. domestic politics becoming increasingly isolationist and polarised, especially in light of looming electoral uncertainties, Europe has no choice but to shoulder more of the strategic burden of NATO. The timing of this declaration cannot be ignored. This occurs at a time when questions are being raised about the longevity of American leadership and the cohesion of Western alliances. Populist politics, migration crises, climate-induced conflicts, and digital disruptions are redrawing the map of security concerns. In this light, NATO's 5% commitment is as much about deterrence as it is about staying relevant. However, for all its ambition, the declaration raises a philosophical question: can militarised investment alone secure peace in a world where most battles are fought in cyberspace, legislatures, and courtrooms? While NATO shores up its arsenal, adversaries weaponize currency systems, manipulate public opinion through AI-generated propaganda, and infiltrate supply chains. In such a scenario, defence must be defined not only by missiles and manpower but also by legal resilience, technological agility, and economic fortitude. In its closing remarks, the summit's declaration looks ahead—to Türkiye in 2026 and Albania thereafter. Symbolically, this eastward shift in NATO meeting venues reflects a changing strategic frontier. The frontlines are no longer confined to the Fulda Gap but extend into the Black Sea, Indo-Pacific, and digital cloud networks connecting us all. Ultimately, NATO's 5% pledge is more than just a budgetary item. It is a test of collective resolve in a fractured global order. If implemented wisely—with strategic clarity, equitable burden-sharing, and an eye on emerging threats—it could become a blueprint for securing liberal democracies in a multipolar, volatile world. But if the focus remains confined to tanks and treaties while ignoring the algorithmic and institutional battlefields of the 21st century, NATO risks building a fortress for yesterday's war The author is Department of Commerce, Assistant Professor and Research Supervisor, St. Thomas College (Autonomous), Thrissur, Kerala
