Over the last two decades, utilities have closed hundreds of coal-fired power plants in favor of cheaper options like wind, solar and natural gas. The shift has cut U.S. carbon emissions and air pollution.
But since returning to office, the administration has issued emergency orders to keep eight coal units operating past their planned retirement dates, arguing that their closure would raise power bills and threaten grid stability. Environmental groups and several states have challenged the orders, saying the retirements are part of a planned transition, not a crisis.
Now, the administration is also facing pushback from two Colorado utilities, which say the federal government’s order is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Weirdly the law.
The federal government may have some level of legal jurisdiction. If the power company stops running the coal plant, in potential violation, they may incur fines or worse. In your example it could be argued as criminal/willful negligence.
Since the federal government is a powerful entity, the power companies have decided it is cheaper to just follow the potentially legal directive until the matter is settled on court. In fact their argument is that they have to charge their customers twice, so the cost for them is actually fairly minimal because they’re just directly passing the cost on.
I don’t know the specifics of the language being used here, but as an example let’s say the law is, “In cases of emergency, the federal government may require power companies to keep their plants open.” A reasonable law. Except “emergency” isn’t defined. So we go to the courts to determine what is reasonable, which takes long time.