EGEGazette
Live
Houthis Accuse Saudi Arabia of 28 Airstrikes in 24 Hours; U.S. Intelligence Chief Visits CairoWashington Warns Citizens of Unexpected Escalation in Middle EastIran Says Strait of Hormuz Will Stay Closed Until US Meets Its ConditionsTrump faces dual setback as U.S. courts block voting and immigration restrictionsLawsuit Filed Against Trump and His Company Over Paid Early Access Service to His PostsTrump Renews Bid to Restrict Birthright Citizenship Through Curbing "Birth Tourism"Trump Cuts Camp David Vacation Short Amid Middle East Escalation WarningsTrump Cuts Short Vacation, Returns to White House as US Issues "Possible Escalation" Warning in Middle EastReporters From CNN, MS NOW and Politico Denied White House Access After Trump BanFederal Immigration Agent Shoots and Injures Man in Austin, TexasPowerful Explosions Reported in Syria's Aleppo CountrysideSix Pakistani soldiers, including two officers, killed in clash near Afghan border
politicsReported

Judge Rejects DOE's Coal Plant Emergency Order Issued Under Trump Administration

A court has thrown out a Department of Energy declaration that kept a coal-fired power plant running past its planned closure, finding the claimed energy emergency did not exist, according to Ars Technica.

· 1 min read · language: en
Article image
Ars Technica

A federal judge has rejected an emergency order issued by the U.S. Department of Energy that had forced the extended operation of a coal-fired power plant, according to a report by Ars Technica.

The Department of Energy, during the Trump administration, had declared an energy emergency as the legal basis for keeping the coal plant running beyond its scheduled retirement date, the report said.

According to Ars Technica, the court found that the emergency cited by the department did not actually exist, and on that basis threw out the forced extension.

The ruling represents a setback for the administration's use of emergency declarations to intervene in decisions about power plant retirements, the report indicated.

Ars Technica's report did not specify further details about the plant's location, the identity of the judge, or the broader implications of the ruling for other coal facilities that may have received similar extensions.

This report is based on information provided by Ars Technica; additional details about the case, including specific parties involved and the court's full reasoning, were not included in the available source material.

Sources

EGazette summarizes reporting from multiple sources; follow the links for the originals.

Also available in: ARFRTRUR

Related articles

Comments

Sign in to join the conversation.

Forgot password?

No account?

Loading comments…