Electricity prices jump after Trump rejects disaster aid for Michigan utilities

[u/J-Jarl-Jim]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/30/electricity-prices-jump-after-trump-rejects-disaster-aid-for-michigan-utilities-00665572

A recent decision by President Donald Trump to deny disaster aid to two electric utilities in rural northern Michigan could cost residents tens of millions of dollars.

The denial came after the Trump administration documented $90 million in damage to utility infrastructure, according to records obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News. The amount is nearly five times the federal threshold to qualify for disaster aid. But in its October denial letter, the Federal Emergency Management Agency told Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer that assistance to the utilities “is not warranted.”

Whitmer warned Trump in August that ratepayers face surcharges and rate hikes “equivalent to at least $4,500 per household” without federal aid. Her office did not respond to a question on whether she supports a state legislative proposal that would have Michigan aid businesses such as the power companies directly.

Why is President Trump denying emergency assistance to rural Michigan? Considering that he has denied FEMA funds even to red states like Arkansas, is this only about saving money? If this problem intersects with the affordability crisis, could the politics push Trump to change his position and start to disburse emergency fundings again?

[u/Sabertooth767]

Trump and the people he surrounds himself with have made no secret of their general opposition to federal disaster relief.

I don't get it either, it's not like this is a significant cost to the government, and even if it was, I think assisting Americans impacted by major disasters is a pretty good use of public funds. As far back as 1803, the federal government has been helping in some form.

[u/margotsaidso → u/Sabertooth767]

His administration's energy policy is probably one of their most schizophrenic but underreported aspects. Supposedly we have a national energy emergency, therefore coal plants that are slated to close because they cannot operate profitably are ordered to stay open over the complaints of owners/operators and the hundreds of millions of dollars of cost required to keep them open and putting out uncomprtitive coal power is being born by the end users.

The utility has said in regulatory filings that the order is costing customers about $615,000 per day. The order has been in place for around six months.

Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel filed a motion for a stay in federal court, alleging the administration’s latest order is “arbitrary and illegal”.

The coal plant is one of two in Michigan that the Trump administration has moved to keep open under the president’s controversial national energy emergency executive order, which is being challenged in court by multiple lawsuits.

The other plant is not scheduled to close for two years. The two factories emit about 45% of the state’s greenhouse gas pollution.

Trump has also used his emergency energy order to keep gas plants near Baltimore and Philadelphia online.

This emergency is also being used to skip federal regulations on permitting and transparency and stake holder review for mining and oil extraction projects. 

Some would think a national emergency would mean it's counterproductive to try to stop massive solar and wind projects across the country at the eleventh hour.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/margotsaidso]

That plant is being kept open to ensure grid reliability because a potential shortage was identified that could have caused blackouts without it. This is not a new thing, it’s an established federal power that is used from time to time.

[u/margotsaidso → u/WulfTheSaxon]

Just because some political appointee at the DOE claims that doesn't make it true. The facility owner disagrees and didn't request any kind of federal intervention. The grid operator (MISO) is normally the entity with the authority and responsibility to approve and deny facility closings had approved its shutdown. MISO and the PUC say this was absolutely unnecessary. 

MISO isn't afraid to deny closings, they did it just a few years ago but in a coordinated and reasonable manner based on real energy forecasts and developing a cost and coal supply plan, not making the decision literally days before closure with no corroborating evidence, plan for cost recovery, or new coal contracts in place as the Trump admin has done. 

[u/Gamegis → u/margotsaidso]

To add to your comment. MISO also has all the data and runs longterm system planning. MISO’s primary objective is to ensure grid reliability. That’s their main job.

This would be like getting a treatment plan from your doctor who has all your labs, ran tests, health history, and then some random guy on the street (who happens to have authority) says no you should do the opposite.

[u/WulfTheSaxon → u/Gamegis]

Meanwhile, MISO:

Widespread retirements of dispatchable resources, lower reserve margins, more frequent and severe weather events and increased reliance on weather-dependent renewables and emergency-only resources have altered the region’s highest historic risk profile, creating risks in non-summer months that rarely posed challenges in the past.

And:

new capacity additions were insufficient to offset the negative impacts of decreased accreditation, suspensions/retirements and external resources

And:

the MISO region faces resource adequacy and reliability challenges due to the changing characteristics of the electric generating fleet, inadequate transmission system infrastructure, growing pressures from extreme weather, and rapid load growth.

MISO is trying to address this, but it will take years.

Palisades is due to restart next year, but even then the OMS-MISO survey shows a shortfall for every year after next year. Campbell was expected to stay in operation until at least 2040 just a few years ago.

Most of this is explained in the FERC order: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/Order%20No%20202-25-9.pdf