Ohio River Valley Institute

This analysis is an expanded and updated version of an earlier presentation to the Ohio River Valley Institute.

A new report describes the exponential rise in the development of gas-fired power in the US, primarily for data centers. According to Global Energy Monitor, the US nearly tripled its gas-fired capacity in development in 2024, totalling almost 252 gigawatts (GW), a volume roughly equivalent to the sum of plans for China, Vietnam, Taiwan, and South Korea. If all in-development plants are built, the US’s existing gas fleet would grow by nearly 50%. More than one-third of gas-fired power generation capacity under development in the US is slated to serve data centers on site, or “behind-the-meter.”

Data center expansion is one of the single-most important drivers of new gas demand in the US, and is evidenced by a new trend of Big Tech entering long-term contracts with gas companies to supply on-site power generation. The top five hyperscalers announced plans to spend $700 billion in 2026, driven by AI and data center development. This development means significant new demand for electricity, much of which will be supplied by gas. Though exact figures on data center expansion are difficult to nail down, several long-term agreements have made national headlines.

Much of this growth is slated for Appalachia: 8.8 GW of on-site (behind-the-meter) gas-fired power generation is at various stages of development in Pennsylvania, all of which would be fueled by Appalachian gas.

Data center growth in other parts of the country could also mean increased gas production in Appalachia. For example, many of the new gas power plants coming online in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama to replace older plants (including coal-fired ones) could be serviced by gas produced in Appalachia thanks to new pipeline capacity under development (i.e. MVP and several projects along or near Transco and Tennessee Gas Pipeline systems).

Global Energy Monitor’s findings mirror other recent studies, including a new report released by Cleanview in January 2025. According to Cleanview’s study, more than 50 GW of behind-the-meter projects were announced in 2025, including 7.5 GW in Pennsylvania, 2 GW in West Virginia, and 1.1 GW in Ohio.

 

Long-term growth

According to the Energy Information Agency’s latest Annual Energy Outlook, Appalachian gas production is expected to increase substantially from 37 Bcf/d in 2025 to between 66 Bcf/d and 73 Bcf/d by 2050. Appalachian gas could account for nearly half of all natural gas produced in the US. This Appalachian gas production would increasingly meet gas demand across the US in the coming decades, including the massive LNG buildout and ensuing demand growth along the Gulf Coast. EIA describes several reasons for this demand growth.

Associated gas production linked to crude oil in the Permian is expected to decline over the same period. The Haynesville basin, where production has grown recently thanks to its proximity to the Gulf’s LNG terminals, is deeper and will be increasingly more expensive to drill, limiting its longer-term outlook.

EIA expects that as Appalachian gas production increases and as gas prices continue to rise along the Gulf, significantly more gas will flow between the Mid-Atlantic and Ohio region (Appalachia production zones) to the Midwest. At the same time, the volume of gas moving from the Midwest region to South Central increases significantly as it becomes more favorable for midstream companies to invest in pipelines and associated infrastructure to transport cheaper Appalachian gas to the Gulf.

This illustrates how Appalachian gas will increasingly flow south through the Midwest to meet LNG demand on the growth, as well as growing gas demand centers in the Southeast. The dramatic increase of gas flows from Appalachia into the Midwest and from the Midwest into South Central will necessitate pipeline development to increase takeaway capacity out of Appalachia.

 

LNG capacity ramps up

LNG exports are contributing to all-time high residential electricity rates and LNG capacity is set to grow even more. Three new LNG export facilities are driving this year’s growth: Plaquemines LNG, Corpus Christi Stage 3, and Golden Pass LNG. Meanwhile, five additional LNG export projects in the US reached financial investment decisions (FID) and are currently under construction: Golden Pass LNGPort Arthur LNG, Rio Grande LNG, Woodside Louisiana LNG, and CP2 LNG. LNG export capacity could reach as much as 21.1 Bcf/d (25.2 Bcf/d peak) by 2028 from just the first three projects.

At the same time, top Appalachian gas producers, including EQT and Wjlliams, have secured contracts with LNG terminals on the Gulf to buy LNG and sell it directly to customers in Europe and Asia. After buying cargoes from the terminals, the companies can sell them to Europe and Asia at higher prices than they can get in the US. These purchase agreements represent a major expansion for these gas companies, allowing them to control more of the supply chain and to capture the price spread between US domestic gas and international prices.

Capital spending by the 13 largest midstream companies rose 14% in 2024 and 20% in 2025, representing a rebound in midstream investment followed by a period of restraint after 2020, as reported by industry analyst RBN Energy. Most of the gas supply for LNG terminals along the Gulf will come from the Permian and Haynesville basins in the near term; however, Appalachian gas will meet much of the demand growth from power generation and data centers.

 

Pipeline buildout meets sluggish growth

Appalachian gas production has been hovering between 34 and 36 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) since 2020 due to constraints from limited pipeline takeaway capacity. Since then, however, Appalachian gas production grew 2.1 Bcf/d from 2024 to 2026, largely thanks to the June 2024 startup of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP). MVP directed up to 2.0 Bcf/d of gas from northwest West Virginia toward the Southeast and now two MVP expansion projects are in development: the MVP Boost, which would increase the mainline capacity to 2.6 Bcf/d, and the MVP Southgate project, which would extend the MVP mainline from its terminus in Pittsylvania County, Virginia to new interconnections in Rockingham County, North Carolina.

Pipeline projects are also slated to expand capacity and de-bottleneck interstate corridors. Examples include a slew of expansions along the Transco interstate pipeline, the Appalachia Reliability project along the Eastern Gas Transmission system, and a series of projects along the Texas Gas Transmission system.

Boardwalk’s Borealis pipeline would extend the Texas Gas Transmission (TGT) pipeline across Ohio, expanding Appalachian gas producers’ access to customers in the Midwest and Gulf Coast. The project is designed to work in concert with Boardwalk’s expansion plans elsewhere on the TGT system, an interstate pipeline that spans eight states from Ohio to Louisiana. FERC is reviewing the Kosci Junction project, a 1.6 Bcf/d capacity pipeline that would extend the TGT system across Mississippi, terminating at Transco Station 85. If Boardwalk completes both the Borealis and the Kosci Junction projects, it would be the first time the Clarington hub in Appalachia would directly connect to the premium Station 85 market, on the border of Mississippi and Alabama.

 

Near-term uncertainty

Even though national trends indicate that natural gas production in Appalachia is likely to grow in the coming decades, the immediate outlook is a murkier prospect.

Nearly every major player in the Marcellus and Utica gas basin discussed expectations for higher gas demand from new power generation in and near their production areas, with the majority of anticipated power generation being tied to planned data centers.

For example, Appalachia’s largest producer, EQT, will supply 665 MMcf/d of gas to a planned 4.4 GW power station in Homer City, and 800 MMcf/d to a 3.6 GW power plant in Shippingport, PA, each of which will support large data center campuses. NextEra Energy and Google announced plans to partner in multiple sites across the US to scale hyperscale data center campuses with on-site power generation. Likewise, Williams is developing three major gas plants in Ohio to fuel Meta’s hyperscale complexes.

At the same time, EIA predicts Appalachian production will see modest growth in the near term, rising 0.4 Bcf/d in 2026 and 0.7 Bcf/d in 2027. EIA’s latest Short-Term Energy Outlook does not adequately account for the emerging trend of recent data center-related increase in planned gas-fired power capacity but it’s unlikely that all of the proposed data centers in the US will move forward, making it difficult to understand the short-term impact on gas production in Appalachia.

A recent analysis from Aurora Energy Research determined that potentially two thirds of announced data center capacity was “speculative”, meaning that these developers have yet to secure site control, obtain permits, or don’t have active interconnection requests. The bulk of the remaining planned capacity is associated with “newcomers”, or companies with no current operational capacity, which calls into question just how much of the new gas-fired power capacity assessed by the Global Energy Monitor will actually materialize.

The post Appalachian Gas: Near-Term and Long-Term Trends appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

Coal Plant Orders Cost Consumers Millions & Drive Utility Bills Higher

• Each time a coal plant is ordered to stay open – utility bill rates increase.
• Forcing coal plants to stay open after closure drives up electricity costs because coal power is more expensive to produce.
• In September 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) also announced that $625 million in taxpayer dollars would be given to corporate coal plant owners.
• Private energy markets have already decided that coal power is too expensive. According to a 2025 analysis by the financial advisory firm Lazard, electricity from coal-fired power plants costs an average of $122 per megawatt-hour. That same power can be produced for $78 from natural gas plants, $61 from onshore wind & $58 from utility-scale solar. See Lazard LLC’s Levelized Cost of Energy at page 10.
• Forcing coal plants to operate requires consumers to pay higher costs (see below).

Chart from E360 Digest, Yale Univ. Jan. 5, 2026 – A Year of Clean Energy Milestones. Today, wind & solar are cheaper than coal & natural gas. Increasingly, they are boosted by ever more affordable batteries, which have gotten 90% cheaper over the last decade.

 

Independent National Report on Coal Plant Orders & Consumer Costs

In an unprecedented use of federal authority, President Donald Trump’s administration has invoked emergency powers to force a series of retiring coal plants to stay open. Utilities, states and grid operators have said the aging plants are expensive, in bad repair, and no longer needed to meet regional energy needs. But Trump’s coal plant orders have forced plant operators to continue investing in the facilities – a move that consumer advocates fear could mean billions of dollars in added costs for customers in dozens of states. Trump is forcing coal plants to stay open. It could cost customers billions by Alex Brown – Stateline – March 19, 2026

 

Coal Plant Orders May Cost Ratepayers $3 Billion to $6 Billion Nationwide

• Energy analysts say Trump’s efforts to keep fossil fuel-powered plants open could become very costly to ratepayers. A recent Report published by Grid Strategies LLC found that as many as 90 aging plants could be subject to similar emergency orders during the remainder of Trump’s term. The Report found that keeping those plants open could cost ratepayers anywhere from $3 billion to $6 billion a year.
• “What the DOE is doing is picking losers, the uneconomical plants that the utilities, the regulators, everybody agreed need to retire & be replaced with something cheaper and more efficient,” said Michael Goggin, who authored the report.

The Report estimated that Pennsylvania consumers alone could pay $138 million in higher utility bills. See, The Cost of Federal Mandates at page 8.

 

Trump’s Eddystone Power Plant Order Will Cost PA Consumers Millions

A recent Sierra Club Report estimated that the gross cost to operate two Eddystone Power Plant units in Chester County, Pennsylvania to be approximately $34,336 per day. This Report was completed in March 2026 before the Iran War increased the costs of fossil fuels – so this estimate is almost certainly low. The Trump administration invoked section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to force the Eddystone plant to stay open. See Aging Pennsylvania power plant to keep running after Trump order on eve of shutdown by: Jon Hurdle, Inside Climate News – June 9, 2025 – DOE says the plant will help avert an energy “emergency.” Environmentalists say there’s no such crisis.

 

Eddystone Power Plant’s Owners Will Be Allowed to Charge the Costs of Keeping the Power Plant Operating to PA Consumers.

According to a presentation by Pennsylvania’s Electricity Grid operator, PJM – Constellation Energy will be permitted to charge PA consumers with the additional costs of keeping the Eddystone Power Plant open and is also allowed to charge a 110% profit on those costs. See Education on Federal Power Authority Section 202(c) and DACC Cost Allocation by Thomas DeVita, PJM Legal & Lisa Morelli, PJM Settlements – Meeting of June 10, 2025.

This is because DOE’s May 30, 2025 Order found that an emergency existed in portions of the PJM footprint “due to a shortage of facilities for the generation of electric energy, resource adequacy concerns, and other causes,” & directed  that PJM and Constellation Energy take “all measures necessary” to ensure that the Eddystone Units are available for continued operation. See Report Here. PJM explained:

• DOE’s Order directed PJM & Constellation to “file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission any tariff revisions or waivers necessary to effectuate this Order,” and further specified that “[r]ate recovery is available pursuant to [FPA section 202(c)].”
• Constellation has communicated its agreement to utilize the Deactivation Avoidable Cost Credit (“DACC”), as described in Part V of the PJM Tariff. PJM is willing to agree on the DACC Credit for the Eddystone Units. See Report at page 9.
• The applicable multiplier for the 1st year is 110% & escalates by 10% each year up to a 150% cap. 110% is the multiplier for Eddystone in 2026. See Report at page 9.

 According to Grid Strategies, “Forcing utilities to continue to operate unneeded and costly coal-fired power plants past their planned retirement increases the electric bills paid by homeowners and businesses. It also undermines the competitiveness of U.S. businesses such as manufacturing by raising electric rates.” See Grid Strategies Report.

The same is true for Constellation Energy, the owner of the Eddystone Plant. Constellation made the economic/business decision to shut Eddystone down. DOE’s Order forced it open again. PA consumers will foot the bill for the extra costs created by DOE’s Order. Sierra Club is keeping a running tab of consumer costs for six of DOE’s power plant Orders (including Eddystone).

 

Case Study on Forced Coal Plant Orders: J.H. Campbell Power Plant

The costs to consumers of forced coal plant reopenings are processed through time consuming and complicated state utility reviews and processes. These cost increases move slowly, but the DOE Orders will allow utilities to charge consumers and ratepayers for the costs of reopening old coal plants. Many of these cost increases are still in process.

However, a May 23, 2026 DOE Order forcing Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant in West Olive, Michigan to continue operating offers a good case study on the actual costs to consumers. See Keeping Michigan coal plant open under Trump orders cost $615K a day by Lucas Smolcic Larson, MLive.com, Oct. 31, 2025. This is because Consumers Energy, the plant owner, has claimed in legal filings that in just over four months, the utility ran up $80 million in net costs to keep the J.H. Campbell power plant on life support. See Trump’s Order to Keep Michigan Coal Plant Running Has Cost $80 Million So Far by Marianne Lavelle – Inside Climate News – October 31, 2025.

Consumers Energy said in its 3rd Quarter earnings report that it would pursue the process laid out in the DOE Order for collecting the J.H. Campbell plant costs. It will seek payment from ratepayers across the Midwest. Even though the peak summer electricity demand season had passed, Consumers Energy said they expect the coal plant Orders “to continue for the long-term.” CEO Garrick Rochow said in a conference call for investors. “And we’re prepared to continue to operate the plant and comply with those Orders.”

Consumers Energy said the costs – $615,385 per day – should be shared among ratepayers (an estimated 42 million to 45 million electricity customers) in the nine states served by the regional electric grid operator, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO). Consumers Energy had projected that the retirement of the Campbell plant would save its customers $600 million over the next 20 years, or $30 million per year. Instead, running the plant for the past five months has cost close to three times that annual amount.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, Sierra Club, NRDC, EDF and Earthjustice have filed lawsuits to stop the DOE Order to keep the JH Campbell coal plant from reopening and incurring these forced costs on consumers. See AG Dana Nessel challenges Trump Administration’s order to keep Michigan coal plant open by Steven Bohner – ABC News – December 19, 2025. See Public Advocacy Groups Take Trump Administration to Court for Illegal Coal Plant Extension– Earthjustice – July 24, 2025.

A recent filing suggests the JH Campbell coal plant’s costs may balloon far higher than these original estimates. See Midwestern families on the hook for $180 million to keep Michigan coal plant open under Trump administration’s mandates. 

 

More Background on Trump/DOE Coal Plant Orders and Consumer Costs

13 DOE emergency orders have cost Americans $235M, Sierra Club says – by Robert Walton Senior Editor – Utility Dive – March 18, 2026. DOE’s Orders to keep six retiring fossil-fueled power plants online and are adding millions to customer utility bills, according to the Sierra Club.

Trump Administration Orders to Keep Fossil-Fired Power Plant Running Will Increase Michigan Electricity Costs – NRDC – August 21, 2025. DOE’s August 20, 2026 Order required the J.H. Campbell coal plant to remain operational, despite plans to close the facility by May 31, 2025. An independent report found that keeping fossil-fired power plants, like J. H. Campbell, running could cost consumers $3 to $6 billion a year.

 

Who Will Pay for the Keystone Generating Station in Armstrong and Indiana counties, and Conemaugh Generating Station in Indiana County?

The April 21, 2026 announcement on the Keystone & Conemaugh Coal Plants Consent Decree does not address details on financing and plans for potential future electricity sales. Because it is not an Order to keep the plants running, the analysis on passing costs onto consumers described above does not apply. Press Releases and news coverage about the Consent Decree appear below. The answer to the question is not yet known.

 

Shapiro Administration Files Motion to Enter Consent Decree to Maintain Reliable, Affordable Power by Allowing Keystone and Conemaugh Plants to Continue Operating with Improved Environmental Controls and Upgrades – April 21, 2026 Press Release

See Consent Decree. & See DEP Press Release.

• Keeping the Keystone and Conemaugh Generating Stations in operation will allow the facilities to continue generating more than 3,400 megawatts of electricity for the regional grid. This approach allows PA to serve increased demand for energy generation and concerns about reliability, affordability, and economic impact.
• Allowing the plants to continue operating under enforceable environmental requirements will help avoid supply shortfalls that can drive up electricity prices for consumers across the region.
• Shapiro has made lowering costs for PA a central focus of his efforts around economic development and energy, consistently calling for a balanced approach that strengthens the grid, supports economic growth, and protects consumers from unnecessary rate increases.

 

Gov. Shapiro moves to keep 2 coal-fired power plants open in Western Pa., as energy demand from data centers grows – by Reid Frazier, Allegheny Front · Apr. 22, 2026. Gov. Josh Shapiro announced he was extending the lives of two W PA coal-fired power plants.

Pa.’s largest coal-fired power plants would stay open until 2032 in proposed DEP deal By Peter Hall – Pennsylvania Capital Star – April 22, 2026

DEP Files Final Consent Decree for the Keystone and Conemaugh Coal-Fired Power Plants to Allow for Continued Operation – by David Hess – PA Environment Digest Blog – April 22, 2026. – Provides background information & analysis on the Consent Decree.

 

Statements on the Consent Decree

Alex Bomstein, Executive Director of Clean Air Council – Here

Ted Kelly, Environmental Defense Fund Lead Counsel for U.S. Clean Energy – Here

Patrick McDonnell, president and CEO of PennFuture – Here

Molly Parzen, Executive Director of Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania – Here

Katie Blume of Conservation Voters of PA (Chair, Clean Power PA Coalition) issued the following statement:

Clean Power PA Statement on Decision by Trump and Shapiro Administrations to Extend Life of the Two Biggest Polluting Power Plants in Pennsylvania 

Statewide, PA – The Clean Power PA Coalition issued the following statement from its chair, Katie Blume of Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania, regarding an agreement announced by both President Trump and Governor Josh Shapiro to extend the life of two coal plants that had been scheduled to close in 2028:

We’re extremely disappointed in Governor Shapiro’s decision to allow the state’s two largest polluting power plants, the Keystone and Conemaugh coal-fired plants, to remain operating past their scheduled closing data of 2028.

This decision will not make electricity more affordable. Independent analysis shows that electricity from coal-fired power plants costs twice that of wind and solar. The cost of forcing aging coal plants to stay open is paid by electricity consumers: the cost of keeping open a major Maryland coal plant is estimated at $1.5 billion. That’s being passed on to consumers across the region, including Pennsylvanians (see Note below).

The deal to extend the plants’ operations was announced as part of the governor’s “all of the above” energy policy. Thus far, that “all of the above” strategy has meant blocking Pennsylvania’s participation in the successful Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a benefit to the coal and gas industries, and the extension of two expensive and dirty coal plants. But a true “all of the above” strategy must include “all” sources of energy, including renewable sources like solar and wind, and battery storage, all of which are cheaper and quicker to deploy than fossil fuels, as well as energy efficiency measures to reduce demand.

As energy prices continue to rise, in large part because of the state’s overreliance on costly gas and coal, Pennsylvanians still await action by the governor and the legislature to increase our energy supply by expanding cheaper clean energy, which currently provides only 3% of the state’s power. Until then, “all of the above” will be nothing more than an empty political slogan.

Note on Brandon Shores as ordered by PJM to stay open.

“In January 2025, PJM reported that Exelon had updated its cost estimates for the Brandon Shores deactivation projects, doubling the costs from $740 million to more than $1.5 billion.” The Brandon Shores deactivation projects include expanded transmission lines and additional facilities (such as static synchronous compensators or STATCOMs) for reactive services and other improvements to address the potential for voltage collapse.

The post Clean Power Digest: Coal Plant Orders appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

Green Bank Litigation Update

There has been a recent uptick of activity in Green Bank litigation in the federal district courts and the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals, like other circuit courts, hears appeals from the U.S. district courts. However, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has a broader purview than other circuit courts because it has jurisdiction over a wide range of federal law, including numerous federal agency decisions.

Nothing in this summary should lead the reader to believe that a rapid resolution of Green Bank litigation is imminent. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University is tracking seven major federal cases contesting the fate of $20 billion in funding for the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA). See NCIF/CCIA Database Tracker Here. The Sabin Center is also following twenty-six federal cases involving disputes over $7 billion in Solar for All funding. See Solar for All Database Tracker Here.

Many legal observers anticipate that one or more of these cases will ultimately be decided by appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. The purpose of this update is to highlight a small (hopefully, representative) set of recent federal district and appeals court activities and identify some emerging themes & arguments in the Green Bank court cases.

Background

In 2022, the United States Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), appropriating an unprecedented amount of money for climate spending programs. One of the IRA’s flagship investments was the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $27 billion program comprised of the National Clean Investment Fund and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (combined $20 billion), and Solar for All (SFA) ($7 billion). The PA Energy Development Authority (PEDA) was awarded $156 million through the Solar for All program.

An over-summarized version of the competing arguments in the thirty-three federal Green Bank lawsuits might include the following issues:

• The Plaintiffs argue that the NCIF/CCIA/ SFA Green Banks should have access to funds and be allowed to operate because these programs were fully implemented by September 30, 2024, in full compliance with Congressional intent in the IRA.
• The Defendants maintain that the Green Banks were not implemented in an appropriate manner, and to the extent that there is a dispute about current funding – those are contract claims to be resolved at the U.S. Court of Claims. To the extent relevant, Congressional intent was conclusively expressed in the Big Beautiful Bill in July 2025 when it repealed authorization and funding for Green Banks.

For a less sanitized version of the Trump administration’s views, EPA’s official description of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund can be found Here.

March-April 2026 – Court Hearings & Interim Orders

Continued Freeze of Green Bank Funds at Citibank:

Judge bars Trump’s EPA from taking back $20B in climate grants – for now – by Zack Colman – Politico – March 18, 2026 – U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan temporarily blocked the EPA’s attempt to recoup $20 billion in Biden-era climate grants. But rather than declare a winner, Tuesday’s decision was merely aimed at preserving the status quo, Chutkan said. Her order does not immediately restore access to the groups’ accounts, nor does it officially kill EPA’s right to press for contract terminations in the future.

Judges Order Federal Agencies to Unfreeze Climate Money – By Claire Brown and Karen Zraick – New York Times – April 16, 2025 – Two court rulings on Tuesday unfroze hundreds of millions of dollars in federal climate funds, a win for nonprofit groups that have been denied access to money they were promised under the Biden administration.

Appeals court temporarily halts disbursement of contested climate funds – by Rachel Frazin – The Hill – April 17, 2026 – An appeals court has temporarily halted a lower court’s order to release contested climate funds. Earlier this week, District Judge Tanya Chutkan blocked the EPA from clawing back billions of dollars in climate funds given to Green Banks during the Biden administration. Her order directed Citibank to release the funds to the Green Bank groups as soon as Thursday. However, late Wednesday a panel of appeals court judges ordered that the funds should neither be returned to the U.S. Treasury Department nor released to the climate organizations to allow time to consider the case.

Federal judge questions whether EPA move to rapidly cancel ‘green bank’ grants was legal – by MICHAEL PHILLIS – Associated Press – April 2, 2025 – A federal judge on Wednesday pressed an attorney for the EPA about whether the agency broke the law when it swiftly terminated $20 billion worth of grants awarded to nonprofits for a green bank by allegedly bulldozing past proper rules and raising flimsy accusations of waste and fraud. Chutkan noted that EPA allegedly demanded Citibank stop providing funds that had already been awarded without letting the nonprofits know – “Is that lawful?” she asked.

DC Circuit Court of Appeals – Full Panel Hearing on EPA’s Termination of Grants

Full DC Circuit grills DOJ over effort to claw back billions in green energy funds – by Ryan Knappenberger – Courthouse News Service – February 24, 2026 – The full D.C. Circuit appeared split on Tuesday over whether it should vacate a preliminary injunction finding the Trump administration wrongfully gutted a Biden-era program meant to fund smaller climate projects by setting up intermediary investment funds. The En Banc panel was called back to the case, after a smaller panel indicated the Trump administration could claw back nearly $16 billion in grants, by a group of “green banks” who argued that the EPA had unlawfully gutted the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund without proper explanation.

Order entered March 9, 2026 – Argued at the DC Court of Appeals on March 20, 2026 – “The parties are directed to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether, in light of Section 60002 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. No. 119-21(2025), that [Green Bank] claims continue to provide a valid basis to affirm all or part of the preliminary injunction.” The Full Panel of the DC Court of Appeals has not yet issued a final decision in the Climate United case (more details are provided below).

Analysis: Can the DC Court of Appeals Revive a Grant Program?

One Year After Green Bank’s Demise, Court Mulls Future of Grant Based Climate Policy by Marianne Lavelle – Inside Climate News – March 11, 2026 – After years of failed efforts to get a greenhouse gas emissions plan through Congress, Democrats during the administration passed climate legislation in 2022 based entirely on government incentives – carrots, not sticks. The Green Bank case will likely decide whether any future Congress can effectively use federal grants to jump-start the clean energy economy, in a nation where it has proven so difficult to garner political support for policy that would place direct limits on the use or production of fossil fuels. “The Inflation Reduction Act was an interesting and innovative statute that sought to achieve big policy goals through the use of fiscal incentives,” said William Buzbee, environmental law professor at Georgetown University Law School. “If, in the end, the law allows the government to demolish regulation via grants, then this kind of strategy doesn’t have a long shelf life.”

 

Green Bank Litigation: Two Deeper Dives on the Arguments & Issues

Two excellent summaries of the state of play of the thirty-three Green Bank cases

Uncertain Remedies for Frozen Federal Climate Funding – by Vincent Colette & Romany Webb – Columbia Sabin Center for Climate Change Law – March 6, 2026.

This blog discusses the factual and litigation background of Climate United & examines three possible outcomes the panel discussed during oral arguments.

On February 24, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held oral arguments in the case Climate United Fund v. Citibank to consider the future of almost $20 billion in climate funding appropriated under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Now before the full court of appeals, at issue is whether to affirm the preliminary injunction that the District Court granted in April 2025. That injunction barred EPA from effectuating grant terminations and required the disbursement of frozen funds for two of the three programs within the IRA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF): (1) the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and (2) the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA).

With this backdrop, on February 24, 2026, the parties participated in an oral argument that lasted almost three hours. In appeals like this, the D.C. Circuit reviews the district court’s preliminary injunction “for abuse of discretion, its underlying legal conclusions de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error.” Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, 27 F.4th 718, 726 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

The court considers the same preliminary injunction factors that the district court applied, which requires the plaintiffs to establish that “they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (cleaned up).

It appeared that the judges broadly converged around three possible outcomes to decide the rehearing: (1) Plaintiffs’ claims are really contract disputes that belong in the Court of Claims; (2) EPA’s actions violated the separation of powers doctrine but the Court’s ability to grant relief may be affected by the enactment of the Big Beautiful Bill; or (3) EPA’s actions violated the Administrative Procedures Act but the Court’s ability to grant relief may be affected by the enactment of the OBBA. The range of possible outcomes underscores both the novelty and complexity of the case.

Four Solar for All Lawsuits: Two Distinct Forums and Legal Theories – by Vincent Nolette – Columbia Sabin Center for Climate Change Law – October 31, 2025

This blog discusses the factual & litigation background of state-based arguments as to why EPA’s efforts to dismantle the Solar for All program are unlawful.

In 2022, the U.S. Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), appropriating an unprecedented amount of money for climate spending programs. As part of the IRA – Solar for All was a $7 billion program intended to expand access to greenhouse gas-reducing technologies – primarily distributed and community solar—to low-income and disadvantaged communities. If fully implemented, the EPA projected that SFA would reduce energy bills for more than 900,000 households, while also improving local air quality and helping to mitigate climate change, among other benefits.

State AGs Bring Breach of Contract Claims in the Court of Federal Claims – In Maryland Clean Energy Center, et al. v. United States, Docket No. 25-cv-1738 (filed October 15, 2025), a coalition of 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia are arguing that EPA unilaterally terminated competitive SFA grants in breach of contract, and are seeking money damages. The U.S. is the named defendant in this case because the Court of Federal Claims is the court that has jurisdiction over contract disputes against the federal government seeking monetary damages. Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims cannot provide injunctive relief in general breach of contract cases. Note: The PA Energy Development Authority is a Plaintiff in the Maryland Clean Energy Center case.

District Court Lawsuits – Unlike Court of Federal Claims lawsuits, which seek compensation for breach of contract, the district court Plaintiffs challenge EPA’s action under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Constitution.

One example of an APA/constitutional law case is Rhode Island AFL CIO, et al. v. EPA, et al., (filed October 6, 2025, District of RI). In this case, the plaintiffs are several intended beneficiaries of SFA (i.e., groups that would have been able to take advantage of the financial & technical assistance programs developed by SFA awardees). The plaintiffs are challenging EPA’s termination of the SFA program under (1) the Administrative Procedure Act claims, alleging that EPA’s action was in excess of statutory authority and arbitrary and capricious; and (2) the Constitution, arguing that EPA violated the separation of powers doctrine and the Presentment Clause. The plaintiffs also filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit as a protective measure in case that court is deemed the proper venue. Note: Solar United Neighbors is a Plaintiff in this case.

Conclusion: While states and others have made strong arguments as to why EPA’s efforts to dismantle the program are unlawful, it remains to be seen how the courts will view those arguments. And even if they are ultimately receptive to plaintiffs’ arguments, significant damage has already been done in the meantime. Although judicial relief would be a second-rate outcome, it is now the best that can be hoped for.

 

An Unrelated Case Before the US Supreme Court May Turn on Similar Procedural Issues That Green Banks Have Argued in Federal Courts

I Almost Never Predict Supreme Court Outcomes. Trump Will Lose This Case – by Linda Greenhouse – April 16, 2026 – New York Times – Trump v. Miot and Mullin v. Doe have been consolidated for a single argument on April 29, 2026 and the Haitian and Syrian Plaintiffs remain protected against deportation, free to work legally and live openly….Decades of writing about the Supreme Court have taught me that it’s foolish to predict the outcome of cases, and I have rarely done so. My prediction here rests on one word: procedure.

The post Clean Power Digest: Green Bank Litigation Updates appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.