Wisconsin Power Plant Is Called A Setback for the Environment

Opponents of the two surviving units coalesced around several arguments. They worried about the effects the powerful generators, due on-line in 2009-10, would have on the environment. And they complained about the way the project won state and federal approval.

The Oak Creek additions would add to air pollution and disrupt the aquatic ecosystem in Lake Michigan, the critics argued. New employers already have turned away from southeastern Wisconsin because of air quality problems and the resulting regulatory restrictions, according to opponents who argued that the new units would make things worse.

In her friend-of-the-court brief, Madigan said the proposed project would deposit 1 1/2 pounds of mercury a year into the lake and as much as 120 pounds into the atmosphere at a time when Wisconsin and Illinois waters are subject to an advisory against eating too much predatory fish. A Harvard School of Public Health survey warned that three-fourths of the burden of air pollution would fall on Illinois and other states beyond Wisconsin.

Madigan and environmental groups accused Wisconsin authorities of paying too little attention to alternatives, including the possibility of substituting gasified coal units for the two units that won approval. She also criticized Wisconsin for allowing a system called "once-through cooling," which is banned in Illinois and Indiana.

The giant electricity generators at Oak Creek would be cooled by 2.2 billion gallons of cold water sucked each day through 20 intake pipes implanted 1½ miles from the shore in Lake Michigan. The warmed water would then be returned to the lake after passing through the heated plant.

Environmental scientists contend that incalculable numbers of fish and microorganisms would die, harming the ecology of the lake. The EPA declined last year to require closed cooling towers for large plants nationwide, citing the increased expense.

Nation, the We Energies spokesman, said replacing the Oak Creek system with closed cooling towers would require a larger plant at greater expense and would mean a loss of 40 million gallons of water a day through condensation. The cost, many environmental groups believe, would be worth the benefit.

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of the Oak Creek challenge is the set of rules that governs the plant's design.

Opponents argue that the facility should be considered new and should not benefit from the looser environmental standards permitted for upgrades of older power stations. The EPA and its Wisconsin counterpart disagreed.

"They are building a whole new plant and a new intake and discharge structure, and the volume will be much higher. For them to argue this is an existing facility just boggles the mind," said Chip Brewer, director of government relations for S.C. Johnson & Son Inc., the large Racine-based manufacturer of such products as Windex, Edge, OFF! and Ziploc bags.

Opponents point to language inserted last year into the preamble of the Clean Water Act. The wording appears to benefit We Energies, they said, by expanding the definition of what is considered an existing plant.

In an internal EPA e-mail last year, Peter Howe, a life scientist in the agency's Chicago office, said it was "unequivocal that prior to the language change that this was a New Facility." A supervisor later warned Howe that his memo on the project was "the pre-mature opinion of a zealous staff member."