Wisconsin Power Plant Is Called A Setback for the Environment

EPA water division official Ephraim King in Washington said the measure was open for public comment. He said he has no reason to believe that We Energies influenced the wording.

"This rule is not basically tied to or predicated upon any single facility. It's based on a careful and balanced examination of all the comments that we've received," said King, director of the office of science and technology. He added that the regulation is "making important environmental progress."

Columbia University attorney Reed Super, who is leading a legal challenge to federal clean water practice, called Oak Creek "the poster child of the worst that can happen" under the Bush administration's approach to the Clean Water Act. Environmentalists want authorities to enforce the pledge in 1970s laws to use the best available technology to minimize environmental impact.

Such critics believe that when Wisconsin gave its approval, the EPA should have stepped in to require a more environmentally friendly solution.

In a setback to We Energies, a Dane County judge late last year revoked the Public Service Commission's approval, ruling that the power company did not offer sufficient alternatives to its Oak Creek site. That is the case on appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is expected to rule by the end of June.

If the court rules in the company's favor, Nation said, We Energies hopes to break ground within two months. The Sierra Club's Nilles says not so fast.

"Even if the Supreme Court rules against us," Nilles said, "the fight is very, very far from over."

Staff writer Kari Lydersen in Chicago contributed to this report.