This is what the We Energies who want the project to go through have to say about the issue:( I never found the claims about mercury and fish problems...)

http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=wec&script=410&layout=-6&item_id=649308

This is what the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin on the issue:

http://www.wisconsinenergy.com/pscappeal.pdf

And some older stuff , but no mention of mercury problems at that time. Looks to have been in the planning for quite some time
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2002/08/19/newscolumn1.html

Department of natural resources has to say:
http://psc.wi.gov/electric/cases/ptfElmRd/document/FEIS/Volume1/chapter1.pdf

It is difficult to discern from where I am and having never known about this issue before. From my readings it seems that there may be some activist groups who may be afraid and fight the advancements with out allowing any alternatives. But again, a quick surmise and I am not familiar at all with the issues. Its always interesting to see the citizens get involved and help try to find solutions rather than the larger more powerful corp. always having their way with out the gentleness of explaining all implications and expectations.

I am sure other states will be facing similar situations as we search for future resources to use. I think it is good that we are all enlightened to these types of issues and have the ability to
Educated ourselves about our energy needs and what the demands actually mean to us and our environment.

Hope it gets resolvedthere is a lot of money pending on this project and it looks that if ifs not started by next year that all figures and estimates may need to be reevaluated if this process would be given the go ahead or just dismissed.

DoesnÂt it seem that its all time and money in regards to what life has evolved.

The two new power plants will put out less pollution than the existing one. Without extra electrical power Wisconsin will never have the growth and needed jobs. Taxes will increase even more and the jobless rate will sore.

Natural gas is too expensive and the only other alternative is nuclear power. So whats your solution?

I don't know that there is a solution that everyone would find acceptable. Racine county has ozone alerts every summer, so siting a large coal-burning power plant there seems ill-advised. It is not clear that converting coal burning power plants to natural gas is a good solution, either. There may not be enough natural gas to supply existing markets, including residential home heating, if natural gas is used to generate electricity. Converting coal to gas requires an additional, expensive step. I'm sure that power generated from synthesized gas would cost more than power generated by burning coal.

I don't think that an energy conservation program would eliminate the need for additional power capacity. The largest power demand is in the summer months, due to residential and commercial air conditioning. That demand is growing, not shrinking.

It takes massive energy storage to make solar and wind power reliable, and this pushes the cost up.

Nuclear power is the only remaining, practical, source of electricity. To make nuclear power acceptable, we have to find ways of using the waste heat released by these operations. The reactors have to be stable and reliable, and we have to find a way to use the radioactive waste.

On 6-28-05, the Madison newspaper, Capital Times, reported that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has upheld the PSC approval of the new Wisconsin Electric Power, aka WE Energies, power plant, to be located at Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The PSC, or Public Service Commission, is a panel appointed by the governor of Wisconsin. The contractor, Bechtel Power Corp., is expected to complete construction by summer 2009. The new power plant will release about 100 lb of airborne mercury per year, and the entire Oak Creek power facility will use about 3 billion gallons of cooling water, from Lake Michigan, per day.

Oddly enough, the lawsuit opposing this power plant was brought by Clean Wisconsin, S.C. Johnson & Son, and Calpine Corp.

from the Wisconsin State Journal, 8-14-05:

SC Johnson, A family company
H. Fisk Johnson, Ph.D.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Dear Wisconsin Neighbor:

Like many of you, I was disheartened when the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently cleared the way for the construction of two coal-fired power plants at Oak Creek near our homes and workplaces.

Many people may wonder why a company such as SC Johnson would get involved in the decision to build power plants. The construction of a power plant is a very public decision that significantly impacts the environment, public health and the economy for generations to come.

That's why my dad, Sam Johnson, four years ago put himself in the unenviable role of opposing WE Energies' plan to build two new pulverized coal plants at Oak Creek. Dad thought it was his duty as a member of this community to speak up and question the wisdom of erecting outdated, polluting coal plants on the shores of Lake Michigan-a very delicate and important regional resource.

WE Energies plan was the wrong one and the wrong direction for our time.

So, SC Johnson partnered with civic organizations and thousands of Wisconsin residents to fight WE Energies plan for these plants. Our reasons for taking up this cause are as valid today as they were when we started. The Supreme Court didn't dispute them.

These plants will spew more than 20 tons of pollutants into our atmosphere yearly and draw more water from Lake Michigan than the entire Chicago metro area draws every day for drinking. The plants will further degrade our air quality in an area the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has already declared "a severe non-attainment area." This facility will compromise public health and cost ratepayers $2.5 billion, more than other available, cleaner alternatives.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the issues. The justices ruled only on the legitimacy of the process, concluding in a split decision that the Public Service Commission had exercised its proper authority in granting the licenses for the plants.

So, this new plant will be built from a process that:

-Completely excluded testimony from public health experts on the adverse human health effects-and costs-of increased emissions of pollutants.

-Mischaracterized the new coal plants and their new water intake structure as an existing facility, subjecting the plants to lower standards than apply to new plants.

-Failed to consider other cooling water technologies and other sites to reduce the adverse ecological effects on Lake Michigan, including the destruction of a sensitive shoreline bluff and billions of fish and other aquatic organisms in the intake system.

Reasonalble people can disagree about whether burning high pulverized coal and using lake water for cooling are appropriate technologies for 2005 and beyond. However, I think its hard to disagree that the public is entitled to a thorough, robust evaluation of this option as well as alternatives.

We fought a valiant fight. We devoted countless hours and significant resources to the cause. Leading experts in ecology, energy generation and human health agreed with us. We joined forces with a legion of concerned citizens. We could continue to skirmish with WE Energies over the issue, but frankly, the fight is over. The high court's decision was heartbreaking, but it was final. So, we will stop pursuing our legal challenges of the air and water permits for the plants.

It is time to move forward, not back. The question for all of us now is: Which way is forward?

We believe the future is not in 30-year-old technology that harms the environment, impairs human health and stifles the economy. Nor is it in a state approval process that allows something this outdated to be built.

The future is in 21st century innovations such as coal gasification and other technologies that hold the promise of cleaner, more efficient, energy production, at lower costs.

It is time for our legislature and our Governor to take up this cause and ensure that Wisconsin's citizens benefit from new energy innovations. Other states-including Minnesota, Ohio, and Illinois-are moving in that direction. So must Wisconsin, if we are a state that wants to remain competitive for business and, much more important, a state that is a great place to live and raise a family.

I call on Governor Doyle to work with the legislative leadership to that end. We need to improve the state's energy regulatory process. We must have laws that embrace new technology and move us toward alternative energy sources that are cheaper, cleaner and safer. That is the future. That should be our common goal.

I want to thank the residents of this great state who joined us in this fight. They exercised their rights and obligations in the finest fashion of our state and our republic. I am proud to have been a partner with them and I salute them. I hope their committment will continue; I know mine will.

Fisk

Wow, this letter is both heartening and disheartening. When SC Johnson company throws in the towel, you know you have lost in the big leagues.

This was a full-page ad in the Madison sunday paper. I'll bet that they took out similar ads in other Wisconsin newspapers, although I can't be certain of that. I don't know what will happen next. Certainly, there is a large ripple in the pond, and it won't disappear without notice.