Wisconsin Judge Clears Way for DNR's Mercury Emissions Plans

A Dane County Circuit Judge, Stephen Ebert, agreed with the DNR and rejected a lawsuit by business interests that tried to stop them. Although some environmentalists like Mark Redstein of Clean Wisconsin cheer the ruling, others are less so enthusiastic thinking it doesn't go far enough fast enough. The business groups may appeal the ruling too, so, in true compromise fashion the fact that most parties are upset by some portion of the plan, it is probably a pretty good plan.

Some excerpts from local media outlets and Forbes follow;

From WRN.com;
The Dane County Circuit Court Monday dismissed a lawsuit meant to block the DNR's rules on limiting mercury emissions from coal burning power plants. The challenge was brought by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the Wisconsin Utility Investors and the Wisconsin Paper Council. The court rejected the groups' claim that the DNR did not perform the proper economic "scope" of the proposal.

Mark Redstein, Executive Director of Clean Wisconsin, applauds the ruling.

"We believe its time state takes on the important work of reducing mercury pollution."

From WKOWTV.com;
Mercury pollutes our air and water, threatening our health and a Wisconsin fishing tradition," Redsten said. "When technologies exist to reduce mercury pollution, we must hold utilities accountable and ensure they do everything within their power to protect our environment and our health."

The DNR proposal would require coal-fired power plants to reduce mercury emissions by following one of two paths. Operators of such plants could choose between reducing mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2015 or could extend that deadline until 2021 by agreeing to more stringent limits on nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, which increase the methylization of mercury, making it more toxic to people, fish and wildlife.

And from Forbes.com;
Businesses that filed the lawsuit include Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the Wisconsin Utility Investors and the Wisconsin Paper Council.

They are considering appealing Monday's decision or fighting the rules once they are approved, attorney Dennis Birke said.

He argued Monday that the rule-making process should stop until the so-called "scope statement" is done.

The judge said businesses could have asked for the scope statement in 2005 when a rule change dealing with mercury emissions was considered.

"Choosing not to is akin to betting on the wrong horse," Ebert said.

Assistant Attorney General Diane Milligan argued the lawsuit was premature.

"The rule making process is far from over," she said, noting that the rule up for a vote Wednesday also must clear a legislative hearing process.

Opponents of the rules have raised concerns about their cost, the ability to comply within the time required and the fact that they would be more restrictive than federal law.

The DNR estimates that the new restrictions could cost $38 million to $91 million annually. That, in turn, could trigger consumer rate increases of up to 2 percent, according to a state Public Service Commission estimate.

Some environmental groups, doctors and health care workers have argued that the rules are too lenient and give utilities too much time to reduce emissions that they say threaten people's health now.

The DNR stands by the proposal.
[...]
The agency adopted rules four years ago that required Alliant Energy, Dairyland Power Cooperative, We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. to cut mercury emissions by 75 percent by 2015. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle ordered the agency to step that up to 90 percent by 2018 during his re-election campaign in 2006.

Other utilities that would be covered under the new rules include Wisconsin Power & Light, Madison Gas & Electric Co., Manitowoc Public Utilities, Northern States Power Wisconsin and Mid-American Energy Co.