The PSC's pronouncements caught the DNR and the supporters of the mercury rule by surprise.  Now it appears that the PSC - and the three Commissioners who are appointed by the Governor and direct the agency - acted on misinformation that was spawned by a decidedly one-sided and undemocratic process.

It's well understood by policy makers in Wisconsin that coal burning power plants foul the air with thousands of pounds of mercury each and every year.

Although coal power plants are not the only source of mercury entering Wisconsin's environment, they are a significant source.  For example, the Pleasant Prairie coal plant in southeastern Wisconsin annually releases 500 pounds of mercury - the most of any state power plant.

The airborne mercury eventually falls to the earth with rain or snow where it settles into the sediments of state water bodies.  Bacteria eventually convert the mercury into a toxic form that works its way up the aquatic food chain.

The mercury contamination of state waters has reached such epidemic proportions that every lake in Wisconsin is now subject to a fish consumption advisory.

Last July, the Public Service Commission decided to examine the DNR's proposal to cut state mercury emissions by 90% over the next 15 years.  The agency quietly initiated a mercury rules docket.

But the inquiry wasn't made public.  Instead, the PSC privately sought comments from 24 utilities and utility consultants and two business trade groups (including Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce).

Two state environmental groups were alerted to the proceeding and invited to comment.  But no request for input was made to the broader hunting and fishing community or to the general public.

The PSC, according to Marc Looze of Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, certainly knew of the citizen petition that had prompted the DNR's rule.  The petition was signed by more than 20 conservation and environmental groups, but the Decade was the only one of these group's asked to comment.

Nor did the PSC's three Commissioners seek counsel from their own trained staff.  In most utility proceedings, PSC staff provide critical input and analysis that the Commissioners rely upon for decision making.  Yet on this occasion, staff was not asked to assess the DNR's mercury rule.

Not surprisingly, this shallow, one-sided process led to the agency publicly adopting a position that closely mirrors the most strident and vocal of the state's utilities opposing efforts to control the mercury poisoning of Wisconsin's waters.

At its September 22 weekly public meeting, the Commissioners announced their position.  They then asked staff to prepare written comments based on their discussion during the meeting.    These comments were delivered to the DNR at an October mercury rule hearing.

The Commissioners letter to the DNR stated that their position was "based on concerns expressed by the public in our informal investigation."  The PSC, they noted, "simply does not believe that proven technology yet exists to control mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants to the extent mandated by the proposed rule."

To reach a 90% reduction in mercury emissions, the Commissioners told the DNR that utilities would be forced to close coal plants and make "massive capital expenditures" for replacement power.  The rule, they complained, "strikes at the heart of Wisconsin's traditional diverse fuel mix (coal, gas, nuclear renewables) for producing electricity."

And the Commissioners noted that utilities have already installed "a variety of technologies at their plants including scrubbers" to reduce air pollution.

Jim Wise is angered by the PSC's position.  Wise, who lives near Tomahawk, sits on the DNR's citizen advisory committee for the mercury rule.  "The PSC's letter," Wise says, "reads almost word for word like the utilities wrote it."

"They [PSC] claimed it was the result of their informed public input," he adds.  "When did they ask for public input?  I missed it?"  The PSC, Wise says, "didn't have any public meetings."

The Environmental Decade's Looze is bothered by several errors and inaccuracies in the PSC's position.  For example, Looze points out that the federal EPA, the federal Department of Energy, and the utility funded Electric Power Research Institute all agree that various technologies already exist for lowering mercury emissions by 50% - which is the reduction level called for in 10 years by the DNR's mercury rule.

Activated carbon combined with filter technology could reduce emissions by 90%, according to Looze.  This is the level sought by the DNR in 15 years.

As for Wisconsin's mix of fuels, 64% currently comes from coal power plants.  The state imports an additional 14.7% of its electricity from outside Wisconsin and most of this also comes from coal.  "If the rule did result in switching away from coal, it would only make Wisconsin's fuel mix more diverse, not less," observes Looze.

And Looze calls "completely false" the PSC's statement that utilities have already installed scrubbers and other technologies at their plants to reduce air pollution.  Not one scrubber has been installed on a Wisconsin power plant.

"How can even one of our Commissioners, much less all three, be so misinformed about Wisconsin's power plant fleet," Looze asks.

If the PSC had conducted a more formal assessment of the mercury rule, such as an Environmental  Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement, the agency would probably have avoided some of the blunders it made.

Annemarie Newman, the PSC's public information officer, says the Commissioners didn't see that as their job.  "The DNR is the lead agency in this," she says. "Our role," adds Newman, "is to participate in the technical advisory group to the DNR and offer the expertise that our staff has."

In January, Wisconsin's Environmental Decade asked the PSC to retract their comments to the DNR on the proposed mercury rule.  The PSC has not yet taken any such action.