To the surprise of Vattenfall executives, Hamburg's then-Environment Minister Michael Freytag, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union, and Herlind Gundelach, a senior ministry official, suggested that the company build a power plant that was twice as large and that had two generating units putting out approximately 1,600 megawatts of power. As it says in the legal complaint: "Vattenfall accepted Hamburg's suggestion."

Gundelach, who has since gone on to become Hamburg's minister of science and research, disputes Vattenfall's claims and says that plans for a mega-power plant were "jointly" developed with Vattenfall executives. As she remembers it, politicians in Hamburg involved in environmental policies were trying to further expand the district heating network as well as to quickly shut down the antiquated coal-fired power plant in the town of Wedel, which lies just 17 kilometers (11 miles) west of the city.

What happened then? SPIEGEL writes it in a rather ridiculous formulation:

At the time, the fact that even modern coal-fired power plants emit climate-damaging carbon dioxide was not an issue high on the list of priorities for CDU politicians. But two years later, in 2006, the 700-page Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was published and the UN released startling new figures on the environmental effects of global warming. Climate-change skeptics in the CDU and in industry were shocked. All of a sudden, the power plant planned for Moorburg looked like a relic of a bygone age.

Shocked, they were... To summarize the rest:

And then came the regional elections, and the CDU-Greens government, in which the only legal stumbling block the Greens environment minister could pose (the CDU put him in a position in which he had no legal reasons to deny the operating permit) was strict limits to operation, which Vattenfall sues against now. Limits like

Vattenfall vs. Germany: Power Plant Battle Goes to International Arbitration - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

...the company was instructed that it needed to release "less hot water" into the river. Likewise, the company was also told that it would have to use the most up-to-date technology available for separating, capturing and safely storing the carbon dioxide emitted from the coal the power plant would burn. However, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is still in the pioneer phase and is seen by energy corporations as an additional cost burden that reduces the efficiency of power plants.

It is also an interesting aside that

Vattenfall CEO Josefsson had a side job as a climate-protection adviser to Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The outcome of this fight should be watched closely. In the most ideal case, the end result will be Vattenfall abandoning the project. In the worst case, the Washington court's ruling could overrule and thus in effect kill EU environmewntal legislation.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}