Our legislation provides an aggressive--but we think achievable--schedule for fossil fuel power plants to reduce harmful emissions.
We should do it this year.
I am for low cost electricity. I am for cleaning up the air. And I think this year is the time to do it.
The preliminary costs suggest, based upon EPA, well, the EPA analysis so far, shows that rates will rise between about 1.5 and 2.5 percent b...
But to reach 90, then, you would have to buy some other technology like Mr. Durham's technology and add it to the SCR and scrubber?
I appreciate the comment, Mr. Chairman. Just my own thought, I am not in favor of trading mercury, but some averaging might be worth our thi...
Thanks, Tom. These are very helpful conversations.
I think our country's best interest is the same, which is to continue to have coal as a low cost big supplier of electricity.
But in our legislation, we make it for all low-carbon forms of energy.
I want to thank you for your exceptional service in your job and complement the President and you on his recent comments on nuclear power.
We did a little computation of--we asked the Energy Information Administration--wind power gets 25 times as much Government subsidy per mega...
Air pollution knows no State boundaries.
If these were easy issues to resolve, we would have solved them a long time ago.
We need legislative certainty to protect public health because too many lives are at stake.
Those are significant reductions that the EPA agrees will save more than 215,000 lives over a 15-year period.
There is no excuse remaining for not moving ahead to do what we know how to do with SOx, NOx and mercury.
So, this is a jobs issue for us. It will enable us to give certainty so that we can continue to use low cost reliable coal.
Yes, a lot of us would like to get on with the legislation, and we want to know what it costs before we do.
