It's entirely appropriate for the U.S. government to think about how to modernize its regulatory frameworks, consolidate, renovate, and overhaul obsolete rules.

The compliance costs will be directly borne by Nebraska residents through their electric rates.

Our State has written that the building blocks contain inaccurate assumptions and unrealistic expectations that will result in emission goals that may be unattainable regardless of the emission reduction strategies employed.

As you know, Nebraska is the only State in the Nation with a wholly, publicly owned utility power sector.

I think that is very, very important that we have that vision and that light touch.

It is now widely known that EPA misconstrued this study, hypothesizing heat rate improvements discussed in the study on a cumulative basis when this was not indicated by the study.

My thanks to you and the Ranking Member for holding this very timely hearing today.

I appreciate your views on that, and I agree with your views.

We need to step forward and really see that through if we are going to continue to enjoy the security that we have as a country.

I think it is a little confusing when we hear about our deterrent described as unaffordable, and to me the alternative, letting that deterrent age out--that has the unaffordable cost to us.

Do you have specific proposals that the commission recommended?

I personally would like to see the Highway Trust Fund used for roads and bridges.

I am talking about very sparsely populated areas, where in many cases there is one person per square mile.

That would be great if we can do that.

I think those reviews need to be performance-oriented, not solely process-based and certainly not inflexible.

I would be very happy to work with you on those, with my office, especially so we can stop the redundancy that I believe is happening.

I couldn't agree with you more.

we have to stop talking about only two groups, the pragmatists and the hard-liners.