Cost benefit analysis, again, we welcome EPA to justify the loss of jobs for negligible toxic emittent benefits.
I would ask you to re-look at that, because I don't think that is correct in your testimony.
Let's have science-based research, but let's make sure we understand the impacts on jobs.
The President says in his Executive Order you must do it.
I firmly believe we can work to prevent disasters such as the Tennessee Valley incident and come to an agreement on how ...
the point being, rates will relatively stay unchanged, but you are not including the cost of the waste.
I am enormously skeptical of the efforts by the EPA to begin regulating coal combustion products as hazardous waste.
We should not use scare tactics, claiming the public is not protected unless the Feds are on the case.
Now is not the time to send a dramatic negative signal to the economy that jobs are unimportant.
Kafkaesque. That is pretty impressive for someone from Louisiana.
I would submit--and I would check with your attorneys--that you are not complying with the President's Executive Order.