Angie Craig: “I say to the Senator, you are correct to assume a CPS standard would have a budgetary impact as much as an RPS standard.…”

“I say to the Senator, you are correct to assume a CPS standard would have a budgetary impact as much as an RPS standard. The RPS standard--as I have said, it is a bit old school, so it is considerably more measurable, and you are forcing production into a narrower slot in the marketplace--wind and bio--whereas we are broadening the slot dramatically. Yes, there are some of those new nuclear plants, as you know, as it relates to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that are going to have some tax benefits. The first certain numbers are. Sequestration, more than likely--to encourage it, and to make it reasonable in the marketplace-- is going to have some tax consequence. We promote efficiency in the marketplace through that. But in all fairness to the Senator, it is not yet a measurable item. Those who are looking at it now say it is probably spread and less costly, but it is also more than just a cost item. As I said, if you take a Florida utility that meets the standards by buying wind in the Midwest, it does nothing for the airshed in Florida; whereas, a CPS says you can build clean in Florida and benefit the airshed of Florida. I think there is the other side of that value. Lastly, if I could react, and the Senator would allow me to, I am all for biofuels. But driving the biofuel market under the current technology--I am surprised some environmentalists are not reacting because it is not a totally clean emitting technology.”