Remarks at the Detroit Edison Monroe plant in Monroe, Michigan: September 15, 2003

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Sept 22, 2003

when I say "vital decision," that it is a vital decision. The company wanted to give more efficient--wanted this plant to have new, efficient blades on the turbines, which will allow more electricity to be generated with the same amount of coal without causing emission increases. It seems like a commonsense policy. If I were running this plant, I would want to modernize it so we could produce more energy for the same amount of input and continue doing a good job of protecting the quality of the air. That's the kind of corporate behavior that I appreciate.

Yet when the company took the plan to the EPA, the first thing that happened is they had to wait a year for an answer. [Laughter] They said, "We've got a good way to do something, but please tell us if we can move forward." And the answer wasn't forthcoming. And when the answer did come back, it was so complicated, because the rules are so complicated, that Detroit Edison decided to delay part of the project until its experts could decipher the details of the ruling. On the one hand, the rules are so complex that the answer coming back was even more complex, evidently, because nothing happened for a while.

Now, finally, the project is going to be complete. Detroit Edison decided to move forward, 5 years after it decided to begin. That's inefficient. That doesn't make any sense. The quicker we put modern equipment into our powerplants, the quicker people are going to get more reliable electricity. If we're interested in job creation in America, we'd better have the most modern facilities to make sure that electricity is available so people can expand their job base. And yet the rules didn't let that happen. The rules created too many hurdles, and that hurts the working people.

And so, as I said, we decided to do something about it. We began to review the old rules and regulations. And we wanted to do so in a careful way. The EPA held five public meetings. More than 100 groups were represented, citizens and industry and local officials. There were thousands of comments. In other words, we said, "If you've got a problem with the change, please bring them forward. Or you support the change, bring them forward." We wanted to hear from people, and the EPA did a good job of collecting data.

In December, we issued the first set of rules to clarify and simplify regulations for manufacturers to do projects in an energy-efficient way and to promote policy that would discourage pollution. And now we've issued new rules that will allow utility companies like this one right here to make routine repairs and upgrades without enormous costs and endless disputes. We simplified the rules. We made them easy to understand. We trust the people in this plant to make the right decisions.

There is a lot of debate about New Source Review--the change of New Source Review. It makes sense to change these regulations. It makes sense for the workplace environment. It makes sense for the protection of our air. Not only do I believe that, but union leaders believe that. Manufacturers believe that. The utilities believe that. A bipartisan coalition in Congress believes it. We have done the right thing.