Scott H. Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, an industry group, said the rule would be "the most expensive in EPA history" - costing about $11 billion a year - and that benefits were overstated. He asked that the agency extend the public comment period.
"There is not enough money in the world that you can pay an individual for loss of life and for a short life expectancy due to fact that they have inhaled toxic chemicals," countered the Rev. Dr. Horace Strand of the Chester Environmental Partnership, formed to deal with the "clustering" of polluting facilities in the economically disadvantaged community.
"Our children are suffering," he said. "I ask EPA to resist pressure of industry whose only concern is the bottom dollar."
Some in the industry support the rule.
Bruce Alexander, environmental regulatory strategy director with Exelon Corp., which has invested in clean generation, called the proposed rule is "balanced, reasonable and long overdue."
"Some claim that the power industry is monolithic and that we all that that EPA has run amok," he said. "That is simply not true."
Likewise, Michael Bradley, executive director of the Clean Energy Group, a coalition of electric power companies, said the proposed standards "are not as burdensome as some in the electric sector had anticipated." He said they would provide the "certainty" the industry needs to move forward with capital investment decisions.
Chris Salmi, assistant director of air quality for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, said New Jersey has stricter standards, and he urged the federal agency to tighten regulations even more.
Pennsylvania had proposed mercury regulations, but they failed in a court challenge.
