Even if there's controversy, I'm going to make the decision, and people are going to be happy in one instance and unhappy in the next. But that's the job I've been given and the job I'm going to embrace.

When discussing overall impacts on employment, it is important not to overlook the new technologies and industries that can be driven by pollution control standards.

When consumers do not take full advantage of efficiency gains, it is because they are weighing other factors that influence their decision making. When the federal government arbitrarily places one of those factors over others, it makes consumers worse off.

We need an international solution to the challenge of climate change, there's no question about it. But the real key is, can you actually get that - or get that solution - without the US' involvement? Can you not lead domestically, and expect the rest of the world will take action... the US needs to lead, we need to be out there.

There is no threshold level of fine particle pollution below which health risk reductions are not achieved by reduced exposure.

If coal wants a place in a carbon-constrained future, they have to look at technology like this. And we think that our rule can help stimulate technology, growth, and innovation, bring those costs down, and allow coal a more stable opportunity to continue to be invested in.

I love disagreements. I love the democratic process. If I'm in a room where everybody agrees, I start to nod off.