Archive

EPA impoverishing seniors | TribLIVE.com
News

EPA impoverishing seniors

The American people registered their disapproval of President Obama’s policies in the midterm elections. This means EPA’s proposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in new and existing power plants needs to be entirely re-evaluated with a commonsense approach.

Congress and this administration need to take into account the adverse financial impact upon millions on fixed and lower incomes who are already suffering from rising electricity costs and decreased reliability from past EPA regulations, and will face even more cost increases and electricity failures from these proposed regulations.

EPA should not continue to gloss over the fact that all Americans have been paying for years for increased costs of electricity due to environmental regulations and will pay an even heftier price for the proposed regulations — again, hurting those most vulnerable, including seniors. Sadly, many seniors just getting by on Social Security and limited, if any, retirement income will be forced to choose between heat during cold winter months and money for food and medicine.

Electric bills will again inevitably increase. Last winter, the great majority of increased demand during the polar vortex was supplied by coal-fired plants, but many are slated for closure in the next two years due to other EPA regulations. EPA’s latest proposal could finally push our grid over the edge by taking more plants offline and putting Pennsylvania’s electricity system at risk of failing.

We need to continue environmental progress without threatening seniors and all on modest incomes with economic hardship at the hands of the president’s EPA.

Dan Weber

Bohemia, N.Y.

The writer is president of the Association of Mature American Citizens (amac.us).


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.