Congress of the IEIniteb States 

@ila@ington, 20525 

March 15,201 1 

The Honorable Cass R. Sunstein 

Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

Executive Office of the President 

Eisenhower Executive Office Building 

1 650 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Room 262 

Washington, DC 20503 

Dear Administrator Sunstein, 

We understand that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is currently 

conducting inter-agency review on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed 

rule governing cooling water intake structures at existing electric generation and manufacturing 

facilities. We also understand that the review process has been significantly shortened fiom the 

customary 90-day review period, even though this rule is complex, costly, and has the potential 

to affect more than 400 power plants and 700 industrial facilities throughout the country. It also 

has the potential to adversely impact the environment, jeopardize energy supply and reliability, 

and result in the loss of thousands of jobs. Accordingly, and to be consistent with the recently 

issued Presidential Executive Order on regulatory reform (E.O. 13563, "Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review."), we urge that the federal review take the time required to thoroughly 

analyze the potential environmental, energy and economic impacts of the EPA proposal. 

Section 3 16(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that cooling water intake structures reflect the 

best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact. For more than 

30 years, EPA and the states have applied this requirement on a site-by-site basis, examining the 

effects of existing cooling water intake structures on the health of aquatic populations. We 

believe this site-specific approach remains the most scientifically valid and cost-effective method 

of regulating the impact of water intake. 

As you weigh the regulatory options regarding cooling water intake structures, we urge you to 

allow compliance choices to be based on site-specific characteristics and generally accepted costbenefit principles that provide the means for states to make compliance decisions that account for 

the unique characteristics of each site, as is the EPA's current practice. Such _an approach wiU 
protect the reliability and affordability of the electricity system for consumers and businesses 

across the United States. Site-specific cost-benefit analysis provides a framework in which intake 

technology options appropriate for each site can be evaluated for performance, overall 

environmental benefit and cost, allowing regulators to select as BTA the technology that 

provides the greatest net benefit. 

In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Clean Water Act allows for consideration of 

costs and benefits, both in setting national performance standards for cooling water intake 

structures and in issuing variances from those national standards through the use of site-specific 

considerations to ensure protection of the environment. This type of cost-benefit analysis is 

common in the area of environmental regulation. 

EPA should exercise the flexibility provided by the 2009 Supreme Court decision to establish a 

national regulation that allows states to protect both the aquatic environment and the reliability of 

the electricity grid through appropriate use of technological alternatives that are selected on a 

site-specific basis using cost-benefit analysis. 

In contrast to a proven, flexible approach, a rule that compels power plants to install closed cycle 

cooling would result in the loss of thousands of jobs, delay economic growth, and place at risk 

affordable and reliable electricity supply. According to industry estimates, the total costs to 

retrofit more than 400 power plants that could be affected by an inflexible rulemaking would 

exceed $95 billion. Furthermore, premature plant closures and substantial electricity production 

loss at power plants that remain open, but are forced to retrofit, could decrease electric capacity 

reserve margins in several regions. The costs would likewise be significant for potentially 

affected manufacturing facilities. 

We urge you to take the time to complete a thorough analysis of the proposed rule by OIRA and 

other federal agencies to ensure that the rule is consistent with the principles embodied in 

Executive Order 13563. 

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

~fm Rvan (OH-17) / 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 
La" 

Ed Whitfield (KY-01 

~4~- 

) 

Member of Congresh 

Mike Rogers (MI-08) 

~embe3f congress .--, 

- 

John shivan (OK-0 1) - 

Member of Congress L 

Member of Congress 

&NJason Altmire (PA-04) 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

8- 

Frank LoBiondo (NH-02) 

Member of Congress Member of Congress 

- - -- 

Leonard Lance (NJ-07) 

Member of Congress 

cc: The Honorable Dr. Steven Chu, DOE 

Mr. William Daley, White House Chief of Staff 

The Honorable Lisa L. Jackson, EPA 

Jim Laity, OMB 

The Honorable Jacob Lew, OMB