# Congress of 

# the IEIniteb States @ila@ington, 20525

March 15,2011
The Honorable Cass R. Sunstein Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office ofManagement and Budget Executive Office of the President Eisenhower Executive Office Building 1

650 PennsylvaniaAve., 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 coolingwater 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 facilitiesthroughout 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 analyzethe potential environmental, energy and economic impacts of the EPA proposal. Section 3 16(b)of the Clean Water Act requiresthat 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-sitebasis, examining the effects of existing cooling water intake structuresonthe health of aquaticpopulations. We believe this site-specific approach remains the most scientifically valid and cost-effective method ofregulatingthe impact of water intake. As you weigh the regulatory optionsregarding cooling water intake structures,we urge you to allow compliance choicesto be based on site-specific characteristicsand generally accepted costbenefit principles that provide the means for statesto make compliance decisionsthat account for the unique characteristics of each site, as is the EPA's current practice. Such_anapproach 

### wiUprotect the reliability and affordability ofthe electricity system for consumers and businesses across the United States. Site-specific cost-benefit analysisprovides a framework in which intake technology options appropriate for each site can be evaluated for performance, overall environmental benefit and cost, allowing regulatorsto 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 standardsfor cooling water intake structures and in issuing variances from those national standards through the use of site-specific considerationsto ensureprotection of the environment. This type of cost-benefit analysisis common in the area of environmental regulation. EPA should exercise the flexibilityprovided by the 2009 Supreme Court decisionto establisha national regulation that allows states to protect both the aquatic environment and the reliability of the electricity grid through appropriate use oftechnological alternativesthat are selected on a site-specific basis using cost-benefit analysis. In contrast to a proven, flexible approach, a rule that compelspower plants to install closed cycle cooling would result in the loss ofthousands 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 inflexiblerulemaking 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 significantfor 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 consistentwith the principles embodied in Executive Order 

### 13563. Thank you for your attentionto this important matter. Sincerely,

~fm Rvan (OH-17) 

### / Member of Congress

Member of Congress

# La" ~4~- Ed Whitfield (KY-01) 

### 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