Opinion ID: 785093
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dry cooling

Text: 41 Finally, the Environmental Petitioners and amici curiae contend that dry cooling is the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, because it requires the least amount of water and thereby minimizes impingement and entrainment. 42 The EPA acknowledges that dry cooling virtually eliminate[s] the need for cooling water and dramatically reduces impingement and entrainment. Final Rule, 66 Fed.Reg. at 65,284 col. 1. Nevertheless, the EPA concluded that closed-cycle wet cooling represented the best technology available because: (1) dry cooling costs more than ten times as much per year as closed-cycle wet cooling, 21 but it is estimated to reduce water intake by only an additional 5 percent relative to once-through cooling; 22 (2) dry cooling requires more energy 23 and as a result yields more undesirable air emissions; 24 (3) the costs of dry cooling would pose a barrier to entry for some facilities and discourage the construction of new facilities, which are generally better for the environment than existing facilities; 25 (4) dry cooling is far less effective in warmer climates; 26 and (5) dry cooling is not technically feasible for manufacturers and some types of power plants. 27 43 Environmental Petitioners and amici argue that because section 316(b) does not mention cost or other factors, the EPA cannot give them any weight in deciding what the best technology available is, and even if the EPA was permitted to consider those factors, it abused its discretion in weighing them. 44 It is true that section 316(b) itself is silent as to what factors the EPA should consider. But just as its cross-reference to section 306 implicates section 306's deadlines for setting new source performance standards, see Cronin, 898 F.Supp. at 1059, so, too, does it suggest that the EPA may consider factors involved in setting discharge limits when regulating intake structures. And in setting new source performance standards, section 306 directs that the Administrator shall take into consideration the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, and any non-water quality environmental impact and energy requirements. CWA § 306(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1316(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, we think the EPA was permitted to consider cost and energy efficiency in determining the best technology available. 45 Having decided that the EPA properly considered those factors, our review becomes more deferential. [A]ppellate courts give EPA considerable discretion to weigh and balance the various factors required by statute to set [new source performance standards]. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 570 (D.C.Cir.2002). The CWA does not state what weight should be accorded to the relevant factors; rather, the Act gives EPA the discretion to make those determinations. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 66 F.3d 784, 802 (6th Cir.1995); accord Weyerhaeuser, 590 F.2d at 1045 ([O]ur scrutiny of the Agency's treatment of the several consideration factors seeks to assure that the Agency informed itself as to their magnitude, and reached its own express and considered conclusion about their bearing.). If any entity has the ability to weigh the relative impact of two different environmental harms, it is the EPA. BP Exploration, 66 F.3d at 802. With respect to costs, the Administrator must inquire into the initial and annual costs of applying the technology and make an affirmative determination that those costs can be reasonably borne by the industry. Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 262 (5th Cir.1989). 46 Environmental Petitioners contend that any concerns about feasibility should have been addressed through separate regulations aimed at different industries, but they concede that the EPA had the authority to promulgate a free-standing, overarching regulation that applies to all categories of point sources subject to [s]ections 301 and 306. Envtl. Pets. Br. at 26-27. If that is so, and we think it is, then the EPA was entitled to consider feasibility generally. Environmental Petitioners also argue that the increases in energy consumption and emissions are de minimis and that the EPA simply gave too much weight to cost, given the significant improvement that dry cooling represents over closed-cycle cooling. This Court is not well equipped, however, to meaningfully weigh a 95 percent reduction in entrainment against .027 percent of new generating capacity, 300 pounds of mercury, and $443 million dollars. It is certainly true that dry cooling is an available technology, at least in some regions and industries, and it is better than closed-cycle cooling at reducing impingement and entrainment (since it virtually eliminates water intake), but the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to make a choice among alternatives based on more than impingement and entrainment. From the record before us, we cannot say that the EPA's choice of closed-cycle cooling as the best technology available was unsupported by the record, or that there has been a clear error of judgment. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977).