Opinion ID: 796659
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cost Analysis Pursuant to Sections 301 and 306

Text: 48 Section 316(b) does not itself set forth or cross-reference another statutory provision enumerating the specific factors that the EPA must consider in determining BTA. The statute, however, does make specific reference to CWA sections 301 and 306, which we have taken previously as an invitation to look to those sections for guidance in discerning what factors Congress intended the EPA to consider in determining BTA. Riverkeeper I, 358 F.3d at 186. We look to each of these statutes in turn. 49 Section 301(b)(1)(A) established the BPT standard that governed the effluent limitations applicable to existing sources through 1989. Congress provided that, in determining BPT, the Agency could consider the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application. CWA § 304(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(1)(B). As noted above, however, the CWA created standards that were to become increasingly stringent over time, and in 1989, the more lenient BPT standard for existing sources was replaced by the BAT standard of section 301(b)(2)(A), in which Congress provided that the EPA could consider only the cost of achieving such effluent reduction. CWA § 304(b)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2)(B). Notably omitted from the list of permissible factors to which the EPA could look in determining BAT was the cost of technology in relation to the benefits that technology could achieve. 50 This shift from BPT to BAT fundamentally altered the way in which the EPA could factor cost into its CWA determinations. Indeed, in analyzing BPT and BAT, the Supreme Court stated that in assessing BAT[,] total cost is no longer to be considered in comparison to effluent reduction benefits, as it had been in assessing BPT. EPA v. Nat'l Crushed Stone Ass'n, 449 U.S. 64, 71, 101 S.Ct. 295, 66 L.Ed.2d 268 (1980). The Court indicated that the less stringent BPT standard had allowed for a limited cost-benefit analysis intended to `limit the application of technology only where the additional degree of effluent reduction is wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level of reduction.' Id. at 71 n. 10, 101 S.Ct. 295 (quoting Remarks of Senator Muskie reprinted in Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Committee Print compiled for the Senate Committee on Public Works by the Library of Congress) Ser. No. 93-1, p. 170 (1973)). In determining BAT, by contrast, the EPA may consider cost as a factor to a limited degree, see id., but only as to whether the cost of a given technology could be reasonably borne by the industry and not the relation between that technology's cost and the benefits it achieves, Riverkeeper I, 358 F.3d at 195. 51 Section 306, which governs the effluent limitations that apply to new sources, provides that a standard of performance established by the EPA must reflect the best available demonstrated control technology. CWA § 306(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1316(a)(1). In language identical to the text of § 304(b)(2)(B) governing BAT, Congress provided that in establishing standards of performance, the EPA shall take into consideration the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, CWA § 306(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1316(b)(1)(B), but did not require the EPA to conduct cost-benefit analysis. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 570 (D.C.Cir.2002) ([S]ection 306 requires that, when setting the [new source performance standards], the Administrator must take costs into consideration, but does not require that she conduct a cost-benefit analysis.). Sections 301 and 306 of the CWA thus demonstrate that, after 1989, cost is a lesser, more ancillary consideration in determining what technology the EPA should require for compliance under those sections. 52 The shift from the BPT standard to the more stringent BAT one clearly signaled Congress's intent to move cost considerations under the CWA from a cost-benefit analysis to a cost-effectiveness one. We understand the difference between these two analyses to turn on the difference between means and ends. Cost-benefit analysis, like BPT, compares the costs and benefits of various ends, and chooses the end with the best net benefits. By contrast, cost-effectiveness considerations, like BAT, determine which means will be used to reach a specified level of benefit that has already been established. 10 Given the above and considering the parallel language of sections 304(b)(2)(B) and 306(b)(1)(B), the reasoning of National Crushed Stone strongly suggests that cost-benefit analysis is no longer permitted under those sections of the CWA.