The Honorable Lisa P

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson

[DATE]

Page 2

[DATE]

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson,

I understand that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may soon issue a revised rulemaking governing cooling water intake structures at existing electric generation and manufacturing facilities. As the attorney general for [INSERT STATE], I urge you to issue a flexible rule that allows for the use of technological alternatives as well as meaningful consideration of site-specific factors and cost-benefit analyses. Imposing a mandate to retrofit all or some of these existing facilities with cooling towers would be costly and threaten electric reliability in some regions of the country.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires cooling water intake structures at power plants and manufacturing facilities to reflect the best technology available 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 impacts of cooling water intake structures on the specific aquatic environment. I believe the current regulatory regime has, in most instances, been effective in protecting the quality of our waters.

In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the CWA 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. Many state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the states are seeking to continue the longstanding practice of holistically managing the resources within their state, including the consideration of both costs and benefits in establishing the best technology available as part of their permitting duties.

Should EPA mandate a one-size-fits-all requirement to retrofit more than 400 power plants with closed-cycle cooling systems, industry estimates that capital costs would exceed $64 billion. These costs ultimately would be borne by electricity consumers in my state and elsewhere. In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy concluded that a one-size-fits-all requirement would reduce electric generation capacity by 4.3 percent nationwide and up to 15 percent in some regions.

I urge you to exercise the flexibility provided by the 2009 Supreme Court decision and to establish a national regulation that allows the states to protect both the aquatic environment and the reliability of the electric grid through appropriate site-specific and cost-benefit analyses.

Thank you for your personal attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

cc: The Honorable Cass R. Sunstein

The Honorable Dr. Steven Chu

Mr. Peter M. Rouse, White House Chief of Staff

Jim Laity, OMB

[Note the Attorneys General of CT, DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and RI all filed an amicus brief in Entergy v. Riverkeeper opposing cost-benefit analysis.]