EPA Regulation of the Day: 316 (b) Cooling Towers Rule


Posted by Tom Fletcher on Tuesday, November 6th, 2012, 10:22 AM PERMALINK


Quote of the Day:
“Somehow we have to have to figure how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”- Energy Secretary Steven Chu

Regulatory cap-and-trade
With Congress and the American people rejecting cap-and-trade, the Obama Administration has employed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to achieve similar ends. Delaying job-killing regulations until after the November election, the EPA is currently sitting on numerous proposed rules sure to increase the cost of energy.

A recent report from Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) unearths thirteen EPA regulations likely to hit American consumers should President Obama be reelected.

Every single day until November 6, ATR will highlight a pending EPA regulation.

316 (b) Cooling Towers Rule: $384-$460 million

From the Inhofe Report:

EPA is planning to require the use of strict protections for fish in cooling reservoirs for power plants under the Clean Water Act. EPA’s own estimates put the draft rule costs between$384 million and $460 million per year and have benefits of just $17 million – a cost benefit gap of more than 22 to 1. As the Washington Guardian noted about the delay, “In its latest election-year delay of regulations, the Obama administration said Tuesday it will defer until next year acting on a Clean Water Act rule that could require expensive new construction at power plants to lower fish deaths. The postponement by the Environmental Protection Agency was not unexpected, with the agency having only recently completed a public comment period on its latest data. Still, the move to add another 11 months to the rulemaking marks the latest step by the administration to delay potentially controversial environmental rules until after the November election.”

Does your Senator want efficient, reliable energy?

Earlier this year the Senate voted to overturn one of the EPA’s most damaging regulations, the Utility MACT. If your Senator voted “Yes,” they wanted to repeal the Utility MACT; if they voted “Nay,” they voted to preserve the job-killing measure.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

hidden