Supreme Court Weighs Power Plants Vs. Fish

Court Urged To Let Older Plants Draw In Water Without Technology That Protects Marine Life

(AP)  The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to let the nation's older power plants draw in billions of gallons of water for cooling without installing technology that would best protect fish and aquatic organisms.

Lawyers for the government and electricity producers urged the justices to overturn a lower court ruling that says the Clean Water Act does not allow the government to pit the cost of upgrading an estimated 554 power plants against the benefits of protecting fish and aquatic organisms when limiting water use.

They argued that for the last 30 years the Environmental Protection Agency has weighed the costs of controlling power plant withdrawals from rivers, streams and other waterways against the benefits of saving more aquatic wildlife in setting technology requirements.

The law already allows such cost-benefit analyses to be performed when facilities discharge pollutants into waterways that could affect human health, the attorneys said.

"There is no reason Congress would want greater protection for fish from intake structures than for people through the discharge of pollutants," said Deputy Solicitor General Daryl Joseffer.

Environmentalists want the decision upheld, an outcome that could prompt the EPA to require existing power plants to install the same technology it requires at all new plants. Known as closed-cycle cooling, it recycles water using less from waterways to cool machinery.

Richard Lazarus, an attorney representing environmental groups, said that by comparing costs to benefits the EPA has underregulated water intake from power plants.

"EPA has no authority in any circumstance to decide that fish aren't worth a certain amount of cost," he said. Lazarus, however, said that other parts of the law let the agency evaluate the burden on industry.

Some justices expressed skepticism about whether it was possible to weigh the cost of buying and installing new cooling water intake structures against the value of fish and other aquatic organisms.

"The difficulty that I have is if you are going to apply ... a cost benefit analysis, I'm not sure how it would work," said Justice David Souter. "Are a thousand plankton worth a million dollars? I don't know."

The nation's power plants use billions of gallons of water from rivers and other waterways each year to cool their facilities. But the flow of water can smash fish against grills and screens and smaller aquatic organisms can get sucked into the system itself.

In July 2004, the EPA allowed the industry to forgo the most expensive solution, installing closed-cycle cooling systems which would cost billions of dollars and result in the shutdown of some power plants.

An EPA analysis cited by Justice Stephen Breyer found that requiring all facilities to use the technology would require building 20 more 400-megawatt power plants to replace the electricity used to operate it. The same analysis also said electricity costs could rise by 2.4 to 5.3 percent.

Breyer said the EPA should be able to take into account the environmental costs and benefits, as long as it doesn't overreach.

"Why not let sleeping dogs lie? Let the agency take it into account the way it's done it to prevent absurd results, but not try to do it so that it's so refined you can't even take account of what a fish is worth unless they happen to be one of the 1.2 percent that goes to market," he said.

The EPA rule allowed companies operating older plants to decide how to comply with the Clean Water Act by selecting among more economical options.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2007 ruled against the companies and government, saying the Clean Water Act does not allow cost to be used when deciding what technology would best minimize environmental impacts.

[tipsyinct]

I really think that they should just recycle their water. Do you realize how much more water that would bring back to people for drinking water, showering, etc..??? It would probaly make availible another 15-20% more water availible for people.
Posted by ajapierce at 11:24 PM : Dec 02, 2008

LMAO!! Is there a shortage on water? I didn''t realize lol!! Where do you get the numbers, 15-20%? PLEASE! HELP! We need to bring water back to the people!! If you would like to support this cause please call 555-PEOPLE-WATER and make a donation!

Thanks aj, I needed this, I was having a crappy day until this post and I literally laughed out loud when I read it. Seriously tho, it happened to me the other day, I was taking a shower and for some reason it just shut off, so I called the plumber and HE said that I had just run out and to blame the power plants for my troubles, he said that if they weren''t doing what they were doing there''d be at least 30-40% more water and I could''ve finished my shower. *** Power Plants LOL!!!

[tipsyinct]

good grief - freedom of speech does not entitle you to freedom of stupid...
Posted by musethalia at 06:47 PM : Dec 02, 2008

Actually, it does.

[arnoldbowers]

how sad the public, the wildlife, fowl, and fish must suffer with their death to allow gw bush to pollute the world with his few, the rich and wealth people and the large industry which could care less who had rather kill than to up date for thepast 3 or 4 years they have all mad billion in surplus funds and paid high salaries rather than undate with the extra cash, now just kill the fish, which will kill many other forms of life as we know it so the filthy plants can now operate with dirty and dangerous equipment and pay theuir ceo and boaard billions in wage and bonus, sorryass bastardsthey are. Frank

[inketolstoy]

Are you people serious? Your solution to the problem of protecting fish vs. producing energy is to eliminate humans.

Scenario: Hello, I am your plumber. I got a call that your toilet is plugged. Blam. Blam. Now it is no longer a problem.

So much nihlism, so little brains.

[superdem]

But you right wingers don''t believe in birth control, remember ? It''s against God''s will ? Every baby is sacred ? All that *** ? Oh - that''s right, they''re WELFARE babies. Sacred - until you have to pay for them.

[superdem]

Hmm....let''s see...conservative court...humans making money versus fish...wonder who''s going to win that one ? We''re doomed.

[candy-apple]

Too bad we cannot mandate if you are welfare you have to be on birth control.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by au_fait at 11:48 AM : Dec 03, 2008

That''s funny, one of our reps in LA mentioned something to this effect and was called a racist. Never mind that his thought process was to reduce the dependence and/or cost of welfare in our state.

[au_fait]

rf35,

I only wish there was a cap on how many children a family could have. In today''s world, where is there a need for 3,4,5+ children. Too bad we cannot mandate if you are welfare you have to be on birth control.

[rf35]

As for the rest of your post: screw the birds, to hell with the desert views, and add to that more nuclear power plants. Real environmentalists are a little nuts. I like renewable energy because it gets us off of depending on Muslims to fuel our country, ensures that we will survive when fossil fuels run out, and keeps more money and jobs here in the USA. The environmental benefits are a nice bonus. I hate that brown cloud over my home town. THAT ruins the look of the landscape!

[rf35]

fewer people=less enviromental damage!
Posted by au_fait at 07:57 AM : Dec 03, 2008

I couldn''t agree more. Humans need to quit having so many kids and practice a little reproductive responsibility.

[au_fait]

Why dont the environmentalist crawl back to woods and the caves leave the rest of us alone. I can understand updating coal plants with new technology, but now environmentalists are screaming that the new solar plants on the drawing boards are taking too much land in the desert and are going to ruin the look of the landscape. Couple that with the environmentalists screaming that wind farms will kill the birds, I suppose we should just unplug everything an return to a time before electricity. I would love to see the enviromentalists then, I guess heating our homes by cut down trees and coal will be better. Oh yea that will cause even more GW. Maybe each environemtalist should just start killing people as fewer people=less enviromental damage!

[websmanship]

if im getting this right: the court decided that the value of a man-made imaginary system is more important than the system that creates life?

how about that green movement.

[websmanship]

if im getting this right: the court decided that the value of a man-made imaginary system is more important than the system that creates life?

how about that green movement.

[ajapierce]

I really think that they should just recycle their water. Do you realize how much more water that would bring back to people for drinking water, showering, etc..??? It would probaly make availible another 15-20% more water availible for people.

Car Washes constantly recycled and clean water for carwashes where they can because in the long term it saves them a lot of money on the water bill and helps conserve water. Can you imagine if Carwash''s didn''t recycle water, we would probaly have to increase the water supply by about 20-25% to meets the demands for car washes.

[yeswedid]

This outgoing administration may as well just set every state in the union on fire before they leave. They have no value on animal life which reflects to having little value on human life if they reverse this ruling. What the h*ll is going on in this country??

[jowand]

just wish somebody would have actually been able to fly a plane into the white house..BUSH you deserve what i pray the LORD will give you!! to spend eternity in hell..ChENEY i only hope and pray your there with him!!! something tells me they''''ll both be gone within 5 years!!! tapping my toes together 3 times!!!

Posted by skarrzpapi at 06:03 PM : Dec 02, 2008

A dailykos devotee no doubt, your insanity gives you away

[jowand]

Next time you Liberals want an Expresso, take the electrical cord and shove it into a fish'' rear end.

[likenoone-2009]

Save the food stupid

[rhs648]

just wish somebody would have actually been able to fly a plane into the white house..BUSH you deserve what i pray the LORD will give you!! to spend eternity in hell..ChENEY i only hope and pray your there with him!!! something tells me they''''ll both be gone within 5 years!!! tapping my toes together 3 times!!!

Posted by skarrzpapi

Why the unnessary political attack on Bush and Cheney? The issue boils down to whether power plants should be required to spend billions of dollars to protect fish or be allowed to use less expensive methods that don''t protect fish. Ultimately, you and other consumers will pay for whatever methods are used. If billions of dollars must be used, the cost will be passed on to the consumer. Now the Supreme Court will determine the costs just as they chose a president when who won became an issue. Hopefully you have a better understanding of the issue.

[musethalia]

oops - s/b crackling little wire interuptions in you phone...but you wouldn''t notice anyway...