As a follow-up to my previous 316(b) post, here is a link to the EPA's benefit-cost analysis of 316(b) dated February 2002:
Chapter D finds that EPA's proposed rule resulted in highest net benefits. From what I understand about this issue, the proposed rule doesn't require "impingement and entrainment controls" at all power plants and "alternative less stringent requirements based on both costs and benefits are allowed." In other words, some little fishes will get sucked in to some machinery.
The net benefits of this option are estimated to be $452 million (2001 dollars). However, a more stringent option found net benefits to be only $3 million below. The $3 million difference is neither economically nor statistically significant.
At the time the courts shut down the benefit-cost analysis notion for the quoted phrase above, the power industry was in the process of conducting the necessary analysis to determine the best course of action.
