| Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 2, 2008 Decided April 1, 2009 | |
| Full case name | Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. |
| Docket no. | 07-588 |
| Citations | 556 U.S. 208 (more) 129 S. Ct. 1498; 173 L. Ed. 2d 369; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 2498 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 475 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2007) |
| Holding | |
| The EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards in providing for cost-benefit variances from the standards, as part of the Phase II regulations. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
| Concur/dissent | Breyer |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| Clean Water Act | |
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact."[1] The issue was whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National Performance Standards (NPS).
Reversing a lower court opinion, the 5-1-3 ruling upheld the EPA's decision as reasonable to allow CBA to determine the best technology available to maintain national environmental standards.[1]
