Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. (556 U.S. 208)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 1, 2009 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 556 U.S. 208 · 129 S. Ct. 1498
- Decided
- April 1, 2009
- Term
- October Term 2008
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases concern a set of regulations adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or agency) under § 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1326(b). 69 Fed. Reg. 41576 (2004). Respondents — environmental groups and various States — challenged those regulations, and the Second Circuit set them aside. Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, 475 F. 3d 83, 99-100 (2007). The issue for our decision is whether, as the Second Circuit held, the EPA is not permitted to use cost-benefit analysis in determining the content of regulations promulgated under § 1326(b). I Petitioners operate — or represent those who operate— large powerplants. In the course of generating power, those plants also generate large amounts of heat. To cool their facilities, petitioners employ “cooling water intake structures” that extract water from nearby water sources. These structures pose various threats to the environment, chief among them the squashing against intake screens (elegantly called “impingement”) or suction into the cooling system (“entrainment”) of aquatic organisms that live in the affected water sources. See 69 Fed. Reg. 41586. Accordingly, the facilities are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq., which mandates: “Any standard established pursuant to section 1311 of this title or section 1316 of this…
Excerpt of a 30,869-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.