Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.

(Redirected from Entergy v. Riverkeeper )

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." 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.

Contents

• 1 Parties

• 2 Background

• 3 Statute and regulations

• 4 Prior case

• 5 This case

• 6 Adverse environmental impact

• 7 EPA rule making

• 8 Main issue - Best Available Technology - BAT

• 9 Decision

• 10 Future implications

• 11 See also

• 12 References

• 13 Notes

• 14 External links

Parties

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Entergy_Corp._v._Riverkeeper_Inc.&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Parties")

Petitioner: Entergy Corporation is an energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail electric distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates both nuclear and fossil fuel power plants generating an aggregated 30,000 megawatts of electrical capacity. Indian Point Energy Center is a subsidiary of Entergy Corporation operating a three-unit nuclear power plant in Buchanan, New York , the facility at issue in this case.

Respondent: Riverkeeper is a member-supported environmental protection organization dedicated to defending the Hudson River and its tributaries for New York City and Hudson Valley residents. Over the past four decades Riverkeeper has been successful as the public's watchdog in bringing hundreds of pollution violations to justice and protecting drinking water for local communities. Riverkeeper has an ongoing interest in replacing Indian Point nuclear power plant with renewable energy.

This case is a consolidation of three cases for review by the Supreme Court Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. PSEG Fossil LLC, et al., v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. Utility Water Act Group, v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al.

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Entergy_Corp._v._Riverkeeper_Inc.&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Background")

Among the ten major environmental regulatory statutes enacted from the 1960s through the 1980s only the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) granted authority to weigh the cost and benefits in determining policy requirements. The remainder of the regulations rely mainly on harm-based or technology-based methodologies that clearly exclude cost–benefit analysis (CBA) or at a minimum do not provide for it. The Clean Water Act statute uses technology based methods to meet its standards. (See Note 1.)

Three pre-Entergy Supreme Court decisions offer historical guidance into the possible crafting of the CBA canon . Each of them address the priority of environmental health and safety concerns with the appropriate level of cost-benefit analysis.

• In _Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill _ the Court interpreted section 7 of the Endangered Species Act as discontinuing the construction of the Tellico Dam after the project was more than 80 percent complete and had spent over $50 million in order to save the snail darter (an unknown species at the time).
• In American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan the court addressed whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) could adopt cost–benefit analysis with regards to cotton dust standards for employees. The Court ruled that CBA was not authorized by the statute because feasibility analysis was authorized.
• In _Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. _, the Court held that section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibited cost considerations when setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) In a unanimous Court, Justice Scalia considered that section 109 requires the public to be protected with "an adequate margin of safety" and that the CAA had specific reference to cost considerations in related provisions but not with setting the NAAQS.

Various States and environmental groups challenged the Bush Administration Environmental Protection Agency 's (EPA) interpretation of § 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §1326(b), that allowed exceptions to power plants that diverged from national standards. The claim against the EPA was that the agency unreasonably interpreted the regulations of the CWA when it determined that cost–benefit analysis was a method that could be used to determine the BAT when minimizing the adverse effects of cooling water intakes from power plants. This new interpretation of the statute allows for cost to influence the choice of "best technology available" lowering the standard reduction of "adverse environmental impact."

Statute and regulations

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Entergy_Corp._v._Riverkeeper_Inc.&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Statute and regulations")

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that permittees under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) that operate facilities with cooling water intake structures ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of their structures reflect the best technology available to minimize detrimental impacts to the environment. The intake structures remove billions of aquatic organisms each year from United States waterways. Most impacts are in early life stages of fish, crustaceans, and other aquatic life.

Prior case

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Entergy_Corp._v._Riverkeeper_Inc.&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Prior case")

The case preceding this Supreme Court case was decided in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals . This court heard Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, in 2006 and decided the case in 2007. Then-Circuit Judge [Sotomayor](https://en

…