Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 26

Cite as:  556 U. S. ____ (2009) 

5 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

sensitive both to the need for such comparisons and to the
concerns that the law’s sponsors expressed.  The relevant 
statement begins by listing various factors that the statute 
requires  the  Administrator  to  take  into  account  when 
applying  the  phrase  “practicable”  to  “classes  and  catego-
ries.”  118 Cong. Rec. 33696.  It states that, when doing so, 
the  Administrator  must  apply  (as  the  statute  specifies)  a
“balancing  test  between  total  cost  and  effluent  reduction
benefits.”  Ibid.   At  the  same  time,  it  seeks  to  reduce  the 
likelihood  that  the  Administrator  will  place  too  much 
weight  upon  high  costs  by  adding  that  the  balancing  test
“is  intended  to  limit  the  application  of  technology  only
where the additional degree of effluent reduction is wholly 
out  of  proportion  to  the  costs  of  achieving”  a  “marginal
level of reduction.”  Ibid. 

Senator  Muskie’s  statement  then  considers  the  “differ-
ent  test”  that  the  statute  requires  the  Administrator  to
apply  when  determining  the  “ ‘best  available’ ”  technology. 
Ibid. (emphasis added).  Under that test, the Administra-
tor “may consider a broader range of technological alterna-
tives.”  Ibid.  And in determining what is “ ‘best available’ 
for  a  category  or  class,  the  Administrator  is  expected  to 
apply  the  same  principles  involved  in  making  the  deter-
mination  of  ‘best  practicable’  . . .  except  as  to  cost-benefit 
analysis.”  Ibid.  (emphasis  added).    That  is,  “[w]hile  cost 
should be a factor . . . no balancing test will be required.” 
Ibid. (emphasis added).  Rather, “[t]he Administrator will 
be  bound  by  a  test  of  reasonableness.”  Ibid.  (emphasis
added).  The  statement  adds  that  the  “ ‘best  available’ ” 
standard  “is  intended  to  reflect  the  need  to  press  toward
increasingly  higher  levels  of  control.”    Ibid.  (emphasis 
added).  And “the reasonableness of what is ‘economically 
achievable’  should  reflect  an  evaluation  of  what  needs  to 
be done to move toward the elimination of the discharge of 
pollutants and what is achievable through the application 
of  available  technology—without  regard  to  cost.”    Ibid.