Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

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

7 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

Powerful evidence of Congress’ decision not to authorize
cost-benefit analysis in the BTA standard lies in the series 
of  standards  adopted  to  regulate  the  outflow,  or  effluent, 
from industrial powerplants.  Passed at the same time as 
the  BTA  standard  at  issue  here,  the  effluent  limitation 
standards  imposed  increasingly  strict  technology  require-
ments  on  industry.  In  each  effluent  limitation  provision, 
Congress distinguished its willingness to allow the EPA to 
consider  costs  from  its  willingness  to  allow  the  Agency  to
conduct  a  cost-benefit  analysis.    And  to  the  extent  Con-
gress permitted cost-benefit analysis, its use was intended
to be temporary and exceptional.

The first tier of technology standards applied to existing
plants—facilities  for  which  retrofitting  would  be  particu-
larly  costly.    Congress  required  these  plants  to  adopt 
“effluent  limitations  . . .  which  shall  require  the  applica-
tion  of  the  best  practicable  control  technology  currently 
available.”  33 U. S. C. §1311(b)(1)(A).  Because this “best 
practicable,” or “BPT,” standard was meant to ease indus-
try’s  transition  to  the  new  technology-based  regime,  Con-
gress  gave  BPT  two  unique  features:  First,  it  would  be 
temporary,  remaining  in  effect  only  until  July  1,  1983.6 
Second,  it  specified  that  the  EPA  was  to  conduct  a  cost-
benefit analysis in setting BPT requirements by consider-
ing  “the  total  cost  of  application  of  technology  in  relation 
to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such 
application.”7    §1314(b)(1)(B).    Permitting  cost-benefit 
—————— 

second  step  reflects  the  Court’s  reluctance  to  consider  the  possibility, 
which  it  later  laments  is  “more  complex,”  ante,  at  9,  that  Congress’
silence may have meant to foreclose cost-benefit analysis. 

6 Congress later extended the deadline to March 31, 1989. 
7 Senator Muskie, the Senate sponsor of the legislation, described the
cost-benefit analysis permitted under BPT as decidedly narrow, assert-
ing that “[t]he balancing test between total cost and effluent reduction
benefits  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 such marginal level of reduction for any class or