Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 30

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

1 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 07–588, 07–589 and 07–597 
_________________ 

07–588 

ENTERGY CORPORATION, PETITIONER 
v. 
RIVERKEEPER, INC., ET AL. 

07–589 

PSEG FOSSIL LLC, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
RIVERKEEPER, INC., ET AL. 

07–597 

UTILITY WATER ACT GROUP, PETITIONER 
v. 
RIVERKEEPER, INC., ET AL. 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

[April 1, 2009]

 JUSTICE  STEVENS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  SOUTER  and 

JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting. 

Section  316(b)  of  the  Clean  Water  Act  (CWA),  33
U. S. C.  §1326(b),  which  governs  industrial  powerplant 
water intake structures, provides that the Environmental
Protection  Agency  (EPA  or  Agency)  “shall  require”  that
such  structures  “reflect  the  best  technology  available  for
minimizing adverse environmental impact.”  The EPA has 
interpreted  that  mandate  to  authorize  the  use  of  cost-
benefit  analysis 
in  promulgating  regulations  under 
§316(b).  For  instance,  under  the  Agency’s  interpretation, 
technology that would otherwise qualify as the best avail-
able need not be used if its costs are “significantly greater 
than the benefits” of compliance.  40 CFR §125.94(a)(5)(ii)
(2008).