Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

16 

ENTERGY CORP. v. RIVERKEEPER, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

are de minimis rather than significantly disproportionate. 

* 

* 

* 
We  conclude  that  the  EPA  permissibly  relied  on  cost-
benefit analysis in setting the national performance stan-
dards  and  in  providing  for  cost-benefit  variances  from
those  standards  as  part  of  the  Phase  II  regulations.    The 
Court  of  Appeals’  reliance  in  part  on  the  agency’s  use  of 
cost-benefit  analysis  in  invalidating  the  site-specific  cost-
benefit variance provision, 475 F. 3d, at 114, was therefore 
in  error,  as  was  its  remand  of  the  national  performance
standards for clarification of whether cost-benefit analysis
was  impermissibly  used,  id.,  at  104–105.    We  of  course 
express  no  view  on  the  remaining  bases  for  the  Second 
Circuit’s remand which did not depend on the permissibil-
ity of cost-benefit analysis.  See id., at 108, 110, 113, 115, 
117,  120.8    The  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  is  re-
versed,  and  the  cases  are  remanded  for  further  proceed-
ings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

—————— 

8 JUSTICE BREYER would remand for the additional reason of what he 
regards  as  the  agency’s  inadequate  explanation  of  the  change  in  its 
criterion  for  variances—from  a  relationship  of  costs  to  benefits  that  is
“ ‘wholly disproportionate’ ” to one that is “ ‘significantly greater.’ ”  Post, 
at 7–8 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).  That ques-
tion  can  have  no  bearing  upon  whether  the  EPA  can  use  cost-benefit
analysis, which is the only question presented here.  It seems to us, in 
any case, that the EPA’s explanation was ample.  It explained that the 
“wholly  out  of  proportion”  standard  was  inappropriate  for  the  existing
facilities subject to the Phase II rules because those facilities lack “the
greater flexibility available to new facilities for selecting the location of 
their  intakes  and  installing  technologies  at  lower  costs  relative  to  the 
costs  associated  with  retrofitting  existing  facilities,”  and  because 
“economically impracticable impacts on energy prices, production costs,
and  energy  production  . . .  could  occur  if  large  numbers  of  Phase  II 
existing  facilities  incurred  costs  that  were  more  than  ‘significantly 
greater’ than but not ‘wholly out of proportion’ to the costs in the EPA’s 
record.”  68 Fed. Reg. 13541 (2003).