Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

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

3 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

points  increases  expo[n]entially.”    H. R.  Rep.  No.  92–911, 
p. 103 (1972).

In  the  Senate  version,  the  Agency  was  to  consider  “the
cost of achieving such effluent reduction” when determin-
ing both “best practicable” and “best available” technology.
S.  2770,  92d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  §§304(b)(1)(B),  (b)(2)(B) 
(1971)  (as  reported  from  committee).    The  Senate  Report
explains  that  “the  technology  must  be  available  at  a  cost
. . . which the Administrator determines to be reasonable.” 
S. Rep. No. 92–414, p. 52 (1971) (hereinafter S. Rep.).  But 
it said nothing about comparing costs and benefits.  

The  final  statute  reflects  a  modification  of  the  House’s 
language  with  respect  to  “best  practicable,”  and  an  adop-
tion  of  the  Senate’s  language  with  respect  to  “best  avail-
able.”  S. Conf. Rep. No. 92–1236, pp. 124–125 (1972).  The 
final statute does not require the Agency to compare costs 
to  benefits  when  determining  “best  available  technology,”
but neither does it expressly forbid such a comparison.

The  strongest  evidence  in  the  legislative  history  sup-
porting  the  respondents’  position—namely,  that  Congress 
intended to forbid comparisons of costs and benefits when 
determining the “best available technology”—can be found 
in  a  written  discussion  of  the  Act’s  provisions  distributed
to the Senate by Senator Edmund Muskie, the Act’s prin-
cipal  sponsor,  when  he  submitted  the  Conference  Report 
for  the  Senate’s  consideration.  118  Cong.  Rec.  33693
(1972).  The  relevant  part  of  that  discussion  points  out 
that,  as  to  “best  practicable  technology,”  the  statute  re-
quires  application  of  a  “balancing  test  between  total  cost
and  effluent  reduction  benefits.” 
Id.,  at  33696;  see 
§304(b)(1)(B).  But  as  to  “best  available  technology,”  it 
states:  “While  cost  should  be  a  factor  in  the  Administra-
tor’s judgment, no balancing test will be required.”  Ibid.; 
see  §304(b)(2)(B).    And  Senator  Muskie’s  discussion  later 
speaks  of  the  agency  “evaluat[ing]  . . .  what  needs  to  be
done”  to  eliminate  pollutant  discharge  and  “what  is