Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 28

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

7 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

Central  Hudson  Gas  &  Elec.  Corp.,  EPA  Decision  of  the 
General Counsel, NPDES Permits, No. 63, p. 371 (July 29, 
1977)  (also  applying  a  “wholly  disproportionate”  test);  In 
re  Pub.  Serv.  Co.  of  N. H.,  1  E.  A.  D.  455  (1978)  (same).
“[T]his  Court  will  normally  accord  particular  deference  to 
‘longstanding’  duration.” 
an  agency  interpretation  of 
Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U. S. 212, 220 (2002).  And for the 
last 30 years, the EPA has given the statute a permissive
reading  without  suggesting  that  in  doing  so  it  was  ignor-
ing or thwarting the intent of the Congress that wrote the 
statute. 

The EPA’s  reading of the statute would seem to permit 
it  to  describe  environmental  benefits  in  non-monetized 
terms  and  to  evaluate  both  costs  and  benefits  in  accor-
dance  with  its  expert  judgment  and  scientific  knowledge. 
The Agency can thereby avoid lengthy formal cost-benefit
proceedings and futile attempts at comprehensive moneti-
zation,  see  69  Fed.  Reg.  41661–41662;  take  account  of
Congress’  technology-forcing  objectives;  and  still  prevent 
results that are absurd or unreasonable in light of extreme 
disparities between costs and benefits.  This approach, in
my  view,  rests  upon  a  “reasonable  interpretation”  of  the 
statute—legislative  history  included.    Hence  it  is  lawful. 
Chevron  U. S. A.  Inc.  v.  Natural  Resources  Defense  Coun-
cil, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 844 (1984).  Most of what the ma-
jority says is consistent with this view, and to that extent I
agree with its opinion. 

II 
The  cases  before  us,  however,  present  an  additional
problem.  We  here  consider  a  rule  that  permits  variances
from national standards if a facility demonstrates that its
costs  would  be  “significantly  greater  than  the  benefits  of 
complying.”  40  CFR  §125.94(a)(5)(ii)  (2008).  The  words 
“significantly  greater”  differ  from  the  words  the  EPA  has 
traditionally  used  to  describe  its  standard,  namely,