Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

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

1 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

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  BREYER,  concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in 

part. 

I  agree  with  the  Court  that  the  relevant  statutory  lan-
guage  authorizes  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency
(EPA) to compare costs and benefits.  Ante, at 7–13.  None-
theless  the  drafting  history  and  legislative  history  of 
related  provisions,  Pub.  L.  92–500,  §§301,  304,  86  Stat.
844,  850,  as  amended,  33  U.  S.  C.  §§1311,  1314,  make 
clear  that  those  who  sponsored  the  legislation  intended 
the law’s text to be read as restricting, though not forbid-
ding,  the  use  of  cost-benefit  comparisons.  And  I  would 
apply that text accordingly.   

Section  301  provides  that,  not  later  than  1977,  effluent 

I