Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

ENTERGY CORP. v. RIVERKEEPER, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

and  10  million  gallons  per  day  may  alternatively  comply 
by, among other things, reducing the volume and velocity
of  water  removal  to  certain  levels.    §125.84(c).    And  all 
facilities  may  alternatively  comply  by  demonstrating,
among  other  things,  “that  the  technologies  employed  will 
reduce the level of adverse environmental impact . . . to a 
comparable  level”  to  what  would  be  achieved  by  using  a 
closed-cycle cooling system.  §125.84(d).  These regulations
were  upheld  in  large  part  by  the  Second  Circuit  in 
Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, 358 F. 3d 174 (2004).

The EPA  then adopted the so-called “Phase II” rules at 
issue  here.3    69  Fed.  Reg.  41576.    They  apply  to  existing
facilities that are point sources, whose primary activity is
the generation and transmission (or sale for transmission) 
of electricity, and whose water-intake flow is more than 50 
million  gallons  of  water  per  day,  at  least  25  percent  of 
which is used for cooling purposes.  Ibid.  Over 500 facili-
ties,  accounting  for  approximately  53  percent  of  the  Na-
tion’s electric-power generating capacity, fall within Phase 
II’s  ambit.  See  EPA,  Economic  and  Benefits  Analysis  for 
the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule, 
A3–13,  Table  A3–4  (Feb.  2004),  online  at  http://www.
epa.gov/waterscience/316b/phase2/econbenefits/final/a3.pdf.
Those  facilities  remove  on  average  more  than  214  billion 
gallons  of  water  per  day,  causing  impingement  and  en-
trainment  of  over  3.4  billion  aquatic  organisms  per  year. 
69 Fed. Reg. 41586.

To  address  those  environmental  impacts,  the  EPA  set 
“national  performance  standards,”  requiring  Phase  II
facilities  (with  some  exceptions)  to  reduce  “impingement 
mortality for all life stages of fish and shellfish by 80 to 95 
—————— 

3 The EPA has also adopted Phase III rules for facilities not subject to
the  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  regulations.    71  Fed.  Reg.  35006  (2006).    A 
challenge  to  those  regulations  is  currently  before  the  Fifth  Circuit,
where proceedings have been stayed pending disposition of these cases. 
See ConocoPhillips Co. v. EPA, No. 06–60662.