Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 23

2 

ENTERGY CORP. v. RIVERKEEPER, INC. 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

limitations  for  point  sources  shall  require  the  application 
of  “best  practicable  control  technology,”  §301(b)(1)(A),  86
Stat. 845 (emphasis added); and that, not later than 1983
(later extended to 1989), effluent limitations for categories
and classes of point sources shall require application of the 
technology  economically  achievable,” 
“best  available 
§301(b)(2)(A),  ibid.  (emphasis  added).    Section  304(b),  in 
turn, identifies the factors that the Agency shall take into
account  in  determining  (1)  “best  practicable  control  tech-
nology”  and  (2)  “best  available  technology.”  86  Stat.  851 
(emphasis added).

With  respect  to  the  first,  the  statute  provides  that  the 
factors  taken  into  account  by  the  Agency  “shall  include 
consideration of the total cost of application of technology 
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved 
from  such  application  . . .  and  such  other  factors  as  the 
Administrator  deems  appropriate.”    §304(b)(1)(B),  ibid. 
With  respect  to  the  second,  the  statute  says  that  the 
Agency  “shall  take  into  account  .  .  .  the  cost  of  achieving
such  effluent  reduction”  and  “such  other  factors  as  the 
Administrator deems appropriate.”  §304(b)(2)(B), ibid. 

The  drafting  history  makes  clear  that  the  statute  re-
flects  a  compromise.    In  the  House  version  of  the  legisla-
tion,  the  Agency  was  to  consider  “the  cost  and  the  eco-
nomic, social, and environmental impact of achieving such
effluent  reduction”  when  determining  both  “best  practica-
ble”  and  “best  available”  technology.    H. R.  11896,  92d 
Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  §§304(b)(1)(B),  (b)(2)(B)  (1972)  (as  re-
ported from committee).  The House Report explained that 
the  “best  available  technology”  standard  was  needed—as 
opposed  to  mandating  the  elimination  of  discharge  of 
pollutants—because  “the  difference  in  the  cost  of  100
percent  elimination  of  pollutants  as  compared  to  the  cost
of removal of 97–99 percent of the pollutants in an effluent
can  far  exceed  any  reasonable  benefit  to  be  achieved.    In 
most cases, the cost of removal of the last few percentage