Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

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

3 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

tected  under  its  §316(b)  regulations,  id.,  at  41661.    To 
compensate, the EPA took a shortcut: Instead of monetiz-
ing all aquatic life, the Agency counted only those species 
that  are  commercially  or  recreationally  harvested,  a  tiny
slice  (1.8  percent  to  be  precise)  of  all  impacted  fish  and
shellfish.  This narrow focus in turn skewed the Agency’s
calculation of benefits.  When the EPA attempted to value
all aquatic life, the benefits measured $735 million.2  But 
when  the  EPA  decided  to  give  zero  value  to  the  98.2  per-
cent  of  fish  not  commercially  or  recreationally  harvested,
the  benefits  calculation  dropped  dramatically—to  $83
million.  Id., at 41666.  The Agency acknowledged that its
failure to monetize the other 98.2 percent of affected spe-
cies  “ ‘could  result  in  serious  misallocation  of  resources,’ ” 
id.,  at  41660,  because  its  “comparison  of  complete  costs
and  incomplete  benefits  does  not  provide  an  accurate 
picture of net benefits to society.”3 

Because  benefits  can  be  more  accurately  monetized  in 
some industries than in others, Congress typically decides
whether it is appropriate for an agency to use cost-benefit 
analysis  in  crafting  regulations.    Indeed,  this  Court  has 
recognized  that  “[w]hen  Congress  has  intended  that  an 
agency engage in cost-benefit analysis, it has clearly indi-
cated  such  intent  on  the  face  of  the  statute.”    American 
Textile Mfrs. Institute, Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U. S. 490, 510 
(1981).  Accordingly,  we  should  not  treat  a  provision’s
silence  as  an  implicit  source  of  cost-benefit  authority, 
particularly  when  such  authority  is  elsewhere  expressly
granted and it has the potential to fundamentally alter an 

—————— 

2 EPA,  Economic  and  Benefits  Analysis  for  the  Proposed  Section
316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule, p. D1–4 (EPA–821–R–02–001,
Feb. 2002), http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b/phase2/econbenefits. 
3 EPA,  Economic  and  Benefits  Analysis  for  the  Final  Section  316(b)
Phase  II  Existing  Facilities  Rule,  p.  D1–5  (EPA–821–R–04–005,  Feb. 
2004),  http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b/phase2/econbenefits/final. 
htm.