 |
|
***Search other cases***
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, et al./PSEG Fossil LLC v. Riverkeeper, et al./Utility Water Act Group v. Riverkeeper, et al.
| Close Date: |
04/01/2009 |
| Status: |
closed |
| Date Of Involvement: |
12/14/2007 |
| Docket: |
07-588, 07-589, 07-597 |
| Description: |
Environmental Law: Clean Water Act
- Whether the court of appeals properly remanded the Environmental Protection Agency's Phase II cooling water intake structure regulations for further rulemaking because of uncertainty as to whether EPA based its determination of "best technology available" ("BTA") on cost-benefit analysis rather than on economic availability, cost-effectiveness, or other considerations permissible under the plain language of Clean Water Act section 316(b). (07-588 Q3; 07-589 Q1; 07-597 Q1)
- Whether the court of appeals correctly followed its Phase I decision and remanded a provision in EPA's Phase II cooling water intake structure regulations that would have allowed compliance with section 316(b) through "restoration measures." (07-589 Q2; 07-597 Q2)
- Whether section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act applies to both new and existing facilities, as its plain language makes clear and as the courts and EPA have consistently recognized since the statutory provision was enacted in 1972. (07-588 Qs1&2)
Scott Nelson of Public Citizen assisted the respondents. The Supreme Court granted cert and decided in favor of the petitioners. |
Because Public Citizen does not accept funds from corporations, professional associations or government agencies,
we can remain independent and follow the truth wherever it may lead. But that means we
depend on the generosity of concerned citizens like you for the resources to fight on
behalf of the public interest. If you would like to help us in our fight,
click here.
|
|
