Pseg Fossil LLC et al. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 14 Apr 2008

1. Whether the Second Circuit erred by holding that §316(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1326(b), bars any use of cost-benefit analysis, in conflict with decisions of several other circuits and the precedents of this Court.
2. Whether the Second Circuit erred by concluding that §316(b) bars the use of restoration measures as a compliance alternative to “minimiz[e] adverse environmental impact,” in conflict with decisions of other courts of appeals.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case addressed whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could consider cost-benefit analysis when setting standards for cooling water intake structures under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. The EPA had issued regulations that allowed facilities to use a cost-benefit analysis in determining the best technology available for minimizing environmental impact on aquatic life. Riverkeeper, Inc., an environmental group, challenged this approach, arguing that the statute required strict adherence to using 'best technology available' without considering costs against benefits. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PSEG Fossil LLC and other industry petitioners by holding that it was reasonable for the EPA to incorporate cost-benefit considerations into its decision-making process under Section 316(b). This interpretation allows flexibility in regulatory approaches while still aiming at protecting aquatic ecosystems.