October Term 2008 · Docket 07-588
Can EPA weigh costs when setting water intake limits?
Entergy argues EPA must ignore costs. Riverkeeper says EPA must balance them.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Joseffer argued EPA has construed the Act to permit cost consideration.
Mr. Lazarus stated Congress did not authorize EPA to decide benefits did not justify costs.
Ms. Mahoney noted executive orders require cost-benefit analysis for regulations.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 49-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 49-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-51 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-25
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Entergy claims this section bans cost-benefit analysis. Riverkeeper argues EPA must consider costs and benefits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-51 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-29
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 2, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 13-19
What each side wants
Entergy wants the Court to strike down EPA's cost-benefit approach.
Riverkeeper wants the Court to uphold EPA's cost-benefit approach.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-51 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-29
What each side says
Entergy argues Congress did not authorize EPA to weigh costs against benefits.
Riverkeeper argues EPA has long considered costs and benefits in this context.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-51 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-29
What the justices asked
Justice Souter asked if these decisions are more subtle than a cost-benefit cutoff.
Justice Kennedy assumed BTA is the most rigorous standard in the statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 49-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 49-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-25
Why it matters
This case defines how regulators balance environmental protection against economic costs. It shapes future water quality standards nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-51 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-29
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-49 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 49-19 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 49-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 9-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-25
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-51 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-51 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-7 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 19-29
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.