Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

The Seattle Times

Nation & World


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Originally published April 2, 2009 at 12:00 AM | Page modified April 2, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Comments (3)     E-mail E-mail article      Print Print view      Share Share

Supreme Court backs power plants over fish

The Supreme Court said Wednesday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may consider whether protecting fish and other aquatic creatures...

The Washington Post

Other court action

Other Supreme Court rulings Wednesday:

Arbitration: The court ruled 5-4 for employers who want to force unionized workers to pursue their age-discrimination claims through arbitration instead of a federal lawsuit. The court said an arbitration agreement negotiated between an employer and a union that strips them of their option to take complaints to court is binding on workers.

Death-row appeals: The court ruled 7-2 that the federal government should pay federally appointed lawyers for working on state clemency requests for death-row inmates.

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Wednesday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may consider whether protecting fish and other aquatic creatures is worth the cost of the most advanced upgrades for older power plants, a defeat for environmentalists who had challenged the government's position.

The court ruled 6-3 that such cost-benefit decisions are allowed under the Clean Water Act as the agency moved to require more than 500 older power plants to upgrade the ways they draw water to cool machinery. Water-intake systems kill 3.4 billion fish and shellfish each year, the EPA estimated.

But the technology that could bring the older plants more in line with new plants would cost about $3.5 billion annually, the EPA said.

Environmentalists argued that the Clean Water Act requires remedies that "reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact," and that Congress understood it was nearly impossible to put a monetary value on the loss of wildlife. But Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that even the environmentalists acknowledged there was some limit to whether the most advanced technology was worth it.

"It seems to us, therefore, that the phrase 'best technology available,' even with the added specification 'for minimizing adverse environmental impact,' does not unambiguously preclude cost-benefit analysis," he wrote.

Power plants draw more than 214 billion gallons of water from U.S. waterways daily to cool power plants, "squashing," in Scalia's words, billions of fish and other small aquatic creatures against intake screens or sucking them into the cooling systems. In newer plants, closed-cooling systems reduce the rate by 98 percent.

But it is extremely costly to implement such systems at older plants, and the EPA said less expensive plans would reduce the loss by 80 percent to 95 percent.

Industry has long advocated the cost-benefit analysis embraced by the Bush administration's EPA. But whether the Obama administration will feel the same is another question, and environmentalists have begun to lobby for a different approach.

Alex Matthiessen, president of the New York-based environmental group Riverkeeper, which brought the lawsuit, noted that the court did not say the EPA is required to use the cost-benefit analysis, only that it may.

Environmental groups pointed out that new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson previously headed the environmental protection agency in New Jersey, one of the states that supported Riverkeeper in the suit. An EPA spokeswoman said the department had no comment on the decision.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent, said the majority was ignoring the plain language of the statute, and he found it "puzzling" that the court relied on Congress' silence about whether a cost-benefit analysis was appropriate to decide that it was allowed. He was joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The case is Entergy v. Riverkeeper.

Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company

More Nation & World headlines...

E-mail E-mail article      Print Print view      Share Share

Comments (3)
And "zero pesticide residues mean zero", even if it has proven to cause more cancer than one part per million of an effective, approved...  Posted on April 2, 2009 at 7:17 AM by CitizensRights. Jump to comment
Environmental extremists are terrorists. They should be treated as such.  Posted on April 2, 2009 at 7:30 AM by blue light. Jump to comment
The 'environmental extremists' are not as bad, nor as corrupt, as those who advocate 'ANYTHING for a buck, and DAMN the public...let...  Posted on April 2, 2009 at 9:22 AM by Gimme a Break!. Jump to comment

advertising


Get home delivery today!

More Nation & World

UPDATE - 01:12 AM
Round 2: Snow slams Mid-Atlantic, points north

UPDATE - 12:53 AM
Officials: Afghan avalanches kill 157 people

UPDATE - 12:46 AM
Political supporters clash in streets of Sri Lanka

UPDATE - 12:32 AM
Storm dumps rain, hail, snow in SoCal

UPDATE - 12:30 AM
World stocks rise as Europe debt crisis fears ease

Advertising

Video

Marketplace

Open Houses

Find this weekend's open house listings.
Or search by location:

nwautos

Fatal crashes are down in Washington, and a national used-car database goes onlinenew
Associated Press Study: Fatal crashes down in Washington Last year Washington's roads were the scene of the fewest fatal crashes since 1955. According...
Post a comment

 
Most read
Most commented
Most e-mailed
 
 

Most viewed imagesMore

Advertising