NPR logo

High Court Hears Argument On Power Plants

  • Download
  • <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript
High Court Hears Argument On Power Plants


High Court Hears Argument On Power Plants

High Court Hears Argument On Power Plants

  • Download
  • <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript

Utilities want the Supreme Court to reinstate a Bush administration regulation that was overturned by lower courts. The regulation allowed utilities to consider the cost of the cleanest technology and not install it if fails a cost-benefit analysis.


From NPR News, this is All Things Considered. I'm Michele Norris. Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in an important environmental case. The question is whether power plants must use the best technology available to minimize environmental harm to the nation's waterways. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports.

NINA TOTENBERG: The nation's older power plants sucked in trillions of gallons of water each year from this country's lakes and rivers to cool the steam for generating power. In the process, the fish and aquatic organisms in that water are killed. In contrast, modern plants use technologies that require little or no water at all. The Clean Water Act requires utilities to use the best technology available to minimize environmental harm.

So the question in this case is whether and when the older plants have to install new technology to do that. The Bush administration adopted a new regulation that, in essence, gives the older plants a pass on new technology if they can show that the costs of modernizing outweigh the benefits.

Six states challenged that regulation, contending that such a cost-benefit analysis is simply not permitted under the act. They won in the lower courts. Today in the Supreme Court, the Bush administration's Assistant solicitor general, Daryl Joseffer, told the justices that the Clean Water Act provision dealing with water intake is ambiguous.

Chief Justice Roberts - in the other provisions of the law, Congress specified consideration of cost and benefits, and it didn't do so in this provision.

Justice Suter - I just don't see how a sight-driven cost-benefit analysis works because you're dealing with immeasurables. Are a thousand plankton worth a million dollars? I don't know.

Justice Keansburg - Everybody agrees that some consideration of cost is appropriate if the technology is more than the industry can bear. The concern is, are you comparing things that aren't comparable?

Justice Kennedy - I assumed the best-technology standard in the statue is the most rigorous. So what's your regulation that reflects that?

Answer - there's no reason Congress would want greater protection for fish through the intake provision than is provided for people in the pollutant discharge provision of the law, which does allow cost-benefit analysis.

Justice Stevens - so you don't think Congress intended a tougher standard?

Answer - we do not.

Justice Kennedy - then why didn't Congress use any of the lesser standards, like the best practicable standard?

Mr. Joseffer never really answered that question. Representing the states and environmental groups today was Georgetown law professor Richard Lazarus. He told the justices that Congress decided it didn't want a cost-benefit analysis to apply to water intake because such an analysis had simply proven too hard and too subject to endless delay.

Instead, he contended Congress meant the standard to be whether the technology is feasible, meaning affordable, but he got his legal feet tangled in trying to explain the difference between considering feasible costs as opposed to weighing costs and benefits. Justice Alito suggested that the plain meaning of the words in the statute, best available technology, provides no consideration of cost.

Justice Breyer - are you saying pay no attention to cost? Or can you take cost into account if it's grossly disproportionate?

Answer - you can take cost into account to prevent insane results, but you cannot weigh the cost against the environmental benefit because if you do that, Congress knew the fish always lose.

Justice Suter - are you saying the question should be whether there's money in the bank to pay for this?

Answer - absolutely.

Chief Justice Roberts with a touch of irony - well, if a standard is affordability and money in the bank, the standard changes because nobody has money in the bank today. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

Copyright © 2008 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

High Court Case Tests Power Plants' Water Rules

High Court Case Tests Power Plants' Water Rules

  • Download
  • <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript

The U.S. Supreme Court hears an important environmental case Tuesday, testing whether utilities must use the best technology available to minimize harm to the nation's waterways. At issue is the physical impact on fish and the financial impact on companies.

The nation's 550 power plants use water — lots of water in some instances — that comes from lakes and rivers. Each day, more than 214 billion gallons of water is sucked into power plants across the country. That's tens of trillions of gallons each year.

The water cools the steam used in the electric generating process. And all the fish and aquatic organisms in the water are killed in the process.

In modern plants, little or no water is needed. Instead, the cooling is done with air, or sometimes with a different water system that uses small amounts of water and recycles it. The question in this case involves whether older plants must install new technology to minimize the harm to the nation's lakes and rivers.

The companies say installing the best technology is too expensive — the Bush administration adopted a rule that would allow utilities to get a variance from the Environmental Protection Agency if they can show that the cost of complying is greater than the environmental benefits.

Environmentalists contend that Congress specifically rejected the cost-benefit approach because Congress itself concluded the costs were worth the benefits to the environment. Opponents also say a case-by-case cost-benefit analysis would be too prone to manipulation.

"The Clean Water Act doesn't fare well if it becomes a cost-benefit statute," says Georgetown University law professor Lisa Heinzerling. "Lots of fish aren't really worth that much when it comes down to trying to put a dollar value on them."

Six states and environmental groups challenged the Bush administration's approach, contending that the language of the statute requiring the best technology available is clear and unequivocal. They won in the lower courts, and the utilities appealed to the Supreme Court.

The states point out that the utility plants sit on state lakes and rivers and use their water for free. In Rhode Island, for example, the Brayton utility plant takes in a billion gallons of water a day, killing every living thing in the water, says state Assistant Attorney General Tricia Jedele.

"Our fin fish and winter flounder populations have collapsed, and we've lost a viable commercial and recreational fishing resource that has been used by Rhode Islanders for millennia," Jedele says.

Environmental lawyer Reid Super adds that utility plants are enormously profitable. "The company never said it couldn't afford it," Super says. "They just said they didn't want to do it."

But the utilities counter that Congress never intended to impose new technology costs on the industry without weighing costs against benefits.

Carter Phillips, an attorney who represents a number of utilities, says, "If you don't have at least some cost-benefits analysis that's incorporated into this approach, the possibility of having to spend literally ... hundreds of millions of dollars to save a handful of fish strikes me as palpably absurd."

If you say no cost-benefit analysis is appropriate, he adds, "then you end up with this wildly out-of-sync regulatory scheme."

Phillips contends that weighing costs and benefits is something federal and state agencies do every day, and he thinks a Democratic Obama administration may weigh costs and benefits quite differently than the Bush administration did.

"Who's running the EPA may make a big difference in terms of what the cost-benefit analysis is going to look like," Phillips says.

So, if the standards for measuring costs and benefits are going to change anyway with a new administration, does it matter what the Supreme Court says in this case? You bet it does.

For more than a quarter-century, industry has tried to put a cost-benefit overlay on environmental regulations.

In the past, that effort has often come a cropper in the courts. Now, with the Supreme Court's new conservative composition, industry thinks it has a good shot at winning — and winning in a way that will affect all environmental regulations.