This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Case name | Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. |
| Litigants | Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, Inc. |
| Argued | April 20, 2009 |
| Decided | June 8, 2009 |
| Citation | 556 U.S. 208 (2009) |
| Majority | Scalia |
| Joinmajority | Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
| Concurrence | Stevens (in part) |
| Dissent | Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (in part) |
| Laws applied | Clean Water Act |
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. was a 2009 United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Clean Water Act's provisions on cooling water intake structures and the "best technology available" standard. The decision arose from a regulatory dispute involving the Environmental Protection Agency and industrial facilities including Entergy Corporation, with challenges by environmental organizations such as Riverkeeper, Inc. and intervenors. The Court's ruling addressed administrative deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the scope of statutory mandates under the Clean Water Act.
The litigation followed revisions to rules promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act concerning cooling water intake structures used by power plants and manufacturing facilities. Plaintiffs including Riverkeeper, Inc. and the Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the EPA's use of a cost-benefit approach and its permitting framework, arguing the agency failed to require the "best technology available" to minimize adverse environmental impacts on fish and aquatic organisms. Regulated entities such as Entergy Corporation and other utilities, alongside industry groups like the Edison Electric Institute, intervened in defense of the EPA rules developed during the George W. Bush Administration and promulgated after notice-and-comment rulemaking.
The Court considered several legal questions arising from petitions for review by environmental groups and industry petitioners, framed around statutory interpretation and administrative law. Central issues included whether Section 316(b) requires that cooling water intake standards be based on the "best technology available" in all cases, whether the EPA permissibly balanced environmental benefits against energy costs and reliability, and whether the agency's rulemaking was entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan precedents. The case also implicated judicial review standards under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Court's prior decisions on environmental statutes, such as Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. and Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc..
In a decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court vacated portions of the D.C. Circuit's judgment and remanded to allow the EPA latitude to consider cost in determining the "best technology available" under Section 316(b). The majority applied the two-step framework of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. to defer to the EPA's reasonable interpretation, rejecting the environmental petitioners' claim that the statute mandated an absolute no-cost standard. Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer filed opinions expressing varying levels of disagreement; Justice Stevens wrote separately in part, emphasizing statutory protections for aquatic life. The Court's ruling balanced statutory text, regulatory history, and the agency's predictive judgments about energy reliability and plant economics, referencing administrative law principles articulated in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. and Chevron jurisprudence.
The decision affected regulatory approaches by the Environmental Protection Agency to industrial cooling water intake structures across sectors including electric power generation, chemical manufacturing, and pulp and paper facilities. By endorsing agency discretion to weigh costs and benefits within the 316(b) framework, the ruling influenced permitting decisions implemented by regional Environmental Protection Agency offices and state permitting authorities under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The case shaped litigation strategy for environmental organizations like Riverkeeper, Inc. and the Natural Resources Defense Council and informed compliance planning by corporations such as Entergy Corporation, Exelon Corporation, and Duke Energy. It also contributed to scholarly debate in administrative law, cited alongside Chevron and Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency in discussions on agency deference and environmental regulation.
Following remand, the Environmental Protection Agency proceeded with further rulemaking and permitting guidance to implement Section 316(b), prompting additional challenges in federal courts including petitions before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and district courts. Subsequent administrative actions under the Obama and Trump Administrations revisited intake structure standards, with stakeholder engagement from industry groups such as the Edison Electric Institute and environmental advocates including Defenders of Wildlife and Natural Resources Defense Council. The decision remains cited in later cases addressing administrative deference, such as disputes involving Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act implementation, and continues to inform regulatory policy on industrial impacts to aquatic ecosystems.
Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:United States administrative case law Category:2009 in United States case law