Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-mggfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T22:32:49.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Benefit Analysis at the Supreme Court: Cooling Water v. Fish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Julie A. Hewitt
Julie A. Hewitt*
Affiliation:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This is the story of a recent U.S. Supreme Court case on the use of cost-benefit analysis at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a regulation issued under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case is Entergy Corp. v.Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. The case was not about the quality of the cost-benefit analysis, nor the fact that EPA conducted one, but whether EPA had CWA authority to base regulatory decisions on cost-benefit. I close with thoughts about an alternative Chevron legal test that acknowledges the state of ecosystem valuation.

Keywords

regulatory analysisecological benefitsChevron test
Type
Invited Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , October 2009 , pp. 83 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, F., et al. 2008. “Brief of Economists Frank Ackerman, Nathan Sivers Boyce, Peter Dorman, Eban Goodstein, Richard B. Howarth, Peter B. Meyer, Julie A. Nelson, Richard B. Norgaard, Thomas Michael Power, Kristen Sheeran, Benjamin K. Sovacool, and Lyuba Zarsky as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents.” Available at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-588_RespondentAmCu12Economists.pdf (accessed September 13, 2009).Google Scholar
Alderson Reporting Company. 2008. Transcript of oral arguments: “In the Supreme Court of the United States, Entergy Corporation vs. Riverkeeper, Inc. et al. (No. 07-588), PSEG Fossil LLC V. Riverkeeper, Inc. et al. (No. 07-589), and Utility Water Act Group v. Riverkeeper, Inc. et al. (No. 07-597)” (December 2). Available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-588.pdf (accessed September 13, 2009).Google Scholar
American Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Donovan. 1981. 452 U.S. 490. Available at http://supreme.justia.com/us/452/490/case.html (accessed September 13, 2009).Google Scholar
Arrow, K.J., Baumol, W.J., Bhagwati, J., Boskin, M.J., Crandall, R., Cropper, M.L., Greenstone, M., Hahn, R.W., Harrison, D., Hubbard, R.G., Kahn, A.E., Lave, L.B., Litan, R., MacAvoy, P., Miller, J.C. III, Nichols, A.L., Niskanen, W.A., Noll, R.G., Oates, W.E., Passell, P., Peltzman, S., Portney, P.R., Rosen, H.S., Russell, M., Schelling, T.C., Schmalen-see, R., Schultze, C.L., Smith, V.K., Smith, V.L., Stavins, R.N., Viscusi, W.K., Weidenbaum, M., White, L.J., and Zeckhauser, R. 2008. “Brief of Amici Curiae the AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies and 33 Individual Economists in Support of Petitioners.” Available at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-588_PetitionerAmCuAEICtr33Economists.pdf (accessed September 13, 2009).Google Scholar
Center for Progressive Reform. 2009. “Comments Regarding Executive Order on OMB Regulatory Review.” Available at http://www.progressiveregulation.org/articles/CPR_Comments_New_EO_Reg_Rev.pdf (accessed September 13, 2009).Google Scholar
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. 1984. 467 U.S. 837. Available at http://supreme.justia.com/us/467/837/case.html (accessed September 13, 2009).Google Scholar
Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, Inc. et al. 2009. 556 U.S. Available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf (accessed September 13, 2009).Google Scholar
Farrow, S. 2009. “Improving the CWIS Rule Regulatory Analysis: What Does an Economist Want?” In Harrington, W., Heinzerling, L., and Morganstern, R.D., eds., Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Harrington, W. 2009. “The Cooling Water Intake Structures Rule.” In Harrington, W., Heinzerling, L., and Morganstern, R.D., eds., Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Kysar, D.A. 2009. “Fish Tales.” In Harrington, W., Heinzerling, L., and Morganstern, R.D., eds., Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Morganstern, R.D. 1997. “The Legal and Institutional Setting for Economic Analysis at EPA.” In Morganstern, R.D., ed., Economic Analyses at EPA: Assessing Regulatory Impact. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Riverkeeper, Inc., et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. 475 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.). Available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/046692p.pdf (accessed September 13, 2009).Google Scholar
Schierow, L.-J. 1994. “Risk Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Regulations.” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress No. 94-961 ENR. Available at http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/risk/rsk-5.cfm (accessed September 13, 2009).Google Scholar
Science Advisory Board. 2009. “Valuating the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services: A Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board.” Report No. EPA-SAB-09-012, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League et al., v. Costle. 1979. 597 F.2d 306 (1st Cir.). Available at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/597/597.F2d.306.78-1339.html (accessed September 13, 2009).Google Scholar
Summers, J.K. 1989. “Simulating the Indirect Effects of Power Plant Entrainment Losses on an Estuarine Ecosystem.” Ecological Modelling 49(1/2): 31–47.Google Scholar
Totenberg, N. 2008. “High Court Case Tests Power Plants’ Water Rules.” Morning Edition, National Public Radio, December 2. Available at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97651580 (accessed September 13, 2009).Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. “The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990.” Available at http://www.epa.gov/airprogm/oar/sect812/copy.html (accessed September 13, 2009).Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. “The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010: EPA Report to Congress.” Report No. EPA410-R-99-001, Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. “Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.” Report No. EPA 240-R-00-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities.” Federal Register 66(243): 65255–65345.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004a. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities.” Federal Register 69(131): 41575–41693.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004b. “Economic and Benefits Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule.” Report No. EPA-821-R-04-005, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004c. “Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule,” Report No. EPA-821-R-02-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004d. “Technical Development Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule.” Report No. EPA-821-R-04-007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase III Facilities.” Federal Register 71(116): 35005–35046.Google Scholar