PSEG Fossil LLC, et al. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al.

Case Updates

Rejecting a challenge by a group of environmental activists and certain states, the Supreme Court held that federal regulators may rely on ‘cost-benefit analysis’ to determine what technologies power plants are required to adopt in order to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts from their cooling intake systems. The Supreme Court held that the EPA may determine what constitutes the “best available technology” required by the Clean Water Act by weighing the costs of a particular environmental technology against the possible environmental benefits from using that technology. As a result of the decision, the EPA need not force electrical power plants to adopt costly technologies that produce only marginal environmental benefits.

PSEG Fossil LLC, et al. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. is a companion to two other cases: Entergy Corporation v. EPA, et al. and Utility Water Group v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al.

NCLC filed a brief on the merits in these cases.

NCLC urged the Supreme Court to confirm that the Clean Water Act’s provisions dealing with cooling water intake structures do not preclude the use of cost-benefit analysis and restoration measures by the Environmental Protection Agency when it issues regulations pursuant to those provisions. NCLC’s brief made clear that precluding cost-benefit analysis and restoration measures would have significant adverse effects beyond the utility industry.

Click here to view NCLC's amicus brief.