Supremes: Environmental Rules Should Weigh Costs, Benefits

The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of a power company. That’s not necessarily a bad thing for the environment. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of power companies in Entergy v. EPA and related cases and against environmental groups, especially Riverkeeper. The issue was a rules change in the EPA which sought to make power companies upgrade their plants to protect the environment regardless of cost. The appeal aimed at reinstating Bush-era rules that allowed power companies to do cost-benefit analysis before certain upgrades. As the WSJ explains: “We conclude that the EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion. The majority concluded the costs and benefits could be weighed under a broad set of circumstances. Specifically, the court said, using the “best available technology” to tackle any given environmental problem means using the most efficient approach—not necessarily the best technology if it is prohibitively expensive. The ruling addresses a huge question in the energy and environment battle raging right now—namely, how to strike the balance between environmental protections and safeguarding the economy. It also brings the field of cost-benefit analysis squarely back into the environmental debate...WSJ