About: Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.

An Entity of Type: unit of work, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact." The issue was whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National Performance Standards (NPS).

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact." The issue was whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National Performance Standards (NPS). Reversing a lower court opinion, the 5-1-3 ruling upheld the EPA's decision as reasonable to allow CBA to determine the best technology available to maintain national environmental standards. (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 31223982 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 28745 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1102975846 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:arguedate
  • 0001-12-02 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:argueyear
  • 2008 (xsd:integer)
dbp:case
  • Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (en)
dbp:concurrence/dissent
  • Breyer (en)
dbp:cornell
dbp:courtlistener
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-04-01 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear
  • 2009 (xsd:integer)
dbp:dissent
  • Stevens (en)
dbp:docket
  • 7 (xsd:integer)
dbp:fullname
  • Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. (en)
dbp:googlescholar
dbp:holding
  • The EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards in providing for cost-benefit variances from the standards, as part of the Phase II regulations. (en)
dbp:joindissent
  • Souter, Ginsburg (en)
dbp:joinmajority
  • Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito (en)
dbp:justia
dbp:lawsapplied
dbp:litigants
  • Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. (en)
dbp:majority
  • Scalia (en)
dbp:otherSource
  • Supreme Court (en)
dbp:otherUrl
dbp:oyez
dbp:parallelcitations
  • 172800.0
dbp:prior
  • 25920.0
dbp:uspage
  • 208 (xsd:integer)
dbp:usvol
  • 556 (xsd:integer)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact." The issue was whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National Performance Standards (NPS). (en)
rdfs:label
  • Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc. (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
foaf:name
  • (en)
  • Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. (en)
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License