Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.
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).
556 U.S. 208Entergy Corp. v. RiverkeeperEntergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corp. versus RiverkeeperEntergy Corp. versus Riverkeeper, Inc.Entergy Corp. versus Riverkeeper Inc.Entergy Corp. versus Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corp. vs. RiverkeeperEntergy Corp. vs. Riverkeeper, Inc.Entergy Corp. vs. Riverkeeper Inc.Entergy Corp. vs. Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corp v RiverkeeperEntergy Corp v Riverkeeper, IncEntergy Corp v Riverkeeper IncEntergy Corp v Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corp versus RiverkeeperEntergy Corp versus Riverkeeper, IncEntergy Corp versus Riverkeeper IncEntergy Corp versus Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corp vs RiverkeeperEntergy Corp vs Riverkeeper, IncEntergy Corp vs Riverkeeper IncEntergy Corp vs Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corporation v. RiverkeeperEntergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, Inc.Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper Inc.Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corporation v RiverkeeperEntergy Corporation v Riverkeeper, IncEntergy Corporation v Riverkeeper IncEntergy Corporation v Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corporation versus RiverkeeperEntergy Corporation versus Riverkeeper, IncEntergy Corporation versus Riverkeeper, Inc.Entergy Corporation versus Riverkeeper IncEntergy Corporation versus Riverkeeper Inc.Entergy Corporation versus Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corporation vs. RiverkeeperEntergy Corporation vs. Riverkeeper, Inc.
Wikipage redirect
556 U.S. 208Entergy Corp. v. RiverkeeperEntergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corp. versus RiverkeeperEntergy Corp. versus Riverkeeper, Inc.Entergy Corp. versus Riverkeeper Inc.Entergy Corp. versus Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corp. vs. RiverkeeperEntergy Corp. vs. Riverkeeper, Inc.Entergy Corp. vs. Riverkeeper Inc.Entergy Corp. vs. Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corp v RiverkeeperEntergy Corp v Riverkeeper, IncEntergy Corp v Riverkeeper IncEntergy Corp v Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corp versus RiverkeeperEntergy Corp versus Riverkeeper, IncEntergy Corp versus Riverkeeper IncEntergy Corp versus Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corp vs RiverkeeperEntergy Corp vs Riverkeeper, IncEntergy Corp vs Riverkeeper IncEntergy Corp vs Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corporation v. RiverkeeperEntergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, Inc.Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper Inc.Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corporation v RiverkeeperEntergy Corporation v Riverkeeper, IncEntergy Corporation v Riverkeeper IncEntergy Corporation v Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corporation versus RiverkeeperEntergy Corporation versus Riverkeeper, IncEntergy Corporation versus Riverkeeper, Inc.Entergy Corporation versus Riverkeeper IncEntergy Corporation versus Riverkeeper Inc.Entergy Corporation versus Riverkeeper IncorporatedEntergy Corporation vs. RiverkeeperEntergy Corporation vs. Riverkeeper, Inc.
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
primaryTopic
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.
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).
has abstract
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, ...... ional environmental standards.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
31,223,982
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
1,026,402,326
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
case
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc., 556 U.S. 208
@en
Concurrence/Dissent
Breyer
@en
cornell
courtlistener
DecideDate
DecideYear
Dissent
Stevens
@en
fullname
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al.
@en
googlescholar
Holding
The EPA permissibly relied on ...... t of the Phase II regulations.
@en
JoinDissent
Souter, Ginsburg
@en
JoinMajority
Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
@en
justia
LawsApplied
Litigants
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.
@en
majority
Scalia
@en
other source
Supreme Court
@en
other url
oyez
ParallelCitations
Prior
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
comment
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, ...... l Performance Standards (NPS).
@en
label
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.
@en
wasDerivedFrom
isPrimaryTopicOf
name
@en
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al.
@en