Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Nuke Plants in Cooling System-Fish Kill Suit
Nuclear power plants operators have won a Supreme Court case, brought by Riverkeeper and the Soundkeeper, about whether they would have to use a technology that limits the number of fish killed by their cooling systems. Millstone and Indian Point are among those affected by the ruling (here and here, with background here). The cost of the cooling systems can be a consideration when federal regulators are deciding whether to require them, the court said.
April 2 -- The Day has a more complete story, here.
April 2 -- The Day has a more complete story, here.
Labels: Millstone
posted by Tom Andersen at 2:43 PM
2 Comments:
The more I think about it, I think the appeals court was correct and the the Supreme Court rendered a bad decision. The Clean Water Act does not specifically allow for consideration of costs when evaluating best available technology. The EPA rules, however, do seem to consider costs and benefits for a wide range of technologies.
Since the plaintiff in this case did not file on the merits of the EPA rules rather than the law the Congress passed, the Supreme Court failed, and in a sense "wrote a new law" as a political statement. It is no dark secret that the Bush Administration wanted to inject costs and benefits into the rules.
I think it is time for Congress to over-rule the Supreme Court by clarifying the Clean Water Act, thus rendering this silly decision moot.
-sam
Sam,
If the implications are as you describe, this would be a case of "legislating from the bench", but one that works for the benefit of conservatives. The SCOTUS has been accused of doing such "legislating" for the benefit of liberal causes. In this case, conservatives should stand on principle, reject the SCOTUS decision, and eliminate cost considerations, just to show that they play fair.
Post a Comment
<< Home