Supreme Court Mulls Meaning of ‘Best’ in Environmental Case
U.S. Supreme Court justices debated the meaning of “best” with quirky examples yesterday as they considered the requirements of a phrase in the Clean Water Act.
The statute requires power plant cooling systems to use the “best technology available” to minimize environmental harm, the New York Times reports.
The Environmental Protection Agency contends it can consider cost along with benefit when regulating cooling structures that draw water from rivers and lakes. Environmental groups disagree. Their lawyer, Georgetown University law professor Richard Lazarus, said the EPA may consider whether companies can bear the cost of harmful technologies, but can’t balance them against harm to the environment, the Times story says.
Questioning by some justices showed they disagreed with an appeals court’s ruling banning cost-benefit analysis, but they still debated the meaning of “best” with some consumer hypotheticals, USA Today reports.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the “best” TV might be the “fanciest,” according to the USA Today story.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. used a different example. “If … I look for the best house that is available,” he said, “the best [one] might cost $50 million. I couldn’t afford it, but it would be available.”
The case is Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper.
