![]() ![]() Justice Suter - I just don't see how a sight-driven cost-benefit analysis works because you're dealing with immeasurables. Today in the Supreme Court, the Bush administration's Assistant solicitor general, Daryl Joseffer, told the justices that the Clean Water Act provision dealing with water intake is ambiguous.Ĭhief Justice Roberts - in the other provisions of the law, Congress specified consideration of cost and benefits, and it didn't do so in this provision. Six states challenged that regulation, contending that such a cost-benefit analysis is simply not permitted under the act. The Bush administration adopted a new regulation that, in essence, gives the older plants a pass on new technology if they can show that the costs of modernizing outweigh the benefits. So the question in this case is whether and when the older plants have to install new technology to do that. The Clean Water Act requires utilities to use the best technology available to minimize environmental harm. In contrast, modern plants use technologies that require little or no water at all. In the process, the fish and aquatic organisms in that water are killed. NINA TOTENBERG: The nation's older power plants sucked in trillions of gallons of water each year from this country's lakes and rivers to cool the steam for generating power. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports. The question is whether power plants must use the best technology available to minimize environmental harm to the nation's waterways. Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in an important environmental case. From NPR News, this is All Things Considered.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |