This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn MoreThis website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
Home » Supreme Court: Oral Arguments Heard in Powerplant Case
The debate over whether the Environmental Protection Agency should use cost-benefit analysis to help determine possible upgrades to existing powerplants has hit the Supreme Court. Oral arguments on Dec. 2 dealt with an appeal of a lower-court decision striking down a 2004 EPA rule allowing costs of upgrades to be weighed against environmental benefits.
At issue are older powerplants that use once-through cooling systems, which draw millions of gallons of water to cool their facilities. Environmental groups want older plants to be retrofitted with closed-cycle cooling systems, which use cooling towers. Entergy Corp. argues that upgrade costs could approach $1.5 billion at its Indian Point nuclear plant in New York. A ruling is expected by July, when the court’s session ends.