Cost-Benefit Analysis at the Supreme Court: Cooling Water v. Fish

Julie A. Hewitt

Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 2009, vol. 38, issue 2, 17

Abstract: This is the story of a recent U.S. Supreme Court case on the use of cost-benefit analysis at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a regulation issued under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case is Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. The case was not about the quality of the cost-benefit analysis, nor the fact that EPA conducted one, but whether EPA had CWA authority to base regulatory decisions on cost-benefit. I close with thoughts about an alternative Chevron legal test that acknowledges the state of ecosystem valuation.

Keywords: Environmental Economics and Policy; Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/55547/files/hewitt%20-%20current.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ags:arerjl:55547

DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.55547

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Agricultural and Resource Economics Review from Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by AgEcon Search ().