Cost-Benefit Analysis at the Supreme Court: Cooling Water v. Fish
| dc.creator | Hewitt, Julie A. | |
| dc.date | 2017-04-01T19:20:57Z | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-07-09T04:59:06Z | |
| dc.description | 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. | |
| dc.identifier | doi:10.22004/ag.econ.55547 | |
| dc.identifier | https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/55547/files/hewitt%20-%20current.pdf | |
| dc.identifier | http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/55547 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/557487 | |
| dc.language | eng | |
| dc.publisher | ||
| dc.source | http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/55547 | |
| dc.title | Cost-Benefit Analysis at the Supreme Court: Cooling Water v. Fish | |
| dc.type | Text |