IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v38y2009i02p83-99_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Hewitt, Julie A.

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Hewitt, Julie A., 2009. "Cost-Benefit Analysis at the Supreme Court: Cooling Water v. Fish," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 83-99, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:38:y:2009:i:02:p:83-99_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500003129/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hewitt, Julie A., 2009. "Cost-Benefit Analysis at the Supreme Court: Cooling Water v. Fish," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-17, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:38:y:2009:i:02:p:83-99_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.