Sotomayor's decision in Riverkeeper v. EPA

From the WSJ’s Environmental Capital blog:

In 2007, Sotomayor sided with the fishes and against power companies and the Environmental Protection Agency.

In Riverkeeper vs. EPA, she argued that the EPA can’t weigh costs and benefits in deciding what the “best technology” is for protecting fish that get sucked into power plants. In a nutshell, she ruled, there’s no point in tallying up the marginal costs of extra environmental protections when Congress has already decided they’re worth it.

From her 2007 decision:

The Agency is therefore precluded from undertaking such cost-benefit analysis because the [best technology available] standard represents Congress’s conclusion that the costs imposed on industry in adopting the best cooling water intake structure technology available (i.e., the best-performing technology that can be reasonably borne by the industry) are worth the benefits in reducing adverse environmental impacts.

In April, the Supreme Court overturned that decision in a 6-3 ruling; justice David Souter, who Ms. Sotomayor would replace, was one of the dissenters.