CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.

2009 United States Supreme Court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 28, 2026
Entity authorityQ5380198 ↗
Source-derived summary

Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of the Clean Water Act regulations with regard to cooling water intakes for power plants. Existing facilities are mandated to use the "Best Technology Available" to "minimize the adverse environmental impact." The issue was whether the agency may use a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in choosing the Best Available Technology or (BAT) to meet the National Performance Standards (NPS).

Reversing a lower court opinion, the 5-1-3 ruling upheld the EPA's decision as reasonable to allow CBA to determine the best technology available to maintain national environmental standards.

Parties

Petitioner: Entergy Corporation is an energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail electric distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates both nuclear and fossil fuel power plants generating an aggregated 30,000 megawatts of electrical capacity. Indian Point Energy Center is a subsidiary of Entergy Corporation operating a three-unit nuclear power plant in Buchanan, New York, the facility at issue in this case.

Respondent: Riverkeeper is a member-supported environmental protection organization dedicated to defending the Hudson River and its tributaries for New York City and Hudson Valley residents. Over the past four decades Riverkeeper has been successful as the public's watchdog in bringing hundreds of pollution violations to justice and protecting drinking water for local communities.

Editorial summary

“Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.” enters the record as 2009 United States Supreme Court case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Entergy, Corp and Riverkeeper can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2009—that can be checked directly. The linked authority record independently contributes the date 2009-04-01. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Entergy, Corp and Riverkeeper.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Entergy, Corp and Riverkeeper provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 28, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5380198. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2009.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc. primary sources, Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc. archive and Entergy research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc.” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.