in entergy, they found that the interpretation of the statute was reasonable. in the alaska case, the epa's interpretation of its own regulations were reasonable. both were administrative law cases and environmental cases addressing the recurring question of what level of deference courts should afford agency action. the lineup of the court was similar in both cases. you had the four most conservative justices and justice kennedy in the majority. you had the three most liberal justices dissented and had just as brier somewhere in the middle. now, because the court held in both cases only that the epa had reasonably interpreted the law, in one case the clean water act itself, and the other case the regulations issued under the clean water act, the administration could use the results in both cases simply by showing the regulations -- showing new regulations. congress could enact legislation as not constitutional case. the result could be changed by congress or by the agency. finally, i should mention that the entergy case, the cost- benefit case, is the case whe

in entergy, they found that the interpretation of the statute was reasonable. in the alaska case, the epa's interpretation of its own regulations were reasonable. both were administrative law cases and environmental cases addressing the recurring question of what level of deference courts should afford agency action. the lineup of the court was similar in both cases. you had the four most conservative justices and justice kennedy in the majority. you had the three most liberal justices dissented and had just as brier somewhere in the middle. now, because the court held in both cases only that the epa had reasonably interpreted the law, in one case the clean water act itself, and the other case the regulations issued under the clean water act, the administration could use the results in both cases simply by showing the regulations -- showing new regulations. congress could enact legislation as not constitutional case. the result could be changed by congress or by the agency. finally, i should mention that the entergy case, the cost- benefit case, is the case whe

in entergy, they claimed the e.p.a. was not allowed to use cost-benefit analysis under a provision requiring the use of the best technology available. in the alaska case, the plaintiffs challenged the permit that had been issued by the army corps of engineers for the discharge of waste materials. in both cases, the court rejected the challenge. in entergy, they found that the e.p.a.'s interpretation of the standard was reasonable. in the alaska case, the court found the e.p.a.'s interpretation of its own stachulets was reasonable. they were cases of what level of deference courts should accord agency action. the lineup of the court was similar in both case, you had the four most conservative justices, plus justice kennedy in the majority. you had the three most liberal justices in dissent and justice breyer somewhere in the middle. this is a not uncommon phenomenon in administrative law cases for justice breyer to stake out an intermediate position between the more conservative and more liberal members. because the cour

your decision on the district -- on the circuit court in a case captioned entergy corporation involving environment protection agency and clean water act has a special prominence now that we are debating climate control and global warming. in the second circuit opinion, you were in the majority, deciding that it was the best technology. the supreme court reversed five to four, saying that it turned on a cost benefit analysis. it i think is worthy of exploration, although what you answer obviously is a matter of your discretion as to whether on a five to four decision, it's hard to say who's really right, the five or the four, as a matter of interpreting the constitution or the statute. having a different view, i would be interested to know if you would care to respond when the time comes as to whether you would be with what had been the minority and perhaps a voice as strong as yours in the conference room would produce a different result. it could have a real impact on what we're legislating now, on cap and trade. with a few seconds i have left, i would like to preview some questions o