The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will likely have massive repercussions on the future of energy generation in the United States. At issue is whether or not older power plants are responsible for meeting standards set in the Clean Water Act, or whether regulating agencies should be allowed to give energy firms a pass if the cost of compliance is too high.

Entergy, Inc, owner of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant named in the suit, maintains that an updated cooling system would cost well over one billion dollars, and provide little environmental benefit to the Hudson River, which the plant relies on to cool its reactor. Hudson Riverkeeper, on the other hand, is arguing that the plant must be brought up to "the best technology available" to avoid excessive environmental impacts, as required by the Clean Water Act.

It'll be interesting to see which way the court decides on this issue, with some 550 power plants nationwide covered by the outcome. On the one hand, if cost-benefit analysis is allowed to determine the reach of the Clean Water Act and other environmental regulations, that will significantly, um, water down their effectiveness. On the other hand requiring companies to always use the best technology available may discourage investment in new energy projects, including hydrokinetic and traditional hydropower installations.