And so it was asked, via Twitter, "What does Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court mean for the environment?"

In 2007, Sotomayor wrote an opinion in an environmental case that pinned the EPA against Riverkeeper - she sided with Riverkeeper (the case was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court).  At issue was "a rules change in the EPA which sought to make power companies upgrade their plants to protect the environment regardless of cost." The case was appealed in 2009, an appeal, "aimed at reinstating Bush-era rules that allowed power companies to do cost-benefit analysis before certain upgrades," as reported by the Wall Street Journal in early April of this year. 

In her opinion, Sotomayor said:
"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."

The Wonk Room applauds the President's pick on its environmental merit HERE.
While the Green Hell Blog calls her an environmental extremist HERE (good for a laugh). 

We'll keep our eyes open for any more stories on Sotomayor and what her nomination means for the environment

---

---