The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday revived Environmental Protection Agency rules favored by power utilities that would allow the cost of updating cooling tower systems to be weighed against the potential environmental benefits of making the changes.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, overturned a federal appeals court ruling that would have made it more difficult for plants to avoid expensive upgrades to aging cooling towers.

"We conclude that the EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards," Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion. The majority concluded the costs and benefits could be weighed under a broad set of circumstances.

Voting with Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Breyer's support came in a qualified concurring opinion where he agreed Congress meant to allow a cost benefit analysis but only a narrow one.

The appeal with the Supreme Court was filed by Entergy Corp. (ETR), utility industry groups and power companies. They asked the high court to reinstate 2004 EPA rules from former President George W. Bush's administration giving power companies more control over the cost of upgrades aimed at minimizing environmental damage, such as sucking fish into water intakes.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York struck down EPA regulations developed to end case-by-case analysis of power plant changes. The rules at issue would allow the cost-and-benefit analysis be done before a power plant is forced to change an open-cycle system that withdraws and discharges large amounts of water from streams, lakes or dam impoundments.

The process is common in electricity generation, but both the intake and discharge of water has a larger environmental impact than closed-cycle systems that recycle water repeatedly or dry-cycle systems that rely on air for cooling.

The cases are Entergy v. EPA, 07-588; PSEG Fossil LLC v. Riverkeeper Inc., 07-589; and Utility Water Act Group v. Riverkeeper Inc., 07-597.

-By Mark H. Anderson, Dow Jones Newswires, 202-862-9254; mark.anderson@dowjones.com