Being that it is urgent and important, Congress not addressing the task is not an option. That was the basis of the original lawsuit.
And EPA certainly deferred to Congress when they said that they would "stay out of the way of Congress". EPA would set their regulatory thresholds at a higher level than the regulatory thresholds that Congress was considering.
In 2009 EPA set their regulatory thresholds at 25,000 tons per year because that was less stringent than the House Cap and Trade Bill.
The House bill fell through and in 2010 an attempt was made in the Senate to pass a narrower an less stringent bill and EPA revised their regulatory threshold up to the 75,000-100,000 tons to "stay out of the way of the Senate"
People need to understsnd that if and when Congress were to pass carbon legislation, it would be more stringent than what EPA is proposing.
thanks for the input.
It will be interesting to see the ruling - perhaps in June.
I may have put too much emphasis in the following statement by Kavanaugh:
The framers of the Constitution,” he added, “did not grant the executive branch the authority to set economic and social policy as it sees fit.”