Should courts allow EPA more authority to force the development of technology? Match the explanations to possible arguments that the technology-forcing authorized by the court in the NRDC v. EPA case is either too little, too much or about right. Question 2 options: The manufacturers clearly had the capability to use more efficient designs but had no incentive to use them or invest in developing new technologies without such regulations. The Court struck a balance between what was reasonably feasible for manufacturers to develop in a given timeframe and what EPA determined was necessary for public health. Requiring technologies that aren't proven to be in existence yet or even feasible to develop will just shut down many manufacturers. 1. The court authorized *too little* technology-forcing by the EPA. 2. The court authorized *just the right amount* of technology-forcing by the EPA. 3. The court authorized *too much* technology-forcing by the EPA