{"id":211,"date":"2010-09-25T23:02:02","date_gmt":"2010-09-26T04:02:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=211"},"modified":"2012-01-31T15:29:10","modified_gmt":"2012-01-31T20:29:10","slug":"texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/","title":{"rendered":"Case Analysis: Texas Moves to Block EPA Climate Regulations"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Gregory E. Wannier
\nDeputy Director and Fellow<\/p>\n

In the absence of major climate legislation in the U.S. Senate, parties in the United States seeking meaningful action on climate change mitigation have turned to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for action.\u00a0 However, despite authorization from the Supreme Court\u2019s seminal Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em> ruling in 2007 to regulate greenhouse gases, EPA\u2019s greenhouse gas regulations have been heavily contested.\u00a0 The most recent challenge comes from the State of Texas, whose Attorney General, Greg Abbott, filed a legal challenge on September 16 in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, seeking to prevent implementation of certain EPA regulations.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

The complaint challenges four EPA actions: (1) the initial endangerment finding, which says that carbon emissions from motor vehicles are reasonably likely to threaten public health and welfare; (2) the \u201cTiming Rule,\u201d which reads the Clean Air Act\u2019s (CAA\u2019s) language to allow regulation of carbon emissions from stationary sources (any source of pollution that cannot move, unlike all vehicles); (3) the \u201cTailpipe Rule,\u201d which sets greenhouse gas emission standards for Light Duty Vehicles; and (4) the \u201cTailoring Rule,\u201d which exempts small emitters from regulation.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Texas\u2019 challenge to the endangerment finding rests primarily on the assertion that EPA relied on \u201cuncontrollable\u201d outside bodies (a reference to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC) in making its decision. \u00a0Indeed, Texas raises similar claims to those raised by climate skeptics during the height of the \u201cClimate-Gate\u201d controversy, labeling EPA\u2019s referencing of these sources as a violation of agencies\u2019 constitutional obligation not to delegate certain duties.[3]<\/a> This challenge faces an uphill climb; EPA has a long history of relying on outside peer-reviewed scientific reports, and in any case courts generally defer to federal agencies on scientific and technical matters.[4]<\/a> Texas\u2019 other major challenge is that EPA, in failing to specify an exact level of carbon emissions that constitute endangerment, was impermissibly vague.\u00a0 Here, again, EPA has a strong argument for judicial deference.\u00a0 Legal precedent, notably in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA<\/em>, has allowed endangerment findings to be made at the discretion of the Administrator, even without specific numerical determinations.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

Texas next challenges EPA\u2019s interpretation of its authority to regulate stationary sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) guidelines in the CAA.\u00a0 This part of the complaint asserts that PSD regulation is only valid in conjunction with a determination that a given area \u201csatisfies\u201d[6]<\/a> an EPA-determined Natural Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).\u00a0 Given that no NAAQS has been issued for greenhouse gases, Texas argues that it is impossible to comply, and so any regulation using PSD is invalid.\u00a0 EPA rejects this interpretation, concluding instead that PSD tools are available to regulate any pollutants \u201csubject to regulation\u201d under the Clean Air Act.[7]<\/a> Under this reading, the NAAQS is simply one of many possible regulatory activities that could activate PSD requirements, with other tools notably including regulation of moving sources, as in EPA\u2019s subsequent Tailpipe Rule.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

The ambiguity between Texas\u2019 and EPA\u2019s interpretations centers on \u00a7161 and \u00a7165 in the PSD Chapter of the Clean Air Act.\u00a0 \u00a7161 applies PSD to each region that satisfies a NAAQS, while \u00a7165 bans construction of a facility \u201cin any area to which [PSD] applies\u201d unless, among other requirements, the facility meets Best Available Control Technology (BACT) standards \u201cfor each pollutant subject to regulation\u201d under the CAA.\u00a0 Texas argues that \u00a7165 cannot apply unless \u00a7161 applies, and \u00a7161 requires a NAAQS.\u00a0 EPA, by contrast, appears to view \u00a7161 as irrelevant to the issue,[9]<\/a> and instead focuses on the \u201csubject to regulation\u201d language in \u00a7165 as being the true indicator of when BACT requirements may be applied.\u00a0 This issue is probably the strongest part of the complaint: Texas\u2019 interpretation of the two sections\u2019 interaction (that \u00a7161 says when PSD applies, and \u00a7165 says how it applies) is logical.\u00a0 However, EPA\u2019s interpretation also has merit, and EPA is empowered under Chevron<\/em> to pick any reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision.[10]<\/a> The fate of Texas\u2019 challenge here will depend on how ambiguous the DC Circuit reads the CAA to be in this case.<\/p>\n

Texas\u2019 next challenge, to the Tailpipe Rule, primarily alleges that it fails to properly account for its costs and benefits.\u00a0 Specifically, Texas argues that EPA should have considered the impact on stationary source regulation because, based on the Timing Rule\u2019s interpretation, this rule would \u201cautomatically trigger stationary-source regulation of GHG emissions.\u201d\u00a0 However, this assertion misstates EPA\u2019s finding in its Timing Rule: while a stationary source may be regulated no sooner than when the first \u201ccontrol requirement\u201d takes place (in this case, the Tailpipe Rule), it only allows for, and explicitly does not mandate, stationary source regulations thereafter.[11]<\/a> Other challenges to this rule, which focus on its alleged redundancy and ineffectiveness in mitigating climate change, are lacking in legal support; carbon emissions are not redundant to the emissions of various ozone-causing gases, and there is no mandate in the CAA that regulations meet any minimum effectiveness threshold so long as the benefits exceed the costs.<\/p>\n

Finally, Texas challenges the EPA Tailoring Rule for directly violating clear and unambiguous requirements in the CAA.\u00a0 The provisions in question are essentially mandates saying that EPA must regulate any emitter of 100 tons per year of any listed pollutant.[12]<\/a> For practical reasons, EPA raised these thresholds to 75,000 or more tons per year, to avoid being put in the position of regulating minor carbon emitters, which on its face appears to deviate from the plain text of the CAA.[13]<\/a> EPA justifies its action through the application of three sets of legal precedent: first, it says literal application of CAA would lead to \u201cabsurd\u201d results; next it argues that it is administratively necessary to exclude small emitters or the agency will be swamped trying to regulate; and finally it claims to want to implement carbon regulation only \u201cone step at a time,\u201d and to start with major emitters. [14]<\/a> This part of Texas\u2019 challenge has some statutory basis, though the precedent raised by EPA points in the direction of allowing modification in this case.<\/p>\n

Elements of the case merit attention. Undeniably, the Clean Air Act is imperfectly tailored to the problem of regulating carbon emissions.\u00a0 However, EPA\u2019s interpretations of the four regulations at issue in this case do stand a reasonable chance of surviving DC Circuit review.<\/p>\n

The resolution of this and other similar cases will be important to watch, because EPA\u2019s regulations here present the strongest source of national greenhouse gas mitigation activity in today\u2019s political climate.\u00a0 Furthermore, successful regulation may also catalyze legislative action: because such regulations would likely be preempted by Congressional action, regulated entities may see a market mechanism as superior to the command-and-control type of regulation that has characterized EPA\u2019s efforts to-date.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> \u201cTexas Files Legal Action to Block Imposition of EPA Regulations that Threaten Texas Jobs,\u201d https:\/\/www.oag.state.tx.us\/oagnews\/release.php?id=3484<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Id.<\/em>; see also<\/em> Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act<\/em>, 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009); Reconsideration of Interpretation of<\/em> Regulations That Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs<\/em>, 75 Fed. Reg. 17,004 (Apr. 2, 2010); Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards<\/em>, 75 Fed. Reg. 25,324 (May 7, 2010); Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title VI Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule<\/em>, 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514, (June 3, 2010).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a>\u201cTexas Leads Resistance to EPA Climate Action,\u201d\u00a0 https:\/\/www.texastribune.org\/texas-state-agencies\/attorney-generals-office\/texas-leads-resistance-to-epa-climate-action.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> This principle is most famously codified in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC<\/em>, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496, 66,507.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> An area may satisfy a NAAQS either by being in actual compliance with, or if, for outside reasons, it is impossible to say whether or not it is in compliance with, the NAAQS air quality requirements for any given pollutant.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> 75 Fed. Reg. 17,004, 17,004-05.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> In making this interpretation, EPA relied on a December 18, 2008 memorandum where EPA interpreted the phrase \u201csubject to regulation\u201d as including any regulation promulgated by EPA \u201cthat requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant.\u201d\u00a0 75 Fed. Reg. 17,004 , 17,004-05, 19-20.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> \u00a7161 is not cited once in EPA\u2019s Timing Ruling.\u00a0 75 Fed. Reg. 17,004.\u00a0 EPA interprets \u00a7165 as applying to all new emitters, provided of course that the requirements of that section are met (explaining its focus on the \u201csubject to regulation\u201d language in \u00a7165).<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Chevron v. NRDC<\/em>, 467 U.S. at 837.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> 75 Fed. Reg. 17,004 , 17,019.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 7479(1), 7602(j), 7661(2)(B).<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514, 31,567.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> 75 FR 31,514, 31,542-45; see also<\/em> United States <\/em>v. Ron Pair Enterprises, <\/em>489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989) (discussing absurd results doctrine); Logan <\/em>v. United States, <\/em>552 U.S. 23, 36\u201337 (2007) (discussing absurd results doctrine); New York <\/em>v. EPA, <\/em>443 F.3d 880, 884, 888 (DC Cir. 2006) (discussing administrative necessity doctrine); National Association of Broadcasters <\/em>v. FCC, <\/em>740 F.2d 1190, 1209-14 (DC Cir. 1984) (discussing one step at a time theory).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Gregory E. Wannier Deputy Director and Fellow In the absence of major climate legislation in the U.S. Senate, parties in the United States seeking meaningful action on climate change mitigation have turned to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for action.\u00a0 However, despite authorization from the Supreme Court\u2019s seminal Massachusetts v. EPA ruling in 2007 to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5677],"tags":[5529],"class_list":{"0":"post-211","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-clean-air-act","7":"tag-epa-clean-air-act-ghg-rules","8":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nCase Analysis: Texas Moves to Block EPA Climate Regulations - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Case Analysis: Texas Moves to Block EPA Climate Regulations - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Gregory E. Wannier Deputy Director and Fellow In the absence of major climate legislation in the U.S. Senate, parties in the United States seeking meaningful action on climate change mitigation have turned to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for action.\u00a0 However, despite authorization from the Supreme Court\u2019s seminal Massachusetts v. EPA ruling in 2007 to […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-26T04:02:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-01-31T20:29:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Greg Wannier\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Greg Wannier\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/09\\\/25\\\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/09\\\/25\\\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Greg Wannier\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/88adf71647fcd6fb1bc4e222498f7f52\"},\"headline\":\"Case Analysis: Texas Moves to Block EPA Climate Regulations\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T04:02:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-01-31T20:29:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/09\\\/25\\\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1443,\"commentCount\":1,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Clean Air Act\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Clean Air Act\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/09\\\/25\\\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/09\\\/25\\\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\\\/\",\"name\":\"Case Analysis: Texas Moves to Block EPA Climate Regulations - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T04:02:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-01-31T20:29:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/09\\\/25\\\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/09\\\/25\\\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/09\\\/25\\\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Case Analysis: Texas Moves to Block EPA Climate Regulations\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/88adf71647fcd6fb1bc4e222498f7f52\",\"name\":\"Greg Wannier\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/gwanni\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Case Analysis: Texas Moves to Block EPA Climate Regulations - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Case Analysis: Texas Moves to Block EPA Climate Regulations - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Gregory E. Wannier Deputy Director and Fellow In the absence of major climate legislation in the U.S. Senate, parties in the United States seeking meaningful action on climate change mitigation have turned to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for action.\u00a0 However, despite authorization from the Supreme Court\u2019s seminal Massachusetts v. EPA ruling in 2007 to […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2010-09-26T04:02:02+00:00","article_modified_time":"2012-01-31T20:29:10+00:00","author":"Greg Wannier","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Greg Wannier","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/"},"author":{"name":"Greg Wannier","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/88adf71647fcd6fb1bc4e222498f7f52"},"headline":"Case Analysis: Texas Moves to Block EPA Climate Regulations","datePublished":"2010-09-26T04:02:02+00:00","dateModified":"2012-01-31T20:29:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/"},"wordCount":1443,"commentCount":1,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"keywords":["Clean Air Act"],"articleSection":["Clean Air Act"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/","name":"Case Analysis: Texas Moves to Block EPA Climate Regulations - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-26T04:02:02+00:00","dateModified":"2012-01-31T20:29:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/09\/25\/texas-moves-to-block-epa-climate-regulations\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Case Analysis: Texas Moves to Block EPA Climate Regulations"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/88adf71647fcd6fb1bc4e222498f7f52","name":"Greg Wannier","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/gwanni\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}