{"id":274,"date":"2010-10-22T16:27:35","date_gmt":"2010-10-22T21:27:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=274"},"modified":"2012-01-31T15:27:31","modified_gmt":"2012-01-31T20:27:31","slug":"how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"How Many Suits Is Too Many? Consolidation and Coordination Possibilities in EPA Climate Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

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

The landscape of challenges<\/a> to EPA\u2019s climate change rulemakings is extremely complex.\u00a0 To manage the multitude of lawsuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit may consider consolidation and coordination procedures to combine more than 80 cases into a more manageable number.\u00a0 Industry-affiliated groups and individuals generally favor some form of case combination and environmentalist-affiliated groups intervening on the EPA\u2019s side (\u201cstate intervenors\u201d) and the EPA prefer separate hearings for reasons explained below.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

The first, simpler, fix is to consolidate claims, essentially making them one large case.\u00a0 Consolidation is allowed \u201c[i]n order to achieve the most efficient use of the Court\u2019s resources,\u201d for \u201call petitions for review of agency orders entered in the same administrative proceeding.\u201d[2]<\/a> This has already occurred<\/a> among the challenges to each individual EPA rule.<\/p>\n

Petitioners have also moved to \u201ccoordinate\u201d the four separate cases.\u00a0 Case coordination involves hearing multiple cases before the same panel, with a goal of yielding complementary decisions in cases where challenges cover related activities.\u00a0 In their motion for consolidation, petitioners argue that case coordination under a single panel is standard procedure, citing four cases that make this point.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

Petitioners\u2019 main argument is that the cases are substantively interrelated so as to \u201camount[] to a single policy approach,\u201d and should be decided by the same panel to avoid \u201cduplicative briefing\u201d and \u201cconflicting decisions.\u201d\u00a0 The duplication would come from the DC Circuit\u2019s consideration of \u201ccore questions of EPA\u2019s legal authority to regulate and record support for that authority.\u201d[4]<\/a> To support their contention that the rules are interrelated, petitioners quote EPA itself: \u201cIn recent months, EPA has taken four related actions that, taken together\u2026will subject GHGs emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements, and limit[] the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

Petitioners further argue that combining the cases into one case will prevent EPA from attempting to dismiss challenges to its rules based on jurisdictional principles (particularly standing, in the injury-in-fact and causation inquiries).\u00a0 They contend that separate review could result in an attempt to call for \u201ca more appropriate forum\u201d in every case, and thereby deny all forums for review.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

EPA and state intervenors disagree.\u00a0 In EPA\u2019s response, it concedes that the Timing and Tailoring Rules are interrelated, and indeed cross-claims to consolidate those two cases.[7]<\/a> However, it strongly opposes coordinating these cases with those reviewing the Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule.\u00a0 EPA argues that combining these cases will confuse the courts with largely irrelevant piles of documents and a confusing proliferation of lawsuits, in violation of CAA rules.[8]<\/a> To support this, it and state intervenors point out that the EPA regulations deal with entirely different administrative records and legal questions, and involve \u201can entirely<\/em> separate set of issues.\u201d[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

Furthermore, EPA argues that separating the cases will not present justiciability issues with respect to parties, or to individual arguments.\u00a0 It points out that DC Circuit rules allow petitioners to use evidence outside the administrative record to establish standing.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

Petitioners\u2019 showing that EPA views the regulations as four parts of an interrelated block of regulation gives strong support to their claim.\u00a0 However, beyond that their arguments are incomplete.\u00a0 The fundamental linking question said to justify coordination (whether EPA has \u201cauthority to regulate\u201d) is vague, and the guidelines for the four regulations are in three entirely different sections of the CAA.[11]<\/a> Also, standing, as a constitutional justiciability issue, is not beholden to administrative records and looks to the final results of agency action.\u00a0 Thus, petitioners\u2019 standing case should not be weakened if their challenges are separated.<\/p>\n

Neither EPA nor state intervenors respond to petitioners\u2019 case support.\u00a0 However, an analysis of the four cases reveals little.\u00a0 In the first cited case, Davis v. DOJ<\/em>, two petitions were heard and decided by the same panel, on the same day \u2013 but they both involved the very narrow question of retroactive application of attorneys\u2019 fees under 2007 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act.[12]<\/a> Similarly, in Noramco of Del. v. DEA<\/em> two petitions were coordinated, but both involved DEA approval of specialized importers under \u00a7823(a) of the Controlled Substances Act.[13]<\/a> For the In re TMI<\/em> Litigation, the quote relied on in petitioners\u2019 text[14]<\/a> refers to consolidation (as opposed to coordination) of the cases at issue, and the issue in common (application of a particular evidentiary rule) was similarly particular.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n

The most similar situation to the claims above comes from the New York v. EPA <\/em>cases, where the same parties challenged two distinct rules interpreting CAA\u2019s New Source Review (NSR) program.[16]<\/a> The court here denied consolidation but granted coordination, similar to what petitioners ask for here.\u00a0 However, even here both cases involved NSR guidelines, thereby looking substantially more similar than EPA\u2019s regulations here.<\/p>\n

The battle lines on this issue appear to be clear-cut: petitioners see some advantage from consolidation, EPA some disadvantage.\u00a0 It is possible that petitioners hope to sully EPA\u2019s endangerment Finding defense by linking it directly to other parts of EPA\u2019s regulatory regime that are less legally supportable (and more politically controversial).\u00a0 However, coordination here will be difficult for petitioners to justify given prior practice in this area.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> See <\/em>Motion for Coordination of Related Cases<\/a>, D.C. Cir. Doc.: 1262772 (Aug. 26, 2010); Respondent\u2019s Opposition to Motion for Coordination of Cases and Cross-Motion for Consolidation of Consolidated Case No. 10-1131 with Consolidated Case No. 10-1073<\/a>, D.C. Cir. Doc.: 1265175 (Sep. 10, 2010); Response to Petitioners\u2019 Motion to Coordinate Cases by Intervener States<\/a>, D.C. Cir. Doc.:1265212 (Sep. 10, 2010) .<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 23 (Amended May 10, 2010).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Motion for Coordination of Related Cases, supra<\/em> note 1, <\/em>at 14; cases discussed in detail below.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Id.<\/em> at 2, 11, 16.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call<\/a>, Proposed Rule (Aug. 10, 2010).<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Motion for Coordination of Related Cases, supra<\/em> note 1, at 16-19.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Respondent\u2019s Opposition to Motion for Coordination of Cases, supra<\/em> note 1, at 17-19.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> \u201c[J]udicial review for any agency action is to be based \u2018exclusively\u2019 on the administrative record for that particular action.\u201d Id <\/em>at 11; see also <\/em>42 U.S.C. \u00a7 7607(d)(7)(A).<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> For two different arguments laying out the different questions, see Respondent\u2019s Opposition to Motion for Coordination of Cases, supra<\/em> note 1, at 12-14, 16; and Response to Petitioners\u2019 Motion to Coordinate Cases by Intervener States, supra <\/em>note 1, at 2-5.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> D.C. Cir. R. 15(c)(2), 28(a)(7).<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> The endangerment finding would turn largely on the adequacy of the scientific basis for climate change and rules established in Title I Part A; the tailpipe rule deals with Title II Federal Emission Standards for Moving Sources, and the Timing and Tailoring Rules cover Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) concerns in Title I, Part B.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Davis v. DOJ, 610 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Judicial Watch v. BLM, 610 F.3d 747 (D.C. Cir. 2010).<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Noramco of Del. v. DEA, 375 F.3d 1148, 1153, 1155-57 (D.C. Cir. 2004).<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> The \u201cpurpose of similar device under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) is to \u201cavoid duplication of effort\u201d and \u201cprevent conflicting outcomes\u201d in interconnected cases.\u201d Motion for Coordination of Related Cases, supra <\/em>note 1, at 14).<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> This was a nuclear radiation exposure case, where two claims were identical (appealing dismissal of evidence), and the third was similar (appealing manipulation of evidence fines).\u00a0 In re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613, 622-629, 724 (3d Cir. 1999).<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> One case challenged procedures for calculating emissions, special treatment of certain plants, and recordkeeping under NSR.\u00a0 New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005).\u00a0 The other challenged the exemption of certain-sized projects from NSR Review altogether. \u00a0New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Gregory E. Wannier Deputy Director The landscape of challenges to EPA\u2019s climate change rulemakings is extremely complex.\u00a0 To manage the multitude of lawsuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit may consider consolidation and coordination procedures to combine more than 80 cases into a more manageable number.\u00a0 Industry-affiliated groups and individuals […]<\/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":[5529,9430],"class_list":{"0":"post-274","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":"tag-litigation","9":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nHow Many Suits Is Too Many? Consolidation and Coordination Possibilities in EPA Climate Litigation - 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\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"How Many Suits Is Too Many? Consolidation and Coordination Possibilities in EPA Climate Litigation - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Gregory E. Wannier Deputy Director The landscape of challenges to EPA\u2019s climate change rulemakings is extremely complex.\u00a0 To manage the multitude of lawsuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit may consider consolidation and coordination procedures to combine more than 80 cases into a more manageable number.\u00a0 Industry-affiliated groups and individuals […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-22T21:27:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-01-31T20:27:31+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=\"6 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\\\/10\\\/22\\\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/10\\\/22\\\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Greg Wannier\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/88adf71647fcd6fb1bc4e222498f7f52\"},\"headline\":\"How Many Suits Is Too Many? Consolidation and Coordination Possibilities in EPA Climate Litigation\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-22T21:27:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-01-31T20:27:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/10\\\/22\\\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1293,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Clean Air Act\",\"Litigation\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Clean Air Act\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/10\\\/22\\\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/10\\\/22\\\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\\\/\",\"name\":\"How Many Suits Is Too Many? Consolidation and Coordination Possibilities in EPA Climate Litigation - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-22T21:27:35+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-01-31T20:27:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/10\\\/22\\\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/10\\\/22\\\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2010\\\/10\\\/22\\\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"How Many Suits Is Too Many? Consolidation and Coordination Possibilities in EPA Climate Litigation\"}]},{\"@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":"How Many Suits Is Too Many? Consolidation and Coordination Possibilities in EPA Climate Litigation - 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\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"How Many Suits Is Too Many? Consolidation and Coordination Possibilities in EPA Climate Litigation - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Gregory E. Wannier Deputy Director The landscape of challenges to EPA\u2019s climate change rulemakings is extremely complex.\u00a0 To manage the multitude of lawsuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit may consider consolidation and coordination procedures to combine more than 80 cases into a more manageable number.\u00a0 Industry-affiliated groups and individuals […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2010-10-22T21:27:35+00:00","article_modified_time":"2012-01-31T20:27:31+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/"},"author":{"name":"Greg Wannier","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/88adf71647fcd6fb1bc4e222498f7f52"},"headline":"How Many Suits Is Too Many? Consolidation and Coordination Possibilities in EPA Climate Litigation","datePublished":"2010-10-22T21:27:35+00:00","dateModified":"2012-01-31T20:27:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/"},"wordCount":1293,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"keywords":["Clean Air Act","Litigation"],"articleSection":["Clean Air Act"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/","name":"How Many Suits Is Too Many? Consolidation and Coordination Possibilities in EPA Climate Litigation - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-22T21:27:35+00:00","dateModified":"2012-01-31T20:27:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/10\/22\/how-many-suits-is-too-many-consolidation-and-coordination-possibilities-in-epa-climate-litigation\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"How Many Suits Is Too Many? Consolidation and Coordination Possibilities in EPA Climate Litigation"}]},{"@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\/274","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=274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/274\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}