{"id":752,"date":"2011-04-13T13:39:23","date_gmt":"2011-04-13T18:39:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=752"},"modified":"2012-01-31T15:14:09","modified_gmt":"2012-01-31T20:14:09","slug":"aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/","title":{"rendered":"AEP v. Connecticut: The Reply Briefs"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

by Daniel Firger
\nAssociate Director<\/p>\n

On April 11, 2011, petitioners in American Electric Power v. Connecticut<\/span>,\u00a0five private investor-owned utility companies,\u00a0filed their reply brief<\/a>.\u00a0On the same day, the Solicitor General filed a separate\u00a0reply brief<\/a> on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),\u00a0an electric utility owned by the federal government, as respondent supporting petitioners. These reply briefs were submitted just one week before oral argument, scheduled for Tuesday, April 19, and present few surprises.\u00a0In two prior posts, we compared<\/a> the merits brief filed by the petitioners with that of the TVA and analyzed<\/a> the opposing briefs filed by the respondents, six states, the City of New York and three private land trusts. As teed up in petitioners\u2019 and TVA\u2019s earlier briefs, the questions to be resolved by the Court [1] have the potential to dramatically reshape not just the nascent legal standards applicable to climate change since Massachusetts v. EPA<\/span>, \u00a0549 U.S. 497 (2007), but also a wide range of important doctrinal areas such as public nuisance tort law, federal common law, Article III and prudential standing requirements, and the political question doctrine.<\/p>\n

Taking into account the arguments advanced by petitioners, respondents, and the U.S. government (in its brief on behalf of the TVA), this post previews a few key issues to look out for at next week\u2019s oral argument:<\/p>\n

Will the Court overturn or limit Massachusetts v. EPA on standing?<\/p>\n

<\/span>Petitioners argue that plaintiffs fail in their efforts to satisfy Article III\u2019s traceability requirement, pointing out the \u201cinnumerable and ever-expanding\u201d roster of worldwide greenhouse gas emitters and the lack of a \u201cgeographic or temporal nexus between individual emissions and particular alleged effects of climate change\u201d to highlight the novelty of what plaintiffs are asking the Court to do here. Pet. Rep. Br. 8. Similarly, petitioners emphasize that \u201cthe overwhelming majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from independent sources that cannot be affected by a judicial decree,\u201d calling into question the redressability of plaintiffs\u2019 claim under Article III standards. Pet. Rep. Br. 10.<\/p>\n

More narrowly, the Solicitor General\u2019s reply brief on behalf of the TVA argues for a dismissal not on the basis of Article III standing, but because plaintiffs\u2019 \u201cgeneralized grievances\u201d are \u201cmore appropriately addressed in the representative branches\u201d of government. TVA Rep. Br. 8. This prudential standing argument, in Jonathan Adler\u2019s view<\/a>, is \u201cone that is far less likely to limit citizen-suit standing in other cases. \u00a0In other words, it\u2019s an argument that helps the SG\u2019s client, the TVA, without threatening the viability of environmentalist citizen suits in other contexts.\u201d<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, plaintiffs\u2019 standing arguments rely heavily upon the causation and redressability analyses laid out in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/span>. Indeed, as we pointed out in our earlier post<\/a>, the State plaintiffs in particular \u201cargue that their standing in this case is even more firmly established than in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/span>,\u201d for both procedural (burden of proof and pleading) and substantive (causation) reasons.<\/p>\n

Will the \u201cspecial solicitude\u201d standing rule applied in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/span> endure? Will the Court distinguish sovereign States\u2019 standing from that of other private plaintiffs? Will it revisit Article III standing doctrine, or simply decide the case on the basis of prudential standing considerations alone? Look for clues to the Court\u2019s thinking on these questions at next week\u2019s oral argument.<\/p>\n

Will the Court eliminate or substantially curtail the public nuisance doctrine?<\/p>\n

<\/span>As Columbia Law School\u2019s Thomas Merrill has recently argued<\/a> (PDF), public nuisance liability for climate change under federal common law may be a bridge too far for the Supreme Court. Under Merrill\u2019s view, the Court should use AEP v. Connecticut<\/span> as an opportunity to rein in a whole category of messy public nuisance suits, which erroneously conflate public actions with private tort law. While courts have upheld the doctrine in the context of tobacco, lead paint, and other products, tort liability for climate change pushes the concept much further. [2]<\/p>\n

Will the Court hold that, in Merrill\u2019s formulation, the politically accountable branches must speak on the issue before courts use public nuisance law to decide lawsuits dealing with controversial and diffuse societal harms such as climate change? Petitioners\u2019 brief tees up this issue, arguing that \u201c[f]ederal common law has never been employed to resolve such disputes, and a \u2018nuisance\u2019 action [. . .] cannot be contorted to encompass such claims. The issues raised by this case are of national and global concern, and can legitimately be addressed only by the political branches.\u201d Pet. Rep. Br. 15. Relatedly, will the court revisit its jurisprudence on the political question doctrine, or make a new statement on the interrelationship of the political question and public nuisance doctrines? Watch out for questions from the bench at oral argument that speak to these concerns.<\/p>\n

Will the Court hold that plaintiffs\u2019 claims are displaced?<\/p>\n

<\/span>Petitioners\u2019 brief argues that the Clean Air Act, even without specific EPA regulations on power plant emissions, displaces federal common law nuisance claims on climate change. Pet. Rep. Br. 18. The Solicitor General\u2019s brief for TVA makes a narrower argument; while EPA authority<\/span> to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act is not sufficient to displace plaintiffs\u2019 claims, EPA\u2019s raft of actual and planned regulations on the subject do precisely that. TVA Rep. Br. 17-22.<\/p>\n

Environmentalists are aware of the vote count; Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito were all dissenters in Massachusetts v. EPA<\/span>, and Justice Sotomayor has recused herself because she was on the Second Circuit panel that decided the case below. A 4-4 tie would let the Second Circuit decision stand. Barring such a decision, the \u201cleast-bad<\/a>\u201d outcome for climate advocates would be for the Court to hold that plaintiffs\u2019 nuisance claims are displaced by EPA climate regulations under the Clean Air Act, as the TVA reply brief suggests.<\/p>\n

Supporters of strong federal action on climate change (from all three branches of government) are waiting for next week\u2019s oral argument for clues as to how the Court will address the question of displacement. The Columbia Center for Climate Change Law will be sure to post further analysis of this and other issues soon after the transcript is released.<\/p>\n

—
\n[1] As a reminder, the questions presented<\/a> in this case are: (1) whether plaintiffs have standing; \u00a0(2) whether plaintiffs\u2019 public nuisance claim is displaced by the Clean Air Act; and (3) whether plaintiffs\u2019 claim presents a nonjusticiable political question.<\/p>\n

[2] Thomas W. Merrill, \u201cIs Public Nuisance a Tort?\u201d (forthcoming, Journal of Tort Law), available at https:\/\/www.law.harvard.edu\/programs\/about\/privatelaw\/is.pub.nuisance.tort.merrill.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Daniel Firger Associate Director On April 11, 2011, petitioners in American Electric Power v. Connecticut,\u00a0five private investor-owned utility companies,\u00a0filed their reply brief.\u00a0On the same day, the Solicitor General filed a separate\u00a0reply brief on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),\u00a0an electric utility owned by the federal government, as respondent supporting petitioners. These reply briefs […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":580,"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":[5677,264],"tags":[5529,9425],"class_list":{"0":"post-752","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-clean-air-act","7":"category-supreme-court","8":"tag-epa-clean-air-act-ghg-rules","9":"tag-nuisance-actions","10":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nAEP v. Connecticut: The Reply Briefs - 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\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"AEP v. Connecticut: The Reply Briefs - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"by Daniel Firger Associate Director On April 11, 2011, petitioners in American Electric Power v. Connecticut,\u00a0five private investor-owned utility companies,\u00a0filed their reply brief.\u00a0On the same day, the Solicitor General filed a separate\u00a0reply brief on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),\u00a0an electric utility owned by the federal government, as respondent supporting petitioners. These reply briefs […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-13T18:39:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-01-31T20:14:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Daniel Firger\" \/>\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=\"Daniel Firger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 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\\\/2011\\\/04\\\/13\\\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2011\\\/04\\\/13\\\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Daniel Firger\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/c8ae1fcab1bafe39a4a76017696d6db7\"},\"headline\":\"AEP v. Connecticut: The Reply Briefs\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-13T18:39:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-01-31T20:14:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2011\\\/04\\\/13\\\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1091,\"commentCount\":1,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Clean Air Act\",\"Nuisance Actions\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Clean Air Act\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2011\\\/04\\\/13\\\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2011\\\/04\\\/13\\\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\\\/\",\"name\":\"AEP v. Connecticut: The Reply Briefs - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-13T18:39:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-01-31T20:14:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2011\\\/04\\\/13\\\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2011\\\/04\\\/13\\\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2011\\\/04\\\/13\\\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"AEP v. Connecticut: The Reply Briefs\"}]},{\"@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\\\/c8ae1fcab1bafe39a4a76017696d6db7\",\"name\":\"Daniel Firger\",\"description\":\"Associate Director and Fellow, Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/dfirge\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"AEP v. Connecticut: The Reply Briefs - 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\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"AEP v. Connecticut: The Reply Briefs - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"by Daniel Firger Associate Director On April 11, 2011, petitioners in American Electric Power v. Connecticut,\u00a0five private investor-owned utility companies,\u00a0filed their reply brief.\u00a0On the same day, the Solicitor General filed a separate\u00a0reply brief on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),\u00a0an electric utility owned by the federal government, as respondent supporting petitioners. These reply briefs […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2011-04-13T18:39:23+00:00","article_modified_time":"2012-01-31T20:14:09+00:00","author":"Daniel Firger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Daniel Firger","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/"},"author":{"name":"Daniel Firger","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/c8ae1fcab1bafe39a4a76017696d6db7"},"headline":"AEP v. Connecticut: The Reply Briefs","datePublished":"2011-04-13T18:39:23+00:00","dateModified":"2012-01-31T20:14:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/"},"wordCount":1091,"commentCount":1,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"keywords":["Clean Air Act","Nuisance Actions"],"articleSection":["Clean Air Act","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/","name":"AEP v. Connecticut: The Reply Briefs - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-13T18:39:23+00:00","dateModified":"2012-01-31T20:14:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2011\/04\/13\/aep-v-connecticut-the-reply-briefs\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"AEP v. Connecticut: The Reply Briefs"}]},{"@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\/c8ae1fcab1bafe39a4a76017696d6db7","name":"Daniel Firger","description":"Associate Director and Fellow, Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/dfirge\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/752","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\/580"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=752"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/752\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}