Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge v. Crombie, No. 2:05-CV-302.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. District of Vermont
Writing for the CourtSessions
Citation508 F.Supp.2d 295
PartiesGREEN MOUNTAIN CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH DODGE JEEP; Green Mountain Ford Mercury; Joe Tornabene's GMC; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; DaimlerChrysler Corporation; and General Motors Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. George CROMBIE, Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources; Jeffrey Wennberg, Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation; and Richard Valentinetti, Director of the Air Pollution Control Division of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Defendants, Conservation Law Foundation; Sierra Club; Natural Resources Defense Council; Environmental Defense, Vermont Public Interest Research Group; State of New York; and Denise, M. Sheehan, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, Defendants-Intervenors. The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Plaintiff, v. George Crombie, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources; Jeffrey Wennberg, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation; Richard A. Valentinetti, in his official capacity as Director of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Division, Defendants, Conservation Law Foundation; Sierra Club; Natural Resources Defense Council; Environmental Defense; Vermont Public Interest Research Group; State of New York; and Denise M. Sheehan, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, Defendants-Intervenors.
Docket NumberNo. 2:05-CV-302.,No. 2:05-CV-304.
Decision Date12 September 2007

Page 295

508 F.Supp.2d 295
GREEN MOUNTAIN CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH DODGE JEEP; Green Mountain Ford Mercury; Joe Tornabene's GMC; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; DaimlerChrysler Corporation; and General Motors Corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
George CROMBIE, Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources; Jeffrey Wennberg, Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation; and Richard Valentinetti, Director of the Air Pollution Control Division of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Defendants,
Conservation Law Foundation; Sierra Club; Natural Resources Defense Council; Environmental Defense, Vermont Public Interest Research Group; State of New York; and Denise, M. Sheehan, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, Defendants-Intervenors.
The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Plaintiff,
v.
George Crombie, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources; Jeffrey Wennberg, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation; Richard A. Valentinetti, in his official capacity as Director of the Vermont Air Pollution Control Division, Defendants,
Conservation Law Foundation; Sierra Club; Natural Resources Defense Council; Environmental Defense; Vermont Public Interest Research Group; State of New York; and Denise M. Sheehan, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, Defendants-Intervenors.
No. 2:05-CV-302.
No. 2:05-CV-304.
United States District Court, D. Vermont.
September 12, 2007.

Page 296

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 297

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 298

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 299

Matthew B. Byrne, Robert B. Hemley, Ross A. Feldmann, Gravel and Shea, Debra L. Bouffard, R. Jeffrey Behm, Sheehey Furlong & Behm P.C., Burlington, VT, Lucas R. Blocher, Michael E. Scoville, Andrew B. Clubok, Ashley C. Parrish, Derek S. Bentsen, Stacey B. Hall, Stuart A.C. Drake, Tyler D. Mace, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Charles H. Haake, Raymond B. Ludwiszewski, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Kevin O. Leske, Scot L. Kline, Vermont Attorney General's Office, Montpelier, VT, for Defendants.

OPINION and ORDER

SESSIONS, Chief Judge.


 TABLE OF CONTENTS
                 Page
                INTRODUCTION .................................................................................300
                BACKGROUND ...................................................................................303
                 I. Clean Air Act ..........................................................................303
                 II. Environmental Policy and Conservation Act ..............................................305
                III. Massachusetts v. EPA ...................................................................307
                EVIDENTIARY ISSUES ...........................................................................310
                 I. Daubert Challenges .....................................................................310
                 A. James Hansen, Ph.D .................................................................312
                 1. Hansen's Qualifications ........................................................312
                 2. Hansen's Testimony .............................................................313
                 3. Reliability of Hansen's Testimony ..............................................316
                 4. Relevance of Hansen's Testimony ................................................320
                 B. Admissibility of Testimony of Dr. Barrett N. Rock ..................................320
                 1. Dr. Rock's Qualifications ......................................................320
                 2. Dr. Rock's Testimony ...........................................................321
                 3. Reliability of Dr. Rock's Testimony ............................................322
                 4. Relevance of Dr. Rock's Testimony ..............................................325
                 C. Admissibility of Testimony of K.G. Duleep ..........................................325
                 1. Duleep's Qualifications ........................................................325
                 2. Duleep's Testimony .............................................................327
                 a. Methodology ................................................................327
                 b. Validation of Results With Lumped Parameter Model ..........................328
                 c. Duleep's Cost Analysis .........................................................329
                 3. Evaluating the Reliability of Duleep's Testimony ...............................329
                 4. Relevance of Duleep's Testimony ................................................333
                 II. Discovery Violation ....................................................................333
                FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................336
                 I. The State Regulations ..................................................................336
                 A. Implementation of California's AB 1493 .............................................336
                

Page 300

 B. Adoption of Vermont's GHG Emissions Standards ......................................338
                 C. The Global Warming Connection ......................................................339
                 D. The GHG Regulation Provisions ......................................................341
                 II. Preemption .............................................................................343
                 A. The Preemption Doctrines Do Not Apply ..............................................343
                 B. Express Preemption .................................................................350
                 1. De Facto Fuel Economy Standard .................................................351
                 2. "Related to" Fuel Economy Standard .............................................353
                 C. Field Preemption ...................................................................354
                 D. Conflict Preemption ................................................................355
                 1. Frustration of Congressional Intent to Maintain Nationwide Fuel
                 Economy Standards ............................................................356
                 2. Technological Feasibility and Economic Practicability, Including Restricting
                 Consumer Choice, Reducing Employment and Decreasing
                 Traffic Safety ...............................................................357
                 a. History of Technology-forcing Regulations ..................................358
                 b. Austin's Testimony .........................................................359
                 c. Manufacturers' Testimony ...................................................360
                 d. Duleep's Testimony .........................................................364
                 e. Conclusions ................................................................365
                 (1) Austin's baseline assumptions and methodology ..........................365
                 (2) Alternative, fuels .....................................................369
                 (a) Diesel .............................................................370
                 (b) Ethanol ............................................................373
                 (c) Hydrogen ...........................................................376
                 (d) Plug-in hybrids ....................................................376
                 (3) Other technologies .....................................................377
                 (a) GDI/turbo ..........................................................378
                 (b) Camless valve actuation ............................................379
                 (c) Rolling resistance improvements ....................................379
                 (d) Reductions in aerodynamic drag .....................................380
                 (e) Continuously variable transmission ("CVT") .........................380
                 (f) Electronic power steering ..........................................381
                 (g) A/C credits ........................................................381
                 (h) Credit trading .....................................................381
                 (i) Efforts to promote technology generally ............................382
                 (4) Consumer choice ........................................................384
                 (5) Product withdrawal and job loss ........................................386
                 (6) Safety .................................................................389
                III. Foreign Policy Preemption ..............................................................392
                 A. National Foreign Policy on GHG Emissions ...........................................392
                 B. Zschernig Preemption ...............................................................395
                 C. Garamendi Preemption ...............................................................395
                CONCLUSION ...................................................................................397
                ORDER ........................................................................................399
                
Introduction

In these consolidated cases, Plaintiffs, a collection of new motor vehicle dealers, automobile manufacturers and associations of automobile manufacturers, seek declaratory and injunctive relief from regulations adopted by Vermont in the fall of 2005 that establish greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions standards for new automobiles. The

Page 301

Plaintiffs in Docket No. 2:05-cv-3021 brought six claims for declaratory and injunctive relief: express and implied preemption under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, 49 U.S.C. §§ 32901-32919 ("EPCA") (Count I); preemption under the Clean Air Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q ("CAA") (Count II); violation of the CAA (Count III); foreign policy preemption (Count IV); violation of the dormant Commerce Clause (Count V); and violation of the Sherman Act (Count VI). The Plaintiff2 in Docket No. 2:05-cv-304 alleged preemption under EPCA (Count I) and under the CAA (Count II).3 On May 3, 2006, five non-profit environmental advocacy groups4 were permitted to intervene as defendants in the cases, and on July 27, 2006 the State of New York was also permitted to intervene as a defendant.

Prior to trial, Defendants twice sought...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Central Valley: Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. Goldstene, No. CV F 04-6663 AWI LJO.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 11 d2 Dezembro d2 2007
    ...for the District of Vermont filed an opinion and order in the consolidated case of Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth, et al. v. Crombie, 508 F.Supp.2d 295 (D.Vt.2007) (hereinafter "Green Mountain")2, in which AIAM and a group of auto dealers and manufacturers challenged the State of Vermont'......
  • AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 1:17-cv-00598 (BKS/CFH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • 5 d3 Maio d3 2021
    ...Sci. USA LP v. Scotts Co. , 383 F. Supp. 2d 488, 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) )); Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie , 508 F. Supp. 2d 295, 325 (D. Vt. 2007) ("[L]imitations in some of the data on which [an expert] relied goes to the weight of [the expert's] testimony ..., not it......
  • Litigating Global Warming: Likely Legal Challenges to Emerging Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Programs in the United States
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 39-5, May 2009
    • 1 d5 Maio d5 2009
    ...of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). 200. 529 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (E.D. Cal. 2007). 201. Id. at 1189. 202. 508 F. Supp. 2d 295 (D. Vt. 2007). 203. California sued EPA to overturn its denial and is also pursuing congressional relief. he case is still pending in the U.S. Co......
  • State Authority to Regulate Mobile Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Part 1: History and Current Challenge
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 49-11, November 2019
    • 1 d5 Novembro d5 2019
    ...Inc. v. Goldstene, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 37 ELR 20309 (E.D. Cal. 2007); Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie, 508 F. Supp. 2d 295, 37 ELR 20232 (D. Vt. 2007). 198. Green Mountain , 508 F. Supp. 2d at 398. taking California standards into consideration when setting CAFE sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Central Valley: Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. Goldstene, No. CV F 04-6663 AWI LJO.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 11 d2 Dezembro d2 2007
    ...for the District of Vermont filed an opinion and order in the consolidated case of Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth, et al. v. Crombie, 508 F.Supp.2d 295 (D.Vt.2007) (hereinafter "Green Mountain")2, in which AIAM and a group of auto dealers and manufacturers challenged the State of Vermont'......
  • AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 1:17-cv-00598 (BKS/CFH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • 5 d3 Maio d3 2021
    ...Sci. USA LP v. Scotts Co. , 383 F. Supp. 2d 488, 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) )); Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie , 508 F. Supp. 2d 295, 325 (D. Vt. 2007) ("[L]imitations in some of the data on which [an expert] relied goes to the weight of [the expert's] testimony ..., not it......
  • In re Ford Fusion & C-Max Fuel Econ. Litig., Case No. 13-MD-2450 (KMK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 12 d4 Novembro d4 2015
    ...passed the EPCA with the intent of improving motor vehicle energy efficiency. See Green Mtn. Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie, 508 F. Supp. 2d 295, 305-07 (D. Vt. 2007). It provides that every new vehicle sold in the United States be labeled with a sticker (a "Monroney Sticker") indi......
  • Metro. Taxicab Bd. of Trade v. City of New York, No. 08 Civ. 7837 (PAC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 22 d1 Junho d1 2009
    ...follow that the rules were automatically preempted. Id. at *13-14 (analyzing Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie, 508 F.Supp.2d 295 (D.Vt.2007), and Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. Goldstene, 529 F.Supp.2d 1151 (E.D.Cal. 2007)). Because the EPCA preempted the 25/30 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • State Authority to Regulate Mobile Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Part 1: History and Current Challenge
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 49-11, November 2019
    • 1 d5 Novembro d5 2019
    ...Inc. v. Goldstene, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 37 ELR 20309 (E.D. Cal. 2007); Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie, 508 F. Supp. 2d 295, 37 ELR 20232 (D. Vt. 2007). 198. Green Mountain , 508 F. Supp. 2d at 398. taking California standards into consideration when setting CAFE sta......
  • Litigating Global Warming: Likely Legal Challenges to Emerging Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Programs in the United States
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 39-5, May 2009
    • 1 d5 Maio d5 2009
    ...of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). 200. 529 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (E.D. Cal. 2007). 201. Id. at 1189. 202. 508 F. Supp. 2d 295 (D. Vt. 2007). 203. California sued EPA to overturn its denial and is also pursuing congressional relief. he case is still pending in the U.S. Co......
  • The Legality of EPA's Greenhouse Gas Waiver Denial
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 39-2, February 2009
    • 1 d0 Fevereiro d0 2009
    ...cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency. 113. Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie, 508 F. Supp. 2d 295, 37 ELR 20232 (D. Vt. 2007); Central Valley Chrysler Jeep v. Goldstone, No. 04-6663, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4372878, 37 ELR 20309 (E.D. Cal. ......
  • An American (State) in Paris: The Constitutionality of U.S. States' Commitments to the Paris Agreement
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 48-11, November 2018
    • 1 d4 Novembro d4 2018
    ...a challenge to the state’s law setting emissions standards for new vehicles); Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie, 508 F. Supp. 2d 295, 37 ELR 20232 (D. Vt. 2007) (upholding a similar law in Vermont). 166. See supra Section III.A . 1. 167. See supra Section III.A . 2. 168......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT