Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge v. Crombie

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.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

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

      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 Plaintiffs in Docket No. 2:05-cv-302¹ brought six claims for declaratory and injunctive relief: express and implied preemption under...