Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie
74 Fed. R. Serv. 551, 508 F.Supp.2d 295, 37 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20232 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State greenhouse gas emission standards for new motor vehicles that are adopted pursuant to a Clean Air Act (CAA) waiver are not preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as Congress intended for the two regulatory schemes to coexist and for federal fuel economy standards to be set with consideration for such state emission standards.
Facts:
- In 2002, the California legislature enacted AB 1493, directing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regulations to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles.
- In 2004, CARB adopted the GHG regulations, which set fleet-average emission standards for new vehicles starting with the 2009 model year.
- The regulations cover multiple greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, and offer various compliance pathways such as technological improvements, use of alternative fuels, and credits for improved air conditioning systems.
- In 2005, the State of Vermont adopted regulations identical to California's GHG standards, as permitted under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act.
- Automobile manufacturers must implement design and technology changes years in advance to comply with new vehicle standards.
- The primary motivation for both the California and Vermont regulations was to address the contribution of vehicle emissions to global climate change.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of automobile manufacturers, dealers, and associations sued Vermont officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaration that Vermont's greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations for new vehicles were invalid and an injunction to stop their enforcement.
- The initial complaint alleged preemption by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and U.S. foreign policy, among other claims.
- The court consolidated two separate lawsuits filed by different industry groups.
- Several environmental organizations and the State of New York were permitted to intervene as defendants to help defend the regulations.
- Defendants' motions to dismiss the case as not ripe for review (because the EPA had not yet granted California a waiver) were denied by the court.
- Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims related to the dormant Commerce Clause and the Sherman Act.
- The case proceeded to a 16-day bench trial focused on the remaining claims of EPCA preemption and foreign policy preemption.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which grants the federal government exclusive authority to set fuel economy standards, preempt Vermont's regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles adopted pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Sessions
No, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) does not preempt Vermont's greenhouse gas regulations. The issue is properly viewed as a potential conflict between two federal statutes, the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPCA, rather than a federal-state conflict. Once the EPA grants California a waiver under CAA § 209(b), the state's standards—and by extension, Vermont's—become 'other motor vehicle standards of the Government' that EPCA expressly requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to consider when setting federal fuel economy standards. Congress intended for the two statutory schemes to operate concurrently. Alternatively, applying preemption analysis, the regulations are not preempted. They are not expressly preempted because they are not de facto fuel economy standards; they regulate multiple greenhouse gases and provide compliance flexibility beyond simply improving fuel economy, such as using alternative fuels or obtaining air conditioning credits. Field preemption does not apply because the CAA's waiver provision demonstrates clear congressional intent to allow for a dual state-federal regulatory system for vehicle emissions. Finally, there is no conflict preemption. The regulations do not stand as an obstacle to EPCA's objectives because the evidence shows that compliance is technologically feasible and economically practicable. The court found the auto manufacturers' claims of impossibility and catastrophic economic harm to be unconvincing, crediting expert testimony that a variety of existing and emerging technologies could be used to meet the standards without restricting consumer choice or causing significant job loss.
Analysis:
This decision provided a significant legal victory for states seeking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, establishing that such actions were not automatically preempted by federal fuel economy laws. By framing the issue as one of harmonizing two federal statutes (the CAA and EPCA), the court created a durable legal framework that bolstered the legitimacy of California's special role as a 'laboratory' for environmental regulation. The ruling affirmed that states could enforce technology-forcing standards to address climate change, providing a crucial legal foundation for a coalition of states to implement emissions standards stricter than the federal government's at the time. This precedent heavily influenced subsequent litigation and the political dynamics surrounding vehicle emissions and climate policy in the United States.
Unlock the full brief for Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie