Green Mountain Chrysler v. Crombie 2:05-cv-302 (D.Vt. 2007) In 2002, California enacted legislation, known as AB 1493 (aka the Pavley legislation) to adopt regulations to set greenhouse gas emission standards for new cars and light trucks sold in California. The standards require automobile manufacturers to decrease fleet wide emissions on a graduated basis, eventually reduce motor vehicle emissions by approximately 30%. California is the only State to have the ability to choose their own air emissions standards under Clean Air Act §209(b), but other States have the choice of using either the national EPA regulation or the California regulation. California must file a waiver to get their regulations approved by EPA.  However, at the time the Vermont regulation went into effect, California's waiver had been filed with EPA but not approved. To comply with the Clear Air Act, Vermont’s regulations incorporate by reference all regulations adopted by California.  So, they (and 12 other States) adopted the Pavley legislation. A number of car manufacturers and industry trade groups sued Vermont to stop implementation of the new regulation. The car manufacturers argued that the only way to decrease emissions was to increase fuel economy and that was the province of Department of Transportation (DOT), and not within EPA's mandate. DOT has the authority to set fuel economy standards under the Environmental Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (aka 49 U.S.C. §§ 32902-19). Since EPCA is a Federal law, the car manufacturers argued that States such as California and Vermont were specifically prevented from enacting legislations that conflicted with a Federal law under the doctrine of preemption. EPCA §502 explicitly gives DOT the authority to regulate "other motor vehicle standards." EPCA §509 explicitly preempts any State laws or regulations related to fuel economy standards. The car manufacturers further argued that that the regulations intrude on the foreign policy prerogatives of the President and Congress, and are thus invalid under the related constitutional doctrine of foreign policy preemption. President Bush had specifically rejected international treaties to regulate greenhouse gases. The car manufacturers further argued that they had made fuel economy standards as high as they could, and further improvements in gas mileage were both technologically and economically infeasible. That's industry's standard argument for all environmental regulations! Btw, the car manufacturers sued in California and other States as well, but all of those judges decided to delay hearing arguments of this case until the US Supreme Court had decided Massachusetts v. EPA (127 S.Ct. 1483 (2007)).  So, the Vermont case was the first one to get decided. The Federal District Court upheld the Vermont regulation. The Court looked to Massachusetts v. EPA and found that EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and DOT’s authority to set fuel economy standards overlap but do not conflict, and that the agencies have the duty to work together, particularly with regard to emissions standards that affect fuel economy. The Court found that California's emissions regulations are sufficiently unrelated to fuel economy standards not to be expressly preempted. You don't absolutely have to raise fuel economy to lower emissions, that's just the easiest way to do it. The Court also felt that the car manufacturers did not "show that compliance with the regulation is not feasible; nor have they demonstrated that it will limit consumer choice, create economic hardship for the automobile industry, cause significant job loss, or undermine safety." At the time I took this class, only the Trial Court had decided.  It is highly likely that this case will be appealed.