## Facts

- Vermont adopted California greenhouse-gas (GHG) emission standards for new passenger vehicles beginning with model year 2009, relying on Clean Air Act (CAA) § 177 authority to adopt California standards once EPA grants California a waiver under CAA § 209(b).
- Automobile manufacturers, dealers, and industry groups sued Vermont environmental officials for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the standards effectively regulated fuel economy.
- Plaintiffs asserted federal preemption under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) program, conflict with the CAA’s federal emissions structure, dormant Commerce Clause violations, foreign affairs preemption, and technological/economic infeasibility.
- The court held a bench trial with extensive expert testimony on emissions control technology, economics, and regulatory interaction.
- Vermont, allied states, and environmental organizations defended the standards as emissions regulations authorized by the CAA’s California-and-adopting-states framework.

## Issues

1. Whether EPCA’s express preemption of state laws “related to fuel economy standards” preempted Vermont’s vehicle GHG emission standards because CO₂ emissions correlate with fuel consumption.
2. Whether the CAA’s waiver-and-adoption scheme (CAA §§ 209(b), 177) permits Vermont to enforce California-equivalent vehicle GHG standards without conflicting with federal emissions or fuel-economy programs.
3. Whether the standards were invalid under conflict/field preemption, the dormant Commerce Clause, foreign affairs preemption, or because compliance was technologically or economically infeasible.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for Vermont officials and upheld Vermont’s adoption of California’s vehicle GHG standards.
- EPCA did not preempt the Vermont standards because they operated as emissions standards within the CAA framework, not as state fuel-economy standards.
- The court found no unlawful conflict between the Vermont standards and the federal CAFE program; manufacturers could comply with both regimes.
- The court rejected claims that the standards were technologically or economically impossible to meet based on the trial record.
- The court rejected constitutional and other federal-law challenges, including dormant Commerce Clause and foreign affairs theories, given Congress’s authorization of the state role through CAA § 177.

## Legal Principles

- EPCA’s preemption clause for state laws “related to fuel economy standards” does not automatically invalidate state vehicle emissions standards adopted pursuant to the CAA’s California waiver and § 177 adoption provisions, even when emissions limits may influence fuel-economy-related design choices.
- Statutory preemption provisions are construed in context and, where feasible, harmonized with other federal statutes addressing related subjects, particularly where Congress created an express state role.
- The CAA establishes a cooperative framework that allows California (with an EPA waiver) and § 177 states to implement more stringent vehicle emissions standards consistent with federal law.
- A regulated party’s showing that compliance is difficult or costly is insufficient; invalidation on feasibility grounds requires proof that compliance is not achievable under the governing standard.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Vermont’s California-equivalent vehicle GHG emission standards, concluding they were authorized by the Clean Air Act, not preempted by EPCA’s fuel-economy scheme, and not invalid under constitutional theories or feasibility objections on the evidentiary record.


Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie, 508 F. Supp. 2d 295 (D. Vt. 2007)