rulemaking with regard to controlling GHG emissions
from new motor vehicles, working closely with the De-
partments of Transportation, Energy and Agriculture.
Briefing by Conference Call on the President’s An-
nouncement on CAFE and Alternative Fuel Standards,
May 14, 2007, htt p:// www. whitehouse. gov/ news/ re-
Water Act standard did not obviate preemption chal-
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
operative Federalism: The Perverse Mutation of Envi-
ronmental Law and Policy, 41 Wake Forest L.Rev. 719,
EPCA’s preemption provision cannot invalidate Ver-
If an act contains an express preemption clause, “the task
argue that Vermont’s GHG emissions standards not only
are “related to fuel economy standards,” but essentially
constitute “de facto fuel economy standards.” Post-Trial
omy standards for automobiles covered by an
average fuel economy standard under this
Vermont’s law regulates GHG emissions-methane, nitrous
quirement to improve fuel economy, cloaked in the rheto-
ric of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
carbon balance equation for gasoline).FN57 The same basic
equation can be used for fuels other than gasoline, such as
nominator shows carbon fractions in the three
carbon-containing compounds in the exhaust
multiplied by a coefficient, which is the carbon
24:1-11; PX 966.
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
cal subdivisions are prohibited from adopting or enforcing
S.Ct. 2270, 110 L.Ed.2d 65 (1990). That intent must be “
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
dai-Austin’s expected cost per vehicle was close to
$2,500.00. PX 1042. For higher-cost manufacturers, in-
cluding Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Volkswagen, General
Motors, and Nissan, costs were universally greater than
$3,500.00 per vehicle, and greater than $4,500.00 per
vehicle for Volkswagen, General Motors, and Nissan. Id.
The path to compliance that Austin outlined would be
were deployed nationwide, then manufacturers
would be required to introduce a slightly differ-
Each of the manufacturer Plaintiffs in this litigation un-
dertook an internal evaluation of its ability to comply with
Alan Weverstad FN69 testified for General Motors about its
“maximum technology scenario.” That scenario was not
limited by cost or time, and involved the use of General
Motors’ CAFE Solver model to calculate the effect of
including in a compliance plan all of the technologies that
*362 General Motors considered to be on-the-shelf, i.e.,
available and understood, and those that hadn’t completed
the entire engineering process, but for which General Mo-
tors did not “see a roadblock” to their completion and
B at 46:7-19. The maximum technology scenario does not
meant to illustrate the maximum application of
technology possible without constraints such as
timing and cost, and is not meant to illustrate a
io would result in lower emissions than required by the
regulation in 2009, but would result in a seven mile per
54:7; PX 0905; PX 0906.
operative Federalism: The Perverse Mutation of Envi-
ronmental Law and Policy, 41 Wake Forest L.Rev. 719,
EPCA’s preemption provision cannot invalidate Ver-
If an act contains an express preemption clause, “the task
argue that Vermont’s GHG emissions standards not only
are “related to fuel economy standards,” but essentially
constitute “de facto fuel economy standards.” Post-Trial
omy standards for automobiles covered by an
average fuel economy standard under this
Vermont’s law regulates GHG emissions-methane, nitrous
quirement to improve fuel economy, cloaked in the rheto-
ric of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
carbon balance equation for gasoline).FN57 The same basic
equation can be used for fuels other than gasoline, such as
nominator shows carbon fractions in the three
carbon-containing compounds in the exhaust
multiplied by a coefficient, which is the carbon
24:1-11; PX 966.
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
cal subdivisions are prohibited from adopting or enforcing
S.Ct. 2270, 110 L.Ed.2d 65 (1990). That intent must be “
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
dai-Austin’s expected cost per vehicle was close to
$2,500.00. PX 1042. For higher-cost manufacturers, in-
cluding Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Volkswagen, General
Motors, and Nissan, costs were universally greater than
$3,500.00 per vehicle, and greater than $4,500.00 per
vehicle for Volkswagen, General Motors, and Nissan. Id.
The path to compliance that Austin outlined would be
were deployed nationwide, then manufacturers
would be required to introduce a slightly differ-
Each of the manufacturer Plaintiffs in this litigation un-
dertook an internal evaluation of its ability to comply with
Alan Weverstad FN69 testified for General Motors about its
“maximum technology scenario.” That scenario was not
limited by cost or time, and involved the use of General
Motors’ CAFE Solver model to calculate the effect of
including in a compliance plan all of the technologies that
*362 General Motors considered to be on-the-shelf, i.e.,
available and understood, and those that hadn’t completed
the entire engineering process, but for which General Mo-
tors did not “see a roadblock” to their completion and
B at 46:7-19. The maximum technology scenario does not
meant to illustrate the maximum application of
technology possible without constraints such as
timing and cost, and is not meant to illustrate a
io would result in lower emissions than required by the
regulation in 2009, but would result in a seven mile per
54:7; PX 0905; PX 0906.