Thursday, September 13, 2007

Vermont decision -- a tour de force

John Dernback just posted the Vermont decision to the ABA climate change list.  I thought I'd go read it before my energy class and then I realized that it is 244 pages long. Here's the opinion  vermont_decision.pdf and here's the  table of contents:

INTRODUCTION 1

BACKGROUND 6

I. Clean Air Act 6

II. Environmental Policy and Conservation Act 12

III. Massachusetts v. EPA 17

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES 24

I. Daubert Challenges 24

A. James Hansen, Ph.D. 29
1. Hansen’s Qualifications 29
2. Hansen’s Testimony 31
3. Reliability of Hansen’s Testimony 38
4. Relevance of Hansen’s Testimony 47

B. Admissibility of Testimony of Dr. Barrett N. Rock 48
1. Dr. Rock’s Qualifications 48
2. Dr. Rock’s Testimony 49
3. Reliability of Dr. Rock’s Testimony 51
4. Relevance of Dr. Rock’s Testimony 59

C. Admissibility of Testimony of K.G. Duleep 59
1. Duleep’s Qualifications 60
2. Duleep’s Testimony 64
a. Methodology 64
b. Validation of Results With Lumped
Parameter Model 67
c. Duleep’s Cost Analysis 69
3. Evaluating the Reliability of Duleep’s
Testimony 69
4. Relevance of Duleep’s Testimony 78

II. Discovery Violation 78

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 86

I. The State Regulations 86

A. Implementation of California’s AB 1493 86

B. Adoption of Vermont’s GHG Emissions Standards 90

C. The Global Warming Connection 92

D. The GHG Regulation Provisions 98

II. Preemption 102

A. The Preemption Doctrines Do Not Apply 104

B. Express Preemption 120
1. De Facto Fuel Economy Standard 122
2. “Related to” Fuel Economy Standard 127

C. Field Preemption 130

D. Conflict Preemption 132

1. Frustration of Congressional Intent
to Maintain Nationwide Fuel Economy
Standards 134

2. Technological Feasibility and Economic
Practicability, Including Restricting Consumer
Choice, Reducing Employment and Decreasing
Traffic Safety 135
a. History of Technology-forcing
Regulations 137
b. Austin’s Testimony 140
c. Manufacturers’ Testimony 146
d. Duleep’s Testimony 152
e. Conclusions 155
(1) Austin’s baseline assumptions
and methodology 155
(2) Alternative fuels 166(a) Diesel 169
(b) Ethanol 175
(c) Hydrogen 182
(d) Plug-in hybrids 184
(3) Other technologies 185
(a) GDI/turbo 187
(b) Camless valve actuation 190
(c) Rolling resistance
improvements 191
(d) Reductions in aerodynamic
drag 192
(e) Continuously variable
transmission (“CVT”) 193
(f) Electronic power
steering 195
(g) A/C credits 195
(h) Credit trading 196
(i) Efforts to promote
technology generally 198
(4) Consumer choice 203
(5) Product withdrawal and job
loss 207
(6) Safety 216

II. Foreign Policy Preemption 222

A. National Foreign Policy on GHG Emissions 223

B. Zschernig Preemption 228

C. Garamendi Preemption 230

CONCLUSION 234

ORDER 240

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environmental_law/2007/09/vermont-decisio.html

Air Quality, Cases, Climate Change, Constitutional Law, Energy, Governance/Management, International, Law, Sustainability, US | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e54edcf60a8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Vermont decision -- a tour de force: