The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has struck down a law in Berkeley, California, that prohibited the installation of natural gas piping in newly constructed buildings. The law was enacted in 2020 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the California Restaurant Association brought suit against the City of Berkeley, arguing that the law was preempted by Congress’s Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).
The City of Berkeley argued that the EPCA only preempts regulations imposing standards on the design and manufacturing of appliances, not those that impact the distribution and availability of natural gas. The city contended that because its ordinance impacted the distribution and availability of natural gas, rather than imposing standards on the design and manufacturing of appliances, it was not preempted by the EPCA.
The court ruled in favor of the California Restaurant Association, stating that the EPCA “expressly preempts State and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances,” including those requiring the prohibited natural gas hookups by the Berkeley ordinance. The court also stated that the “circuitous route” the City of Berkeley took in its law created the same result as Congress’s law, which was to regulate natural gas use. Rather than prohibiting the use of natural gas appliances in new buildings, the law prohibited the installation of natural gas hookups so that appliances needing natural gas would be rendered useless.
The court ultimately struck down the ordinance because it “cuts to the heart of what Congress sought to prevent – state and local manipulation of building codes for new construction to regulate the natural gas consumption of covered products.”
Get noticed by top law firms and sign up for LawCrossing now.
The decision has significant implications for California’s energy policies and the future of energy regulation in the state. Many cities and counties in California have adopted or are considering similar ordinances to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This decision could potentially impact those efforts.
The California Restaurant Association praised the decision, stating it would help protect restaurants from unnecessary costs and disruptions. The association argued that the Berkeley law would have required restaurants to switch to electric appliances, which are more expensive and less efficient than natural gas appliances.
However, supporters of the Berkeley law criticized the decision, arguing that it would undermine efforts to combat climate change. The Natural Resources Defense Council stated that the decision was “a blow to the fight against climate change” and would “undermine local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
The court’s decision highlights the tension between state and local efforts to combat climate change and federal preemption of those efforts. While the EPCA preempts state and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances, it does not address the distribution and availability of natural gas. This creates ambiguity and uncertainty for state and local policymakers seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
As California and other states continue to grapple with the impacts of climate change, the role of federal preemption in energy regulation will likely remain a contentious issue. The court’s decision in this case demonstrates the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to energy policy that balances federal, state, and local interests.