In California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempts Berkeley’s ordinance banning natural gas piping in new buildings, reversing a lower court’s dismissal and sending the case back for further proceedings.1Justia. CRA v. City of Berkeley
What Berkeley’s Ordinance Did
In July 2019, Berkeley became the first U.S. city to ban natural gas connections in new construction.2Bay Area Regional Collaborative. Berkeley Becomes First U.S. City to Ban Natural Gas Connections in New Buildings Rather than prohibit gas stoves, water heaters, or furnaces directly, the ordinance amended the local building code to bar the installation of the gas piping needed to run them. New buildings would have to be wired for electric heating and cooking instead. The Ninth Circuit later described the design as a circuitous route to the same result as a direct appliance ban: by making fuel unavailable at the point of use, the city ensured gas appliances could not operate.1Justia. CRA v. City of Berkeley
Who Sued and Why
The California Restaurant Association filed suit in November 2019, before the ordinance took effect. Its members, including chefs and restaurant owners, said the ban would harm professional kitchens that rely on the precise heat control and high output of gas-fired equipment. The association argued that Berkeley was regulating appliance energy use by another name, and that local governments lack authority to dictate which appliances can be installed based on their energy source. It asked the court to block enforcement.3Justia. CRA v. City of Berkeley – Section: Order and Amended Opinion1Justia. CRA v. City of Berkeley
The Federal Preemption Argument
The CRA’s core theory was federal preemption. Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law overrides conflicting state and local rules.4Constitution Annotated. U.S. Constitution – Article VI, Clause 2 The statute doing the work here is the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Once the federal government sets an energy conservation standard for a covered appliance, states and cities are generally barred from adopting their own standards concerning the product’s energy use or efficiency.5Legal Information Institute. 42 U.S.C. § 6297 The association argued Berkeley’s piping ban did exactly what EPCA forbids, only in disguise.
The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling
The Ninth Circuit agreed and reversed the district court’s dismissal. Because EPCA covers the quantity of energy a covered product uses, a local rule that drives that quantity to zero by cutting off the fuel supply is a preempted regulation of energy use.1Justia. CRA v. City of Berkeley6Legal Information Institute. 42 U.S.C. § 6291 The court’s reasoning turned on three points:
- Federal preemption extends to building codes that regulate how covered products use energy.
- Prohibiting the installation of necessary gas pipes prevents federally regulated appliances from being used as intended.
- Municipalities cannot avoid federal oversight by targeting infrastructure rather than the appliances themselves.
What Happened After the Ruling
The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, and later issued an order and amended opinion addressing the decision.3Justia. CRA v. City of Berkeley – Section: Order and Amended Opinion The practical effect is that a city cannot use its building code to shut off natural gas service to appliances that Congress has chosen to regulate at the federal level. Cities considering similar climate measures on new construction have to work within the limits EPCA sets on state and local authority over covered appliances.