CRA V. CITY OF BERKELEY, No. 21-16278 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”), expressly preempts State and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances, including those used in household and restaurant kitchens. Instead of directly banning those appliances in new buildings, the City of Berkeley took a more circuitous route to the same result. It enacted a building code that prohibits natural gas piping into those buildings, rendering the gas appliances useless. The California Restaurant Association (“CRA”), whose members include restaurateurs and chefs, challenged Berkeley’s regulation, raising an EPCA preemption claim. The district court dismissed the suit.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that the CRA demonstrated that (1) at least one of its members had suffered an injury in fact, that was (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury was fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) it was likely, not merely speculative, that the injury would be redressed by a favorable decision. The panel held that, by its plain text and structure, the Act’s preemption provision encompasses building codes that regulate natural gas use by covered products. By preventing such appliances from using natural gas, the Berkeley building code did exactly that. The panel reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Energy Law / Preemption The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of the California Restaurant Association’s action alleging that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempts a City of Berkeley regulation that prohibits the installation of natural gas piping within newly constructed buildings.
The panel held that the California Restaurant Association, whose members include restaurateurs and chefs, had Article III associational standing to bring this suit because it demonstrated that (1) at least one of its members had suffered an injury in fact that was (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury was fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) it was likely, not merely speculative, that the injury would be redressed by a favorable decision. Specifically, the Association established that the ordinance would imminently harm its members because it alleged that its members would open or relocate a restaurant in Berkeley but for the city’s ban on natural gas piping. The panel held that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempts the Berkeley ordinance. The panel wrote that, in this express preemption case, it addressed the plain meaning of the Act without any presumptive thumb on the scale for or against preemption. The Act expressly preempts State and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances, including those used in household and restaurant kitchens. Instead of directly banning those appliances in new buildings, Berkeley took a more circuitous route to the same result and enacted a building code that prohibits natural gas piping into those buildings, rendering the gas appliances useless. The panel held that, by its plain text and structure, the Act’s preemption provision encompasses building codes that regulate natural gas use by covered products. By preventing such appliances from using natural gas, the Berkeley building code did exactly that. The panel reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Concurring, Judge O’Scannlain wrote that he agreed that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempts the Berkeley ordinance, but he only reached that conclusion because, under Ninth Circuit precedent, he was bound to hold that the presumption against preemption does not apply to the express-preemption provision at issue. Judge O’Scannlain wrote, however, that the law regarding the presumption against preemption in express-preemption cases is troubling and confused—beset by tensions in Supreme Court precedents, disagreement among the circuits, and important practical questions still unanswered.
Concurring, Judge Baker stated that he wrote separately to express his reservations about the Association’s standing and to explain his understanding of why the City of Berkeley’s ordinance invades the core area preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Judge Baker wrote that, at the pleading stage, an organization need not identify any specific injured member in order to establish associational standing, but it must do so at summary judgment or trial. As to preemption, Judge Baker wrote that the Berkeley ordinance cut 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 when gas service is otherwise available to the premises where such products are used. Judge Baker therefore joined the panel opinion in full.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 2, 2024.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.