Cal. Rest. Ass’n v. City of Berkeley

“EPCA’s preemption clause establishes that, once a federal energy conservation standard becomes effective for a covered product, ‘no State regulation concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of such covered product shall be effective with respect to such product[.]’ 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c).”

The City of Berkeley adopted a building code ordinance prohibiting new construction within the city from being built with natural gas piping. Petitioner brought suit claiming that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) expressly preempted the ordinance, and that although it did not specifically identify one of its members that would be specifically harmed by the ordinance, it nonetheless had standing because “one or more of its members would like to open or relocate a restaurant in a new Berkely building." The district court dismissed the claim concluding that the ordinance did not directly regulate or mandate the use of any of the enumerated covered products covered by the EPCA. “EPCA’s preemption clause establishes that, once a federal energy conservation standard becomes effective for a covered product, ‘no State regulation concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of such covered product shall be effective with respect to such product[.]’ 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c).” The Court held that the “text, structure, and context” of the EPCA preempts the challenged ordinance, reasoning the city bypassed the preemptive effect of the EPCA “by banning natural gas piping within buildings rather than banning natural gas products themselves,” and that by preventing access to natural gas infrastructure in new construction the city’s ordinance was an attempt to do “indirectly what Congress says they can’t do directly.” REVERSED and REMANDED.