Association of Contracting Plumbers of the City of New York v. City of New York

–

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York held that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) did not preempt New York City’s 2021 law that generally prohibits combustion of natural gas and heating fuel in new residential buildings. The EPCA preemption clause provides that upon the effective date of an energy conservation standard for a covered product, “no State regulation concerning the … energy use … of such covered product shall be effective with respect to such product.” “Energy use” is defined as “the quantity of energy directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use, determined in accordance with test procedures” established under EPCA. The district court declined to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the term “energy use” in the preemption provision in <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/california-restaurant-association-v-city-of-berkeley/">California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley</a> (CRA v. Berkeley), which held that EPCA preempted Berkeley’s ordinance prohibiting installation of natural gas piping in newly constructed buildings. The court agreed with the dissenting judge in CRA v. Berkeley that because EPCA is a “technical statute,” the term “point of use” in the definition of “energy use” should be interpreted in accordance with its “specialized” meaning, which the court concluded referred to “a predetermined fixed value that measures the characteristics of a covered product as manufactured,” rather than to the “place where something is used” as the CRA v. Berkeley majority held. The New York district court further concluded that the New York City law did not “relate to” or “concern” “energy use” within EPCA’s meaning because the law did not focus on applicable performance standards for covered products but instead “regulates, indirectly, the type of fuel that a covered product may consume in certain settings, irrespective of that product’s energy efficiency or use.” The court described this as a type of regulation “integral to municipal construction and fire codes.” The court also said the local law did not “reference” EPCA’s subject matter because it did not affect performance standards applicable to covered products. In addition, the court found that the law did not have a significant impact on congressional objectives for EPCA to eliminate burdens on manufacturers.

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion by an environmental justice organization and a trade association representing the geothermal heat pump industry to intervene in a lawsuit challenging New York City’s building electrification law. The court said that there was no dispute that the City adequately represented the proposed intervenors’ interest in upholding the law. The court also said it was not persuaded that there were “underlying factual issues” that the proposed intervenors could help in addressing. In light of the proposed intervenors’ “specialized knowledge,” however, the court invited them to serve as amici curiae.

–

–

–