California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley

On August 12, 2024, California Restaurant Association (CRA) and the City of Berkeley filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of CRA’s lawsuit challenging the City’s ban on natural gas infrastructure in new construction. The parties’ stipulation stated that they had “resolved this case in its entirety.” After the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempted the Berkeley ordinance, the City repealed the law in May 2024.

After the City of Berkeley agreed to repeal its ordinance banning natural gas infrastructure in new buildings, the federal district court for the Northern District of California granted a request by the City and California Restaurant Association (CRA) to hold CRA’s lawsuit challenging the ban in abeyance until September 10, 2024 to allow the City time to implement the repeal. The Ninth Circuit held in April 2023 that federal law expressly preempted the ordinance, and the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc in January 2024.

The federal district court for the Northern District of California ruled that a restaurant trade association failed to state a claim that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) preempted the City of Berkeley’s ordinance prohibiting natural gas infrastructure in new construction. The court rejected Berkeley’s jurisdictional grounds for dismissal (standing and ripeness) but found that the association failed to demonstrate that EPCA expressly preempted Berkeley’s ordinance because the ordinance “does not directly regulate either energy use or energy efficiency of covered appliances.” The court further found that EPCA’s legislative history did not support the plaintiff’s “expansive interpretation.” The court also noted that states and localities “expressly maintain control over the local distribution of natural gas under related federal statutes” such as the Natural Gas Act. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. Sabin Center Senior Fellow Amy Turner discussed the court’s decision in a <a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2021/07/07/california-restaurant-association-v-berkeley-and-local-natural-gas-restrictions/">post</a> on the Climate Law Blog.

–

–

–

–

–

–

The federal district court for the Northern District of California granted in part the City of Berkeley’s motion to dismiss a challenge to its ban on natural gas infrastructure in new buildings. The court granted the motion on ripeness and standing grounds, but granted the California Restaurant Association leave to file an amended complaint by August 14, 2020 to add allegations to address the grounds for dismissal. The court also <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/restaurants-must-revise-arguments-in-berkeleys-natural-gas-ban">indicated</a> during a hearing that the California Restaurant Association should do “a better job” of laying out its federal preemption argument. The court denied Berkeley’s motion to dismiss on the remaining grounds but said Berkeley could raise them again in response to the amended complaint.

–

–

–

–

–

The City of Berkeley moved to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the City’s ordinance that instituted a progressive ban on natural gas connections in new buildings. The City argued that there was no subject matter jurisdiction, that the California Restaurant Association lacked standing to bring the suit, that the suit was unripe, and that state law claims were barred by the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. In addition, Berkeley argued that the complaint failed to state a claim that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act preempted the ordinance. Berkeley also contended that the case should be dismissed because state law did not preempt the ordinance and the ordinance did not conflict with state energy efficiency standards.