Building Industry Ass'n v. Washington State Building Code Council
683 F.3d 1144
9th Cir.2012Background
- EPCA preempts state energy standards for covered products but exempts energy-efficiency building codes that meet seven conditions; subsections (A)-(G) govern exemptions.
- Washington enacted a statewide Building Code to promote energy efficiency, including a 2009 amendment program with a 15% energy-reduction target for new buildings by 2013.
- Chapter 9 of the 2009 Washington Code provides a credit-based pathway for meeting the 15% target, with various options and credits, including some that involve EPCA-covered products.
- Plaintiffs—BIAW and others—filed suit alleging the Chapter 9 exemptions do not satisfy EPCA’s conditions and thus are preempted.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding Chapter 9 satisfied EPCA’s seven conditions, including (B) and (C).
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirms, concluding Chapter 9 satisfies subsections (B) and (C) and hence is exempt from preemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Chapter 9 violate 6297(f)(3)(B)? | BIAW: Chapter 9 coerces use of higher-efficiency EPCA products. | Washington: no requirement; economic incentives do not compel product choice. | Chapter 9 does not require higher-efficiency products; satisfies (B). |
| Does Chapter 9 satisfy 6297(f)(3)(C)'s one-for-one credit principle? | Credits are not proportionate to energy savings; some options misvalue savings. | SEEM-based modeling yields credits proportional to average energy savings; variation allowed. | Chapter 9 credits are closely proportional to average equivalent energy use; satisfies (C). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005) (preemption interpretation: 'requirement' means a compulsory rule of law, not merely economic incentive)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (admissibility of expert testimony and methodological reliability standard in Daubert gatekeeping)
- United States v. 87.98 Acres of Land More or Less in the County of Merced, 530 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2008) (admissibility and weighting of expert testimony under government standards)
- United States v. Redlightning, 624 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2010) (expert testimony reliability and methodological scrutiny)