California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, 547 F.Supp.3d 878

Plaintiff California Restaurant Association (CRA) challenges Berkeley Ordinance No. 7,672–N.S., which bans "Natural Gas Infrastructure" (fuel gas piping from the meter) in newly constructed buildings from Jan. 1, 2020, subject to limited exemptions.
CRA alleges the ban effectively prohibits use of gas appliances in new construction and asserts four causes of action: (1) federal preemption under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA); and (2) three state-law preemption theories under California law and building/energy codes.
The Ordinance is enacted under Berkeley’s police power and is codified in Title 12 (Health & Safety); it disavows amending the California Energy Code and contains exemptions for physical infeasibility and discretionary "public interest" determinations.
CRA seeks declaratory and injunctive relief; federal jurisdiction is grounded on the EPCA preemption claim; the state-law claims were pleaded in the alternative.
The Court held a Rule 12(b)(1)/(b)(6) motion to dismiss: it found CRA has standing and the facial challenge is ripe, but ruled the EPCA does not preempt the Ordinance and dismissed the federal claim with prejudice; the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing & Ripeness	CRA: association alleges at least one member would open/relocate a new restaurant using gas but for the Ordinance; facial preemption challenge is ripe.	Berkeley: alleged injury speculative; no member sought an exemption; challenge not ripe.	Court: DENIED dismissal — CRA sufficiently pleaded an affected member; facial challenge is ripe.
Federal preemption under EPCA	CRA: EPCA preempts any state/local regulation "concerning the energy efficiency or energy use" of covered appliances; Ordinance effectively regulates energy use by forcing all-electric new buildings.	Berkeley: EPCA targets appliance energy efficiency/use, not local decisions about natural gas infrastructure; Natural Gas Act and tradition reserve local distribution to states/locals.	Court: GRANTED dismissal — EPCA does not expressly preempt Berkeley’s ban; federal claim DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
State-law preemption / California codes	CRA: alternatively, Berkeley ordinance conflicts with or is preempted by California building/energy codes and state law.	Berkeley: ordinance valid exercise of local police power and distinct from state building/energy codes.	Court: DECLINED to decide — dismissed state-law claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of federal jurisdiction.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (associations must allege at least one identified member with standing)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a claim plausible on its face)
Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Inst. v. Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 410 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2005) (guidance on interpreting EPCA preemption provisions)
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., N.A., Inc., 519 U.S. 316 (1997) (preemption interpreted narrowly where state regulation falls in traditional state domain)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (authority for injunctive suits to enjoin state officers enforcing unconstitutional or preempted laws)
S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. F.E.R.C., 621 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2010) (federal Natural Gas Act exempts local distribution; states/localities retain authority over local gas distribution)