National Electrical Manufacturers Association v. California Energy Commission
2:17-cv-01625
E.D. Cal.Dec 22, 2017Background
- NEMA sued the California Energy Commission (CEC), alleging EPCA preempts California efficiency standards for three lamp categories: general service lamps (GSLs), LED lamps, and small diameter directional lamps (SDDLs), and moved for judgment on the pleadings seeking declaratory relief and an injunction.
- EPCA (42 U.S.C. § 6291 et seq.) gives DOE authority to set test procedures and energy conservation standards for covered products, including various lamps; EISA 2007 introduced "general service lamps" (GSLs) and related provisions.
- EPCA contains a broad preemption provision (42 U.S.C. § 6297(b)) but also a detailed rulemaking directive for DOE under 42 U.S.C. § 6295(i)(6)(A) and statutory exceptions permitting California (and Nevada in limited respects) to adopt certain regulations if DOE fails to complete rulemaking "in accordance with" clauses (i)–(iv).
- DOE issued a January 19, 2017 final rule defining GSLs but declined to impose or amend standards in that rule; DOE later sought additional data on GSILs.
- CEC adopted (1) a 45 lm/W backstop for GSLs effective Jan 1, 2018, (2) tiered, stricter LED standards (effective 2018 and 2019), and (3) standards for SDDLs; CEC asserts these fall within EPCA's California exceptions.
- The district court assessed whether NEMA proved as a matter of law that federal preemption applies (express and conflict preemption) so that CEC's regulations are invalid, and whether any § 6295(i)(6)(A)(vi) exceptions foreclose California's rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (NEMA) | Defendant's Argument (CEC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPCA express preempts CEC standards | EPCA/DOE final rule shows federal preemption; DOE satisfied rulemaking, so exceptions do not apply | Exceptions in §6295(i)(6)(A)(vi) apply because DOE did not adopt a final rule "in accordance with" clauses (i)–(iv) | Court: Denied judgment for NEMA; cannot find as matter of law DOE complied with clauses (i)–(iv) so exceptions may apply |
| Whether DOE complied with §6295(i)(6)(A)(i)–(iv) (triggering exceptions) | DOE met the required rulemaking steps and timing; clause (iii) only applies if DOE determined standards should be amended | DOE's final rule disclaimed setting/amending standards and appropriations rider limited analysis; final rule not "in accordance with" clauses (i)–(iv) | Court: NEMA failed to show as matter of law that DOE's final rule satisfied clauses (i)–(iv) |
| Whether CEC may adopt 45 lm/W backstop and revive certain CA regulations under §6295(i)(6)(A)(vi) | Exceptions unavailable; California cannot rely on them to justify its standards | §6295(i)(6)(A)(vi) permits California to adopt the backstop (vi)(II) and regulations adopted pursuant to state statute in effect Dec.19,2007 (vi)(III) | Court: If exceptions apply, CEC may adopt backstop and regulations tied to state statute in effect Dec.19,2007; construction favors CEC's reading |
| Whether implied conflict preemption invalidates LED and SDDL rules | CEC rules conflict with federal scheme and impermissibly interfere with DOE discretion; impossible to comply with both | No federal standards presently set for LEDs or many SDDLs; CEC acted within the statutory exception and its rules do not frustrate Congress's objectives | Court: NEMA did not show conflict preemption as matter of law; LED and SDDL rules not preempted here |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency statutory interpretation entitled to deference if reasonable)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (framework for express and implied preemption analysis)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (identify precise domain preemption clause covers)
- Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015) (conflict preemption: impossibility and obstacle tests)
- Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Inst. v. Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 410 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2005) (Congress intended to preempt state energy standards/testing/labeling in certain respects)
- Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008) (no presumption against preemption where Congress clearly intends preemption)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (limits on presumption against preemption in areas with federal dominance)
- Hillsborough Cty., Fla. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707 (1985) (speculative conflicts insufficient for implied preemption)