Berkeley Repeals Landmark Climate Rule Banning Natural Gas Hookups

Berkeley Repeals Landmark Climate Rule Banning Natural Gas Hookups

Edited by: TJVNews.com

In a significant turn of events, the city of Berkeley, California, has opted to repeal a pioneering climate regulation that would have prohibited natural gas hookups in new residential constructions, according to a recently published report in the New York Times. This decision casts doubt on the future of similar measures adopted by numerous cities nationwide aimed at curbing carbon emissions.

Berkeley’s gas ban, a groundbreaking initiative enacted in 2019, faced legal opposition from the California Restaurant Association and was invalidated last year by a panel of judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the information provided in the NYT report. The city recently settled the lawsuit by agreeing to immediately suspend enforcement of the regulation and eventually rescind it entirely.

“To comply with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, we have ceased enforcement of the gas ban,” remarked Farimah Brown, Berkeley’s city attorney, in a statement, the report in the NYT said. Despite this setback, Brown emphasized that Berkeley remains committed to its role as a trailblazer in climate action.

The reverberations of Berkeley’s decision are likely to extend far beyond its city limits. Since Berkeley’s pioneering move, more than 140 municipalities across the country have followed suit, advocating for the elimination of natural gas usage in new construction projects as part of their climate mitigation strategies, as was revealed in the NYT report. Notable cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle have all embraced similar initiatives.

However, these efforts have encountered fierce resistance and legal pushback from various quarters, including the gas industry, restaurants, and homebuilders, as per the information in the NYT report.

While Berkeley’s gas ban faced legal challenges and was ultimately overturned, the implications for other municipalities with similar ordinances remain uncertain.

According to experts, the fate of gas bans in other cities may vary depending on the structure of their respective ordinances. The NYT reported that while some may withstand legal scrutiny, others could face similar challenges to Berkeley’s ban. Notably, certain California communities, such as San Luis Obispo and Santa Cruz, have opted to pursue alternative approaches focused on building efficiency standards rather than outright bans on gas hookups.

“We are encouraged that the City of Berkeley has agreed to take steps to repeal the ordinance,” remarked Jot Condie, president of the California Restaurant Association, according to the NYT report. “Every city and county in California that has passed a similar ordinance should follow their lead.”

The move to restrict natural gas usage in new buildings stems from concerns about the significant contribution of homes and buildings to America’s planet-warming emissions, with about 13 percent attributed to gas burned in furnaces, water heaters, stoves, ovens, and dryers, as was indicated in the NYT report. To address this issue, states such as California and New York have sought to incentivize the adoption of electric heating systems and appliances as alternatives to gas.

Berkeley’s gas ban gained national attention in 2019 when the City Council unanimously approved the prohibition of natural gas infrastructure in most newly constructed buildings. Noted in the NYT report was the fact that the measure was hailed by environmentalists and spurred similar actions in dozens of cities across California, signaling a growing movement to curb gas usage in new construction projects.

The natural gas industry and local utilities have spearheaded a backlash against gas bans, citing concerns about potential financial losses. As was mentioned in the NYT report, some chefs and restaurant owners have also joined the opposition, arguing that gas is essential for cooking and that alternative methods would compromise the quality of their cuisine.

Last April, the California Restaurant Association took legal action against Berkeley’s gas ban, leading to a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court that deemed the ordinance in violation of federal law. The NYT reported that this decision was based on the interpretation that the Energy Department holds exclusive authority to establish energy efficiency standards for appliances, effectively nullifying Berkeley’s rule. Despite efforts to challenge the ruling, the court declined to rehear the case in January, leaving Berkeley with no choice but to abandon its gas ban.

Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision, other California cities halted their efforts to implement similar bans. Sacramento, for instance, ceased enforcing its gas ban, signaling a broader retreat from such initiatives in the state. However, the NYT report said that San Francisco has opted to continue enforcing its local ordinance restricting new gas hookups, asserting confidence in its legal footing due to differences in its wording and exemptions compared to Berkeley’s ordinance.

The legal battles surrounding gas bans are expected to persist, with New York City currently facing a similar challenge to its own ban on gas hookups for new buildings. The report also said that local construction groups have contested the law in court, setting the stage for further legal scrutiny and potential precedent-setting decisions.

In response to efforts to restrict gas use in new buildings, at least 24 predominantly red states have passed laws prohibiting their cities from implementing such measures, reflecting a broader divide over energy policy.

Last year, the Energy Department proposed stringent efficiency standards for stoves that would have restricted the sale of many gas-burning models. However, the NYT reported that the proposal faced bipartisan criticism, prompting the agency to revise its rule to ensure compliance for most gas stoves. This move highlighted resistance from both Republicans and some Democrats to federal measures perceived as encroaching on consumer choice and industry interests.