Last week, the Sabin Center filed an amicus brief on behalf of the National League of Cities (NLC) and the New York Conference of Mayors (NYCOM) in the case Association of Contracting Plumbers of the City of New York v. City of New York, No. 25-977 (2d Cir. Apr. 21, 2025). This challenge, brought by building and trade groups, considers whether the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) preempts New York City’s Local Law 154 of 2021, which prohibits fossil fuel combustion in most new buildings. Now on appeal before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, after the Southern District of New York dismissed the challenge in March 2025, the case serves as a key test of local authority to regulate building emissions.
EPCA sets federal energy-efficiency standards for certain appliances, such as refrigerators, furnaces, ranges, and ovens. The Act includes a provision (42 U.S.C. § 6297(c)) that expressly preempts state and local governments from setting standards “concerning the . . . energy use” of products regulated by EPCA. Plaintiffs across the country have increasingly invoked EPCA preemption in challenging local actions that restrict or prohibit fossil fuels in buildings. It was, for example, successfully raised by plaintiffs in the case challenging the natural gas ban in Berkeley—California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley. As explained in our last Local Law 154 blog, while this challenge relies on the same legal theory as in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, the underlying local laws differ quite a bit. Whereas Berkeley’s ordinance prohibited natural gas piping in new construction, Local Law 154 sets indoor air emissions limits for fossil fuel combustion in new buildings, prohibiting the burning of “any substance that emits 25 kilograms or more of carbon dioxide per million British thermal units of energy.”
In March, the District Court upheld Local Law 154 as a valid exercise of local authority that is beyond the preemptive scope of EPCA. In doing so, it was the first court to openly disagree with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Berkeley, providing legal momentum for the view that the Ninth Circuit misinterpreted EPCA preemption. Although the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Berkeley is binding authority only for courts located within that Circuit, its decision has chilled local building decarbonization efforts in other jurisdictions. As we explain in our amicus brief, a Second Circuit decision affirming the District Court’s interpretation of EPCA would “affirm the authority of municipalities to implement ordinances like Local Law 154, and further, would empower those local governments outside of the Ninth Circuit … to renew their pursuit of policy interventions that protect and improve their residents’ quality of life.”
The Sabin Center’s Amicus Brief on Behalf of NLC and NYCOM
The Sabin Center’s amicus brief supports New York City by bringing the unique perspective of local governments to the court, arguing that invalidating Local Law 154 would (1) erroneously and detrimentally constrain the scope of local police power; (2) unjustifiably expand the scope of EPCA preemption; and (3) cause significant uncertainty for local governments in policy areas beyond the limits on fossil fuel combustion created by the City’s Local Law 154.
The local police power is a core component of the United States’ federalist system. Local governments, as the level of government closest to the experience of their community members, are particularly well-positioned to assess and respond to risks to their communities, including those created and heightened due to climate change. Municipalities across the country have increasingly exercised this power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents by lessening local air pollution and abating the impacts of global climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our brief contends that Local Law 154 represents a proper exercise of the police power. Though the law’s standards may influence a building owner’s choice of appliances, they fall outside the scope of EPCA preemption, which was not intended to displace traditional local authority over energy use in buildings.
If the Plaintiffs-Appellants’ reading of EPCA is upheld, a host of other local laws could also be preempted, including land use and zoning regulations and other restrictions on the use of certain fuel types and appliances in different building types. We emphasize that the court must avoid such an interpretation because it would produce sweeping and absurd results, both known and unknown. We also argue that EPCA’s preemption provision should be interpreted narrowly in this case because Local Law 154 does not regulate the energy use of EPCA-covered appliances. Instead, the law “imposes emissions standards on fossil fuel combustion in new construction, a restriction entirely separate from the technical purpose addressed by EPCA.” In other words, Local Law 154 does not “concern” energy use in the narrow way that Congress intended EPCA to preempt.
Finally, we urge the court to interpret EPCA preemption with careful attention to the principles of federalism. We argue that the District Court’s opinion embodies these principles by creating clear boundary lines for local authority over regulations that concern energy use, in line with EPCA’s text, history, and structure. The District Court’s opinion provides certainty critical to constrained local governments and the efficient operation of the law by (1) recognizing local authority over laws that regulate fuels and appliances in buildings; (2) distinguishing between regulations that focus on performance standards of EPCA-covered products from restrictions that limit fuel emissions in buildings; and (3) holding that EPCA preemption applies to covered products only at the time of manufacture. By clarifying the limits of EPCA preemption, the court can ensure that local governments understand the types of regulations they may enact to manage energy systems without conflicting with federal law.
In addition to the Sabin Center’s amicus brief, six other entities filed briefs as amici in support of New York City, including Earthjustice on behalf of WE ACT for Environmental Justice, the Public Health Law Center, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Guarini Center on Environmental, Energy, and Land Use Law at New York University, and a group of thirteen State Attorneys General and two local governments. These briefs offer additional support across several issues, including the public health and air quality impacts due to indoor air pollution from fossil-fuel appliances, the purpose and effect of Local Law 154, the scope of EPCA preemption, and the absurd results that would occur if EPCA preemption was extended to include laws like Local Law 154. For example, the State Attorneys General brief stresses that a ruling for the Plaintiffs-Appellants would transform EPCA from “a shield [that] protect[s] product manufacturers from conflicting performance standards into a sword for anyone to invalidate potentially any law affecting appliances’ usage or availability.” Similar to the Sabin Center, their brief points out that the Plaintiffs-Appellants’ interpretation appears “limitless,” leaving states and localities in the dark about what is and is not preempted by EPCA, and impeding their ability to respond to the needs of their communities.
The Second Circuit’s ruling will have far-reaching consequences for how courts interpret EPCA’s preemption clause and the ability of local governments to regulate building emissions. By affirming the District Court’s decision, the Second Circuit can reaffirm municipalities’ long-standing authority to protect public health and safety and to pursue the transition to clean, all-electric buildings. The Sabin Center will continue tracking developments in this case and others involving EPCA preemption and local authority to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
You can read the Sabin Center’s amicus brief here.
Vincent M. Nolette is the Sabin Center's Equitable Cities Climate Law Fellow.
