California Restaurant Association v Berkeley – The California Restaurant Association v. Berkeley case (often called CRA v. Berkeley) became a pivotal legal battle over local efforts to ban natural gas in new buildings. It tested whether cities could prohibit natural gas piping to force all-electric construction or if federal law blocked such rules. The lawsuit, filed by the California Restaurant Association against the City of Berkeley, California, centered on a 2019 ordinance and ended with a major Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision affirming federal preemption under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).
For restaurant owners, chefs, builders, and policymakers across the USA, this case clarified limits on local “gas bans” and highlighted tensions between climate goals and federal energy standards. As of 2026, the Berkeley ordinance has been repealed, the case dismissed, and the Ninth Circuit precedent stands—potentially affecting similar rules in California and beyond.
This SEO-optimized guide breaks down the facts, rulings, and real-world impacts using trusted sources including court opinions, official press releases, and legal analyses.
What Was Berkeley’s Natural Gas Infrastructure Ban?
In July 2019, the Berkeley City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,672-N.S., which added Chapter 12.80 to the Berkeley Municipal Code. Effective January 1, 2020, it prohibited “natural gas infrastructure”—primarily fuel gas piping beyond the utility meter—in most newly constructed buildings.
The city’s goal was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging all-electric buildings from the start. Berkeley positioned itself as the first U.S. city to enact such a broad ban on new natural gas hookups. Exceptions existed for public interest or physical impossibility, but the rule effectively made natural gas appliances (like commercial stoves, ovens, and water heaters) unusable in new construction.
Restaurants were especially affected. Many rely on high-powered natural gas equipment for precise cooking, and chefs often train specifically on gas appliances.
Why Did the California Restaurant Association Sue Berkeley?
The California Restaurant Association (CRA), a nonprofit representing thousands of California restaurants, chefs, and foodservice businesses, filed suit in November 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
CRA argued that Berkeley’s ordinance violated federal law by regulating the “energy use” of covered appliances under EPCA (42 U.S.C. § 6297(c)). The group claimed the ban would harm members planning new or relocated restaurants in Berkeley by forcing expensive electric alternatives that might not meet culinary needs.
The lawsuit also raised state-law claims, but the core issue was federal preemption.
Key Legal Arguments on Both Sides
CRA’s Position: The ordinance indirectly regulated covered products (natural gas stoves, ranges, etc.) by banning the infrastructure needed for them to consume natural gas—effectively setting their “energy use” to zero. EPCA expressly preempts state and local regulations “concerning the energy use” of such appliances.
Berkeley’s Position: The rule was a neutral building code regulating infrastructure, not appliances directly. It did not set efficiency standards or ban specific products, so it fell outside EPCA’s scope. The city emphasized its authority over local building standards and climate policy.
District Court Ruling: Initial Dismissal in 2021
In July 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed CRA’s federal preemption claim. She ruled that EPCA preemption applies only to regulations that “facially or directly” target covered appliances, not indirect building codes like Berkeley’s. The court viewed the ordinance’s impact on appliances as too remote.
CRA appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Ninth Circuit Decision: Federal Preemption Upheld in 2023
On April 17, 2023, a unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court. The court held that Berkeley’s ordinance is preempted by EPCA because it regulates the energy use of covered natural gas appliances.
Key reasoning from the opinion:
- EPCA’s preemption provision is broad and covers regulations “concerning” energy use at the point of consumption.
- Banning piping prevents appliances from using any natural gas—reducing energy use to zero, which qualifies as regulating a “quantity” of energy.
- Local governments cannot evade federal law by banning infrastructure instead of appliances directly. “States and localities can’t skirt the text of broad preemption provisions by doing indirectly what Congress says they can’t do directly.”
The panel also confirmed CRA had standing and remanded state-law claims.
Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and Judge Michael J. Baker filed concurring opinions addressing nuances in preemption and standing doctrine.
Rehearing Denied, Settlement, and Final Resolution
The City of Berkeley petitioned for rehearing en banc. On January 2, 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition and issued a slightly amended opinion, making the ruling final.
In March 2024, the parties reached a settlement. Berkeley immediately ceased enforcing the ban and began the process to repeal the ordinance. CRA President and CEO Jot Condie stated: “Every city and county in California that has passed a similar ordinance should follow their lead.”
Berkeley formally repealed the ordinance in 2024. On August 12, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal, ending the case.
What Does the Ruling Mean for U.S. Restaurants?
The decision protects restaurant operators’ ability to install natural gas appliances in new buildings where gas service is available. It prevents local governments in the Ninth Circuit (covering California and other Western states) from using infrastructure bans to achieve all-electric mandates that conflict with EPCA.
For the broader restaurant industry, it underscores that federal energy law limits piecemeal local bans and preserves cooking technology choices important for many cuisines.
Broader Impact on Building Decarbonization and Similar Laws
The ruling prompted several California cities with similar all-electric or gas-ban ordinances to pause enforcement or repeal them. However, local governments retain options:
- Regulating NOx emissions from appliances for air quality.
- Adopting “reach codes” or source energy standards under the California Energy Code that favor electrification without directly banning gas infrastructure.
- Statewide 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (effective 2026) continue promoting heat pumps and efficiency.
The precedent influences national discussions on building electrification, federal preemption, and balancing climate policy with energy reliability and business needs.
Frequently Asked Questions About California Restaurant Association v. Berkeley
Is the Berkeley gas ban still in effect?
No. The ordinance was repealed following the Ninth Circuit ruling and settlement.
Does the ruling apply nationwide?
It is binding in the Ninth Circuit but serves as persuasive authority elsewhere. Similar challenges could arise in other jurisdictions.
Can cities still require all-electric buildings?
Not through direct bans on natural gas piping for covered appliances. Alternatives like performance-based energy codes or emissions rules may be viable.
Why did restaurants care about a building code?
Many rely on natural gas for high-performance cooking equipment that electric alternatives may not fully replicate in new construction.
Conclusion: A Win for Federal Preemption and Restaurant Flexibility
California Restaurant Association v. Berkeley stands as a landmark case showing that federal law can override local attempts to regulate natural gas use through building codes. The Ninth Circuit’s clear holding on EPCA preemption halted Berkeley’s pioneering ban and provided nationwide clarity for the restaurant industry and energy policymakers.
While climate action remains a priority, the decision reinforces that such efforts must respect federal energy statutes. Restaurant owners nationwide can take comfort that their preferred cooking technologies remain protected in new construction—unless Congress or federal regulators change the rules.
For the latest developments or legal advice, consult official court records or qualified counsel. The full Ninth Circuit opinion remains the definitive source.
Sources include official Ninth Circuit opinions, California Restaurant Association statements, Climate Case Chart, and legal analyses from 2023–2024. Information current as of 2026.