After a federal appellate court struck down a similar law in Berkeley, Irvine is hitting the pause button on its draconian initiative to force the electrification of all new construction, banning the use of natural gas energy even down to backyard amenities like jacuzzis.
The Irvine City Council voted to approve the ordinance on March 28, and was set to provide final approval at the April 25 council meeting. In between, on April 17, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a similar ordinance by the City of Berkeley violates federal law pre-empting local and state bans.
The Berkeley ban was adopted in 2019, banning all gas hookups in new construction, with few exceptions. Irvine is one of several dozen cities with progressive councils that emulated Berkeley’s example.
The California Restaurant Association (CRA) sued Berkeley in federal court, arguing the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) pre-empts state and local regulation of gas appliances.
A district court judge dismissed the suit but the CRA appealed that decision, and a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit overruled the district court’s dismissal.
Irvine’s ban is slated to go into effect on July 1, despite warnings from the construction and housing sector that the new mandate will add several thousand dollars to the cost of each new housing unit.
On April 25, before the council voted on any agenda items, City Manager Oliver Chi recommended the city council continue the second reading of the mandatory electrification to give staff time to “effectively develop a workaround, given the scope of the Ninth Circuit Court ruling.”
“Staff recommended not to adopt the ordinance tonight because we think that that would increase the possibility of litigation against the city – I think we’re there,” City Attorney Jeffrey Melcher warned the council. “If we come back in two weeks, and we haven’t figured out a workaround to the ruling in the Berkeley decision, then most likely we will be recommending again to continue the item or to postpone the second of the ordinance.”
