Buffalo, N.Y. (WBEN) - The legal fight is on in New York from gas and construction trade groups that have filed a lawsuit to block the state's ban on gas stoves and furnaces in new buildings.
In a case filed with the U.S. District Court in Albany this past Thursday by the National Association of Home Builders and the National Propane Gas Association, among others, it alleges New York State does not have the legal ability to enforce its ban because pf a pre-existing federal law called the Energy Policy and Conservation Act that already regulates energy use policies.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act was originally enacted in 1975, and it gives the preference to the federal government to set national guidelines and standards for appliances and energy efficiency, not necessarily cities and states.
The groups are asking a judge to rule that the state's ban is unenforceable under federal law, and for it to be blocked before it takes effect in 2026.
Related
Attorney Dennis Vacco feels that there's merit to this action that was filed by the groups last week.
"Frankly, it mirrors a similar lawsuit that was brought in the State of California challenging a similar ban enacted by the City of Berkeley," noted Vacco with WBEN. "That case made it all the way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the plaintiffs who were seeking to strike down the ban in Berkeley, California prevailed. So I think this case that's now brought in the Northern District of New York in Albany has merit under the law, and has the additional support now of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, supporting or, at least, upholding a similar challenge in California."
While Vacco feels there's credence to the lawsuit filed in Albany, he knows that any sort of action taken with the case is not going to see rapid action, at first.
"The Ninth Circuit is a pretty well respected Federal Court of Appeals. I know the City of Berkeley has challenged the initial ruling by the Ninth Circuit panel, which was only three judges. So it's possible they could ask for the full court of nine judges to hear the case again. But if the decision in California holds up, then it's quite possible this matter ends up before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a similar Federal Court of Appeals here that covers New York State, which will be interesting, because either they're going to agree with the Ninth Circuit or if they disagree, it sounds like it's a case that's going to the Supreme Court," Vacco said. "I don't think there is going to be a rapid resolution of this, certainly not in a matter of months."
Vacco does believe the matter gets resolved through the federal courts prior to the scheduled implementation date in 2026, even if the case has to go to the Supreme Court.
While the case in Berkeley or New York may never end up being brought forth to the Supreme Court, Vacco says it's still worth suggesting as a possibility.
"Typically, when one Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with another, that's usually the type of scenario where the Supreme Court will adopt the case, because they want to resolve the conflict in federal decision law between the Circuit Courts of Appeals that are disagreeing," he said. "On the other hand, if the Ninth Circuit upholds the judgment, rejecting the ban from Berkeley, and then the Second Circuit does the same thing, that's a pretty good indication that the law of the land is fixed, and the Supreme Court probably wouldn't hear it under those circumstances."