The court cited the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act as pre-empting state and local authorities from regulating natural gas, according to the Courthouse News Service. The ban, which had been instituted in the San Francisco Bay Area city, was challenged by the California Restaurant Association on the grounds that it would hamper chefs’ ability to prepare food as they were trained to do — using natural gas stoves.

Donald Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, writing for the three-judge panel that made the decision, said, “States and localities can’t skirt the text of broad preemption provisions by doing indirectly what Congress says they can’t do directly. Berkeley can’t evade preemption by merely moving up one step in the energy chain and banning natural gas piping within those buildings.”

[Jazz had more on this earlier. While I like the outcome, I’m not sure I like the premise of the ruling. It’s not at all clear that the federal government’s jurisdiction intrudes this far into local and state policy, nor should we celebrate that kind of expansion of federal regulatory power. This was a bad policy, but it doesn’t run afoul of any language in the EPCA itself, which does not require states and localities to make it available for any or all purposes. Under the same argument, the court could force California to start burning oil and natural gas for electricity by claiming its ban on such sources runs afoul of the EPCA. Again, that might be good policy in terms of outcome, but it’s a bad precedent to set for federal jurisdiction under this act. — Ed]