Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Building Industry v. Washington State.

País/Territorio
Estados Unidos de América
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte superior
Fecha
Jun 25, 2012
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit
Juez
Beistline, R.R.
Schroeder, M.M.
Gould, R.M.
Número de referencia
No. 11-35207
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Energía, Medio ambiente gen.
Palabra clave
Normas sobre emisión Normas sobre calidad del agua Normas sobre calidad ambiental Normas Normas sobre efluentes residuales Normas sobre ruido Conservación de energía/producción de energía Negocios/industria/corporaciones
Resumen
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6295 et seq., as amended, establishes nationwide energy efficiency standards for certain residential home appliances, and expressly preempts state standards requiring greater efficiency than the federal standards. It nonetheless exempts from preemption state building codes. promoting energy efficiency, so long as those codes meet certain statutory conditions. This case is a challenge to the State of Washington’s Building Code, brought by the Building Industry Association of Washington (“BIAW”), along with individual builders and contractors. The impetus for this challenge is the State’s 2009 requirement that new building construction meet heightened energy conservation goals. This is the first case at the appellate level to consider EPCA’s preemption-exemption provision. Plaintiffs- Appellants argue that the Building Code does not satisfy EPCA’s conditions for exemption. The district court, however, held that Washington had satisfied EPCA’s conditions, and therefore was not preempted. The appellate court held that defendants had demonstrated that the building code was based on a widely recognized industry standard and that perfect uniformity was not possible. The court found that negligible differences in the efficiency of one project over another that receives the same credit are not inconsistent enough with federal energy law to justify federal preemption.
Texto completo
COU-159570.pdf