Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Building Industry v. Washington State.

Pays/Territoire
États-Unis d'Amérique
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Jui 25, 2012
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit
Juge
Beistline, R.R.
Schroeder, M.M.
Gould, R.M.
Numéro de référence
No. 11-35207
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Énergie, Environnement gén.
Mot clé
Normes sur l'émission Normes de qualité de l'eau Normes environnementales Normes Normes relatives aux rejets d'effluents Normes acoustiques Conservation de l'énergie/production de l'énergie Commerce/industrie/sociétés
Résumé
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.
Texte intégral
COU-159570.pdf