Synopsis

A coalition of propane, gas, construction, and landlord trade and labor groups has sued the Village of Oak Park, IL. The industry groups argue that ordinances updating the village’s energy code are preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”). Their argument is based on the inclusion of electrification requirements for certain new buildings in the village ordinances.

Why It Matters for Public Health

Climate change is widely accepted as the greatest threat to global public health, and buildings account for about one third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Further, actions that reduce energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions also reduce indoor and local air pollution. For example, recent studies show that gas stoves create harmful levels of nitrogen dioxide and benzene inside the home, comparable to secondhand smoke. There is also evidence associating the use of other fossil-fuel appliances with indoor air pollution.

It is easier and cheaper to design and build new buildings to be fully electric, rather than retrofitting buildings after they have been constructed. All-electric construction for rented residential buildings also protects tenants, who almost never have a choice in the fuel or appliances they use. For these reasons, code provisions requiring all-electric new construction are an important tool for mitigating climate change and protecting public health.

Background

EPCA is a federal law that, among other policies, creates energy-efficiency standards for certain appliances. It also preempts state and local regulations “concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use” of an appliance that is covered by EPCA. There are numerous carve-outs for EPCA preemption, including one that applies to building codes that meet certain flexibility requirements.

Generally, EPCA preemption has been considered to preclude only state or local regulations that try to set energy efficiency standards for EPCA-covered appliances, but courts have not directly ruled on the question until recently. Two recent cases have set out alternative interpretations of this preemption provision: In California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley (“Berkeley”), the Ninth Circuit held that EPCA preempts some regulations that prevent the use of EPCA-covered appliances, even if they do not regulate energy efficiency. In Association of Contracting Plumbers v. City of New York, however, the Southern District of New York rejected the Berkeley interpretation, instead determining that EPCA does not preempt regulations that block the use of appliances.

The ordinances challenged in this litigation update the village’s building codes, basing them primarily on the 2021 model International Residential Code and International Building Code. The ordinances also include amendments to the codes, including the requirement that most new buildings use electricity as their sole energy source. The industry challengers argue, based on the Berkeley case, that EPCA preempts this requirement because it would prohibit the use of gas in affected buildings. Notably, the complaint appears to ask for the ordinances themselves to be invalidated, not only the all-electric provisions, which would effectively roll back the village’s entire building code to an earlier version.

The industry groups also assert that the village’s building codes are not protected by the EPCA exception for building codes. This is based on the still-untested argument that codes that prevent the use of gas appliances cannot meet the flexibility requirements in that provision of the federal law.

Litigation Status (Open)

The plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 22, 2025, and Oak Park answered the complaint on July 1. The parties now plan to file cross-motions for summary judgment, briefing for which will run from August 27 through November 19. The parties have each asked for summary judgment in their favor. The Sierra Club, Oak Park Climate Action Network, Chicago Environmental Justice Network, and Respiratory Health Association filed an amicus brief in support of Oak Park on October 1. The parties have also flagged for the court the outcomes in similar cases in Washington D.C. and Montgomery County, MD. 

On July 30, 2026, the Northern District of Illinois issued its ruling, stating that the Ordinance is not preempted by EPCA, and granting Oak Park’s motion for summary judgment.

On August 20, the Plaintiff's filed an appeal in the Seventh Circuit