Reposted by Sean Hecht
I listened to YIMBY Action’s debate on Prop 45 last night.
I was struck by how the Yes side advanced absurd, frivolous and obviously wrong interpretation of 45 but also AB 130 with respect to infill, transportation and data centers.
![Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary rely exclusively on our decision in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, 89 F.4th 1094 (9th Cir. 2024) [hereinafter CRA]. But as explained below, Plaintiffs read CRA far too broadly. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, our “very narrow” decision in that case did not consider the issue now before us: whether EPCA preempts state regulations enacted pursuant to another federal statute, like the CAA. Id. at 1106. Finally, even if we were to accept Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the scope of EPCA’s preemption provision, their facial challenge nonetheless fails. Plaintiffs cannot show that the Rule is unconstitutional in every application because the Rule regulates emissions from process heaters, which are not among the list of covered products under EPCA and for which the DOE has not issued any federal standards.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:24vva42nxim6zbcmnozegoef/bafkreifq4tcepf7gthajb6cbdhn6jgqpeeqgev7e5kidn4f25watw3pneu)