A federal judge has rejected a challenge to Denver building-code provisions that restrict gas-fired equipment in some commercial buildings, ruling that the city’s 2023 requirements are not preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
Chief U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer granted motions to dismiss filed by Denver and intervenor Sierra Club on Aug. 7 and dismissed the case with prejudice. The ruling leaves the challenged 2023 standards in place, but it does not resolve the broader national fight over local gas-appliance restrictions: federal courts have reached different conclusions about how EPCA applies to building electrification rules.
Judge Rejects the Federal Preemption Argument
The Restaurant Law Center and Colorado Restaurant Association sued Denver in 2024, arguing that provisions of the city’s energy code were expressly preempted by EPCA, the federal law that establishes energy-conservation standards for covered appliances. The plaintiffs challenged Denver Energy Code §§ C403.2.4 and C404.10, which affect the use of certain gas-fired equipment in commercial buildings.
In the Aug. 7 order, Brimmer concluded that the provisions do not regulate “energy use” as that term is defined in EPCA. The statute ties energy use to measurements made under federal test procedures, he wrote — a standardized measure assigned to a product before it reaches consumers, rather than the amount of energy an appliance ultimately consumes at a particular building.
That distinction defeated the plaintiffs’ argument that Denver was effectively regulating federally covered appliances by limiting the circumstances in which gas equipment can be installed or used. Brimmer also rejected the contention that EPCA’s reference to state regulations “concerning” energy use expanded the scope of preemption beyond the statute’s defined meaning of energy use.
The court said the federal preemption provision is aimed at preventing a patchwork of state appliance-manufacturing standards. It does not, Brimmer concluded, create a consumer right to use any covered appliance regardless of local building requirements.
More Read
Trade Groups Had Standing but Lost on the Merits
The dismissal was not based on the trade groups’ inability to show harm. Brimmer rejected Denver’s standing argument and found the plaintiffs had adequately alleged injury to members of restaurant, construction, apartment, hotel and propane associations through higher operating costs or lost revenue.
The case instead failed on the substance of the EPCA claim. Because the court concluded the 2023 provisions did not regulate energy use within the federal statute’s meaning, Brimmer dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice, finding that amendment would be futile.
The scope of the ruling is narrower than the full set of policies originally challenged. In September 2025, Brimmer dismissed claims involving Denver’s 2025 and 2027 standards as unripe. Only the 2023 standards remained at issue when he issued the August decision.
Denver Adds to a Split Between Berkeley and New York
The Denver decision is best read as another entry in a divided legal landscape rather than evidence that federal courts have settled the question nationwide.
In California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that EPCA preempted Berkeley’s prohibition on natural-gas infrastructure in new buildings. That court interpreted federal preemption broadly enough to cover a local rule that prevented covered gas appliances from accessing their energy source.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit took a different approach in June 2026 when it upheld New York City’s building-electrification law. The Second Circuit focused on EPCA’s technical definitions and concluded that the federal statute did not preempt the city’s restrictions in the way the Ninth Circuit had found in Berkeley.
Brimmer followed the Second Circuit’s reasoning and declined to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation. He also relied on the Berkeley dissent’s understanding of “point of use” as a technical energy-measurement concept rather than simply the physical place where an appliance operates.
That leaves different federal courts applying materially different readings of the same federal preemption provision. The Denver ruling comes from a district court in Colorado and does not bind courts nationwide.
The Appliance Impact Is in Equipment Choice and Replacement
For appliance sellers, installers and service companies, the dispute is less about federal efficiency ratings than about which fuel-burning products can be specified when commercial buildings are constructed or equipment is replaced. Local electrification requirements can shift purchases away from gas-fired equipment and toward electric alternatives even when the gas appliance itself complies with federal efficiency standards.
That distinction is central to the legal fight. The challengers contend that local restrictions can accomplish indirectly what EPCA prevents jurisdictions from doing directly: limiting the practical availability of federally regulated gas appliances. Denver and supporters of electrification rules argue that building codes govern buildings and energy infrastructure, not the federal efficiency characteristics assigned to appliances.
The Restaurant Law Center’s case page collects the complaint and subsequent filings. Free local coverage from Denverite also details how Denver’s requirements are being implemented.
Colorado Voters Could Change the State-Level Picture
The federal ruling may not be the final word on gas access in Colorado. A proposed state constitutional amendment described as a “right to natural gas” measure has qualified for Colorado’s November 2026 ballot, according to The Colorado Sun.
The ballot fight presents a separate state-law question from the EPCA dispute Brimmer decided. Its outcome could affect the authority of Colorado governments to restrict natural-gas service even as litigation over the reach of federal appliance law continues.
