Chicago's suburb of Oak Park has been hit with a lawsuit, seeking to strike down that village's ban on the installation of natural gas-powered appliances in all new homes and buildings.
On April 22, a group known as the Clean Energy Choice Coalition filed suit in Chicago federal court against the village of Oak Park, asserting village leadership had violated federal law by passing an ordinance that limits newly built homes and other buildings solely to the use of electric stovetops, ovens, water heaters and other appliances.
The Clean Energy Choice Coalition includes a collection of labor unions, contractors, gas providers and industry associations, including the Chicagoland Apartment Association and National Association of Home Builders.
The lawsuit specifically accuses Oak Park of attempting to exceed its authority by banning natural gas appliances when the Coalition says the use of such appliances is explicitly protected by the federal law known as the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).
"Prohibiting natural gas-powered cooking ranges, water heaters, furnaces, dryers, and other appliances or equipment is fundamentally inconsistent with the public interest and consumer choice - and violates federal law," the CECC said in its complaint.
"While Plaintiff (CECC) supports working to achieve reductions in carbon emissions, functionally banning natural gas in Oak Park buildings will do little if anything to advance those goals. Oak Park's Ordinance is preempted by EPCA. It should be invalidated."
The lawsuit against Oak Park comes as a growing number of left-wing governments in communities and states across the U.S. have moved to enact laws and rules either outright banning the use of natural gas in homes and other buildings, or setting emissions limits so low as to effectively achieve the same result.
Supporters of such bans have said the bans are needed to further the goal of anti-oil and gas activists of using government power to eliminate the use of so-called "fossil fuels" in the name of fighting climate change, which they blame largely on the modern use of petroleum products to power automobiles and electricity generation plants and provide reliable heating and energy in homes and businesses.
Such bans, however, have run into stiff legal headwinds, and may ultimately land in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
That decision prompted cities and other governments across the country to reevaluate their plans to also ban the use of natural gas, for fear of facing similar losses in court.
However, this spring, a New York federal judge brushed aside the reasoning in the Ninth Circuit ruling, upholding an effective natural gas ban imposed by New York City. There, the city had instead sought to sidestep the EPCA's apparent federal limits on such local restrictions by instead adjusting allowable emissions limits so low as to make it impossible for natural gas-powered appliances to comply.
In that ruling, the judge said this approach would be permissible because to hold otherwise would lead to "absurd" results, such as invalidating rules prohibiting the indoor use of more dangerous fuels, like kerosene.
Anti-gas activists have applauded that ruling, saying it provides a framework for cities and other regulatory bodies to follow to ban natural gas, despite the apparent mandates of the EPCA.
In Illinois, some local governments have also moved to ban natural gas or sharply limit its use in new construction.
An ordinance in the city of Chicago supported by Mayor Brandon Johnson failed to win approval from City Council in 2024.
In north suburban Evanston, that city recently enacted an ordinance banning the use of "fossil fuels" in all new large buildings and requiring them to rely entirely on so-called "renewable energy" by 2050.
Oak Park, however, enacted its ban in the fall of 2023, despite the warnings of legal peril spelled out by the judges in the Berkeley ruling.
In its new lawsuit, the CECC said the reasoning in the Berkeley ruling should be applied in Chicago's federal courts to also declare Oak Park's rules similarly violate the EPCA.
As in Berkeley, the CECC said the reasoning behind the EPCA remains the same: To prevent a "patchwork" of local rules that leave energy suppliers unable to provide Americans with reliable energy and true choices in how to power and heat their homes and meet their needs.
"... The reduction of carbon emissions is a matter of federal policy and regulation, and Oak Park must act in compliance with federal law," the CECC wrote in its complaint.
"EPCA reflects Congress’ decision that the nation’s energy policy cannot be dictated by state and local governments; such a patchwork approach would be the antithesis of a national energy policy that is intended, among other things, to provide energy security, sufficiency of domestic supply, and uniform national regulations promoting conservation of energy."
The CECC did not respond to questions from The Record concerning the lawsuit or whether the CECC intends to bring similar actions against other cities or governments.
Oak Park village officials also did not respond to a request for comment from The Record.
The CECC is represented in the action by attorney Christine Skoczylas and others with the firm of Barnes & Thornburg, of Chicago and Indianapolis.