Efforts to ban natural gas are still simmering in pockets of the country, despite a recent spate of political and legal wins for the fossil fuel industry.
From Colorado to New York, local officials and climate activists continue to pursue various policies to phase out natural gas hookups and appliances like stoves. Those range from requiring new buildings to use only electric heating to establishing grants that enable neighborhoods to get rid of aging gas pipelines.
“I think the initial state of discouragement has evolved into an increased sense of motivation to find ways that work, to find policies that are both acceptable and effective,” said Christine Brinker, senior buildings policy manager for the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project.
Fossil fuel use in buildings accounts for a large chunk of planet-warming emissions, but local efforts to move away from natural gas heaters and stoves have prompted swift political backlash in recent years.
Republican lawmakers in 26 states have passed laws prohibiting gas bans. The nation’s first ban on natural gas hookups in new buildings — in Berkeley, California — was also repealed earlier this year, after a federal appeals court ruled it violated federal law.
The November election brought further setbacks: Voters rejected a tax on natural gas in Berkeley and passed an initiative to prohibit natural gas bans in Washington state.
“It’s really a bipartisan pushback against banning natural gas, because it’s affordable and reliable,” said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the American Gas Association. “The people really turned out and spoke on behalf of their right to choose natural gas if they want it.”
But Sage Welch, founder of consulting firm Sunstone Strategies, said that the wins for natural gas in Washington state and Berkeley don’t necessarily reflect the public’s stance on the fossil fuel nationally.
“It’s definitely not so simple as, like, voters are voting against electrification, or we’re seeing a backlash from some of those policies,” she said.
The Washington state initiative, which narrowly passed with over 51 percent of the vote, was among four ballot initiatives bankrolled by Let’s Go Washington, a group founded and financed by GOP megadonor Brian Heywood in an attempt to circumvent the state’s Democrat-controlled Legislature.
Opponents argued the initiative was confusing to voters, partly because Washington state doesn’t have any gas bans. The city of Seattle, Washington Solar Energy Industries Association, climate advocates and others have since filed a lawsuit arguing the measure violated a state requirement that initiatives address only a single subject.
The Berkeley measure, which would have placed a tax on natural gas in buildings 15,000 square feet or larger, failed by a considerable margin, with just over 69 percent of voters rejecting it. Welch said that the measure failed to gain support even among some climate activists because it was so broad — and supporters pointed to the well-funded “No on GG” campaign from local businesses and nonprofits.
The opposition to the Berkeley gas tax “was the best funded of any race in Berkeley this year,” said Daniel Tahara, an organizer of Fossil Free Berkeley, which spearheaded the measure.
Climate activists are now looking to other solutions to encourage a shift away from natural gas use in heating, Brinker said.
In the Southwest, she said, advocates are pushing for building codes that allow gas furnaces in new buildings — but only if those buildings use other means to increase their energy efficiency and combat their emissions.
The movement is also shifting its focus to more “practical” solutions such as neighborhood-scale electrification projects, Welch said. This year, California, Colorado and Washington state passed legislation to advance such projects.
For instance, in late September, California passed a law to support programs that allow low-income neighborhoods with aging gas pipelines to choose to electrify rather than replace the pipelines.
“I think this is really where the movement is headed, into that practical ‘How are we going to help assist communities moving off of gas, and what can we do?’” Welch said.
Legal battles
Traditional gas bans are still moving forward — to varying degrees — in Colorado, New York, Massachusetts and Maryland.
Building codes in Denver currently ban natural gas furnaces and water heaters in new construction. Starting next month, Boulder will also require new buildings to be fully electric, with exceptions for commercial kitchens and laboratories.
Massachusetts, meanwhile, has had a “blockbuster year” in moving away from natural gas, said Jess Nahigian, state political director for the Sierra Club’s Massachusetts Chapter.
Gov. Maura Healey (D) recently signed a climate law that builds on an existing requirement for utilities to look at non-gas alternatives in new construction.
The law would require the state Department of Public Utilities to consider whether a grant to supply a petitioner with gas service “is in the public interest, including the public interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” as well as whether there are available alternatives to gas services.
And in Maryland, Gov. Wes Moore (D) signed an executive order requiring the state to decarbonize by 2045 — including by phasing out gas heaters.
“The policies I am calling for include new zero emission heating equipment standards — so when Marylanders heat up their buildings, they aren’t contributing to greater emissions in the atmosphere,” Moore wroteon the social media site X when he signed the order this summer.
Maryland’s largest county, Montgomery County, is set to ban natural gas appliances in new construction starting in 2027.
New York is also phasing out the use of gas heating in new buildings starting in 2026 for buildings under seven stories tall. The restriction will be applied to taller buildings in 2029.
But Denver; Boulder, Colorado; Montgomery County; and New York all face lawsuits that say federal law preempts the gas bans and restrictions seen in these states.
“We’re challenging these things, and we’re hopeful,” said Tom Ward, vice president of legal advocacy for the National Association of Home Builders, which filed the lawsuits.
NAHB’s lawsuits are based largely on the court decision that repealed the Berkeley gas ban. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers nine Western states, ruled that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act already regulates the energy use of appliances and preempts state and local laws, making them unenforceable.
Ward said that if another circuit court ruled differently on one of its lawsuits, the issue could be brought to the Supreme Court, which holds a conservative supermajority.
A split would be “a good way for the Supreme Court to take the case, and it’s certainly not good to have different rules on gas bans around the country,” said Ward, though he said he couldn’t say whether NAHB would “definitely” take the case to the Supreme Court if this happened.
For now, advocates are “just waiting for the legal process to play itself out,” Brinker said.
