Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Economy

What Berkeley’s Overturned Gas Ban Means for Electrifying Everything

The city’s gas ban started an electric revolution. What happens now that a court struck it down?

A judge with a flame head.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A federal court decision on Monday throws into question one of the most consequential events in the recent history of climate action.

In 2019, the city council of Berkeley, California, voted to ban the extension of natural gas lines to new buildings, becoming the first city in the nation to force developers to forego gas appliances like furnaces and stoves. Other than a few earlier fracking bans in states like New York and Vermont that attacked the supply side of the equation, it was also one of the first attempts to bridle the U.S.’s growing dependence on natural gas in the name of climate change.

That bold step reverberated across the country, waking many up to the fact that furnaces, water heaters, stoves, and clothes dryers are significant drivers of global warming. Gas bans became a popular way for local governments to begin to tackle their emissions in the absence of federal regulations. In the less than four years since Berkeley’s law passed, nearly 100 municipalities — including Los Angeles, New York City, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. — have adopted similar policies that either require developers to build all-electric, or strongly encourage it.

But meanwhile, Berkeley’s original ban was under threat. A trade group called the California Restaurant Association sued the city just months after the law passed. While a district court sided with Berkeley in 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has now overturned that ruling.

So is it all over for gas bans?

The Ninth Circuit’s decision certainly mucks up the options that cities and states have to steer the transition to clean energy. But the phrase “gas ban” is really a shorthand for a wide range of policies that cities and states have tested, many of which are unlikely to be affected by Monday’s ruling.

“While the Ninth Circuit decision does impact some aspects of local authority to electrify buildings, it is far from a knockout blow,” wrote Amy Turner, a senior fellow at Columbia Law School who leads the Cities Climate Law Initiative, in a blog post on the ruling.

The Ninth Circuit found that Berkeley’s ban was preempted by a federal law called the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which says that cities cannot regulate the energy use of products that are regulated by the Department of Energy. Berkeley didn't attempt to set energy standards for furnaces or stoves, but the Ninth Circuit argued that by prohibiting gas line extensions, the city limited “the end-user’s ability to use installed covered products.”

Turner noted that Berkeley’s approach relies “on its police powers, or its authority to govern with respect to health and safety.” But other jurisdictions have tried different approaches, banning gas through the alteration of building energy codes and air emissions standards.

For example, the Boston suburb of Brookline, Massachusetts, adopted a building code with tough energy efficiency standards that all but force the use of electric appliances in new construction. In this case, the city put restrictions on the total energy a building can consume — not individual products — and gave builders options to comply. Technically a developer there can still install gas lines if they take other measures to conserve energy. Some states preempt local governments from setting their own building codes, however, so that strategy won’t work everywhere.

New York City also went in a different direction, subjecting new buildings to carbon dioxide emissions limits starting in 2024. “No person shall permit the combustion of any substance that emits 25 kilograms or more of carbon dioxide per million British thermal units of energy,” the law reads, essentially precluding the use of any gas-burning appliances. Since the law pertains to air emissions, rather than energy use, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act would not apply. But Turner wrote that other “legal questions remain” about this approach.

The Ninth Circuit decision only applies in states under the jurisdiction of that court, so Berkeley’s law can still be used as a playbook in other parts of the country — though communities may be hesitant to borrow it, at least for now. Berkeley has not yet confirmed whether it would appeal the decision, but E&E News reported that the city’s lawyers said they were not ruling it out and were assessing next steps.

The California Restaurant Association isn’t the only group fighting electrification policies. The natural gas industry has orchestrated a nation-wide campaign to block local governments from following Berkeley’s lead. Twenty Republican-led states, including Arizona, Texas, and Florida, have passed laws prohibiting municipalities from limiting the fuels that can be used in buildings. Those states account for 30% of residential gas consumption and 33% of commercial consumption, according to S&P Global. While the Inflation Reduction Act offers residents and businesses funding to voluntarily adopt electric heat pumps and induction stoves, there’s little, if anything, communities in those states can do to prevent developers from choosing gas instead.

Still, with many of the country’s largest cities having already followed Berkeley’s lead, and some states, like New York, considering state-wide policies to stanch gas use, the era of the gas ban is far from over.

Blue
Emily Pontecorvo profile image

Emily Pontecorvo

Emily is a founding staff writer at Heatmap. Previously she was a staff writer at the nonprofit climate journalism outlet Grist, where she covered all aspects of decarbonization, from clean energy to electrified buildings to carbon dioxide removal. Read More

Read More
Electric Vehicles

Why I’ve Finally Lost Faith in Tesla

Superchargers made sense. What is Elon Musk doing?

A Tesla impaled by the Tesla logo.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

When I finally succumbed and opened Threads, Mark Zuckerberg’s algorithm sized up my demographics and fed me two kinds of posts it thought would juice my engagement. First were the people shouting, incorrectly, that IPA is a bad style of beer and framing themselves as too hip to sip something so basic. Second: Posts from the loud, dedicated cadre of Threads users who are actively rooting against Tesla.

I understand the spite. When I bought my Model 3 five years ago, Elon Musk had begun his public heel turn. Some of the signs of what was to come were already there. However, Model 3 was the best reasonably affordable EV on the market, and the Supercharger network made it possible for us (California residents as we are) to own only an electric vehicle. You couldn’t say that for the electric Hyundai Kona.

Keep reading...Show less
Politics

AM Briefing: Big Oil’s Big Spenders

On campaign finance, offshore nuclear reactors, and research satellites.

Big Oil’s Big Spending on U.S. Elections
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has issued a disaster declaration across 88 counties as flooding there continues • 48 people have died in China after record rainfall caused a landslide that swept away part of a highway • Louisville is forecast to see a brief dry spell during the Kentucky Derby, but rain ahead of the race could still leave the track muddy.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Oil and gas cash covering Trump’s legal fees

Individuals who’ve gotten wealthy from the oil and gas industry funneled more than $6.4 million into Donald Trump’s joint fundraising committee, the Trump 47 Committee, in the first three months of 2024, nearly equaling the $6.9 million the industry contributed during all of 2023, Heatmap’s Jeva Lange reported. Some of that money has gone toward covering the former president’s legal fees, via a political action committee that has mainly been used for legal spending and has paid 70 different lawyers and law firms. The committee has prioritized directing the funds toward the PAC ahead of the Republican National Committee (though these donations are still subject to the $5,000 annual individual contribution limit).

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

The Oil Money Funding Trump’s Legal Defense

Some of the industry’s biggest boosters and beneficiaries really, really want to keep Trump out of jail.

Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

With $6.4 million, you could pay to remove 4,923 tons of carbon from the atmosphere. You could buy 533 used Chevy Bolts — far more than enough to give one to every incoming freshman at Swarthmore College — or supply an entire county with low- and no-emissions buses.

Or, if you’re the oil and gas industry, you could donate it to the former president of the United States to help cover his mounting legal fees.

Keep reading...Show less