Subscribe
The Trump Administration on January 6, 2026, filed a lawsuit against two California cities — Petaluma and Morgan Hill, challenging their local laws that restrict natural gas infrastructure and appliances in new construction.
The ordinances prohibit the installation of natural gas infrastructure in new homes and commercial buildings, mandating the use of electricity for heating and cooking instead. California lawmakers argue that these measures are vital for reducing the state’s carbon emissions and meeting its ambitious climate goals, including achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.
The suit brought in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, claims the ordinances violate the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975 which preempts local and state governments from regulating the energy use of products that are already covered by federal standards.
Thus, the federal government has the exclusive authority to regulate the energy efficiency of appliances and other products, including natural gas appliances — meaning that local ordinances banning natural gas in buildings could be seen as an overreach. The complaint also argues that the natural gas bans impose high costs on residents.
The plaintiffs argue that the cities’ restrictions on natural gas create significant barriers to consumers and builders. They contend that the bans would raise construction costs, making homes more expensive to build and buy. Furthermore, the bans could lead to increased utility costs for consumers who would otherwise rely on natural gas as a cheaper energy source. As such, they claim that these local regulations undermine federal authority and impose an undue burden on California residents.
Petaluma was the first city in California to implement a ban on natural gas in all new homes and buildings back in 2019. Morgan Hill followed suit, passing a similar ordinance to tackle the same environmental concerns.
The City of Morgan Hill Housing Element 2023-2031 which was adopted January 25, 2023, stated: “Energy conservation can help achieve the City’s goal for carbon neutrality by both reducing use of natural gas, which will reduce emissions, and reducing use of electricity, which will reduce demand on the grid and increase reliability.”
The natural gas bans in Petaluma and Morgan Hill have sparked a heated debate about the potential costs and benefits of these policies for residents. Supporters of the bans argue that while the initial cost of construction may rise slightly, these measures will lead to long-term savings on energy bills. With the shift to electric appliances, the state hopes to reduce its reliance on natural gas, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and drive the transition to renewable energy sources.
Critics argue that the bans impose significant financial burdens on homeowners and builders. Switching from natural gas to electricity can lead to higher upfront costs for construction projects, particularly in regions where natural gas is traditionally the cheaper energy source. Some also argue that the infrastructure required to support an all-electric building system could be cost-prohibitive, especially in lower-income communities.
Furthermore, there are concerns about the reliability and affordability of the electric grid. While renewable energy sources like wind and solar are growing, the state’s electric grid still relies on fossil fuels for a significant portion of its power generation. Critics argue that mandating electric-only buildings without sufficient grid capacity or renewable energy generation could result in higher electricity prices and reliability issues in the future.
The outcome of the lawsuit would have significant implications for future climate policy in the United States. If the court rules in favor of the Trump Administration, it could set a precedent that limits the ability of local governments to regulate fossil fuel use. This could make it harder for local governments to pass similar laws that restrict the use of fossil fuels in residential and commercial construction.
On the other hand, if the court sides with Petaluma and Morgan Hill, it could empower local governments to take more aggressive action to address climate change. This would pave the way for more cities to adopt similar measures, furthering the push for clean energy solutions at the local level.