The Trump administration sued two California municipalities this week over their bans on natural gas appliances in new buildings. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, calls out the Northern California cities of Petaluma and Morgan Hill for imposing “crushing costs on California residents” and violating federal law.

This marks the latest federal pushback against California’s aggressive anti-gas policies, which have sought to eliminate natural gas in buildings since 2019, when the city of Berkeley instated the nation’s first-ever gas ban. The ban was repealed after a challenge in court by the California Restaurant Association found it illegal in 2023.

With Californians already paying electricity rates 92 percent higher than the national average and natural gas prices about 30 percent higher than the norm, bans on natural gas hookups pose a serious threat to the state’s energy affordability crisis. If the Justice Department succeeds in overturning Petaluma’s and Morgan Hill’s ordinances, it would deal another blow to California’s extreme and unaffordable climate agenda and help preserve energy choices for residents.

Lawmakers Stand Up to Natural Gas Bans

California isn’t alone in facing backlash to local gas bans. Across the country, state lawmakers are standing up for consumers by challenging expensive and ill-advised natural gas bans. More than half of U.S. states have passed laws which preemptively halt natural gas bans, with Michigan set to soon follow suit with legislation to ensure “energy choice” for its residents.

Even in deep-blue California, reality is setting in. Bay Area regulators, who once passed the nation’s strictest rules phasing out gas furnaces and water heaters, are now considering gas ban exemptions for low-income households, multifamily buildings, and homes that would require costly electrical upgrades, after reexamining the undue burden their bans placed on consumers.

At the state level, California Republican lawmakers have explicitly challenged these bans. In February 2025, GOP members of California’s State Assembly and Senate signed a letter urging U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright to intervene against local gas appliance prohibitions. They applauded the administration’s early-2025 executive order which prioritized consumer choice for home appliances – a direct response to previous federal rules that sought to limit gas stoves, furnaces and other appliances – and stressed the escalating cost-of-living crisis Californians were facing due to efforts that limited energy freedom:

 “Recent efforts to restrict natural gas use limit consumer choice and deny vulnerable communities access to an affordable and reliable energy source. Such efforts have created a difficult-to-navigate patchwork of local rules and impose costs on consumers, manufacturers, workers, and businesses, contributing to California’s affordability crisis.”

These concerns resonate beyond California. As Energy In Depth has previously examined, even some Democrats in New York are rethinking strict electrification mandates amidst high consumer costs. In November 2025, 19 New York State Assembly Democrats urged Governor Kathy Hochul to delay the state’s electrification mandate, citing worries about affordability and grid reliability, resulting in a delay of the ban.

Gas Bans are Illegal and Unwanted

The legal basis for challenging local gas bans is strong. The federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) sets nationwide appliance efficiency standards and explicitly preempts state or local regulations on the energy use of those appliances. In April 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cited EPCA when it struck down Berkeley’s natural gas ban, establishing a precedent that such ordinances cannot be enforced by cities. The most recent suit against Petaluma and Morgan Hill leans on this same federal authority, arguing that the cities breached federal law.

Nevertheless, environmental activists continue to look for workarounds around federal law, like the swath of de facto natural gas bans instigated under the Biden Administration. The suit made by the Justice Department this week promises to be a step in the right direction for holding cities and states accountable for illegal and unpractical energy policy.

On top of their illegality, natural gas bans are increasingly recognized as economically damaging. For consumers, forcing an all-electric home can be prohibitively expensive. In New York, state research found that converting a single-family house from gas to electric heat and appliances could cost upwards of $17,000 in retrofits and add $450-$700 in higher annual energy bills. Housing developers warn that such mandates drive up construction costs and slow the building of much-needed homes.

Courts and lawmakers increasingly see these natural gas bans mandates for what they are: dangerous and unlawful threats to consumer choice and family budgets. This most recent federal lawsuit, coming on the heels of multiple state-level prohibitions against local gas bans, highlights how momentum is building to restore energy freedom and affordability in the face of overzealous climate policies.

Bottom line: The Justice Department’s lawsuit against Petaluma and Morgan Hill underscores growing backlash to local-level natural gas bans. These unlawful bans risk deepening California’s affordability crisis by restricting consumer choice, raising housing and energy costs, and straining an electric grid already pushed to its limits. The new lawsuit is a major step towards reining in rogue local ordinances and reaffirming that Americans shouldn’t be forced to sacrifice choice or economic well-being in the name of ideology.