The recent election surprised environmental groups when voters in Berkeley, California, and Washington State — two of the most progressive regions in the country — rejected measures designed to restrict the use of natural gas in some buildings. This outcome has left many wondering if the momentum behind gas bans is starting to stall, even in regions known for ambitious climate action.

For years, gas bans have been championed by climate advocates aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and yet, even in states with strong environmental track records, voters said “no.” Could this signal a broader pushback against curbing the use of natural gas? Or was this an isolated reaction to concerns about cost, choice, and practicality?

As you might remember, the gas ban movement began in 2019, when Berkeley, California, became the first city in the U.S. to pass a law prohibiting natural gas hookups in new buildings. City officials argued that the law was necessary to curb greenhouse gas emissions that result from burning fossil fuels, and the law went into effect in early 2020.

Much to their dismay, the groundbreaking ordinance was then struck down in April 2023, by the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, following a legal challenge from the California Restaurant Association. In its ruling, the three-judge panel determined that Berkeley's ordinance was pre-empted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), but dissatisfied with the outcome, city officials requested a rehearing of the case. In January 2024, it appeared that the matter was finally settled when the Court of Appeals rejected Berkeley's request for a rehearing.

Undeterred by the court ruling, the city of Berkeley decided to try a new approach by introducing Ballot Measure GG for the November 2024 ballot. This measure proposed that starting January 1, 2025, a $2.9647 tax per therm of natural gas would be assessed on buildings over 15,000 square feet, excluding residential and government buildings, with the funds directed toward decarbonization programs. Critics argued that the measure would lead to higher taxes on grocery stores, restaurants, and nonprofits, potentially driving them out of the city. The voters agreed and voted 68% to 32% to kill the measure.

Washington State has also been on the gas ban bandwagon. First, the Washington State Building Code Council (SBCC) amended the state energy code in 2022 to prohibit the use of natural gas water and space heaters in larger residential and commercial buildings. Then in March 2024, the Washington State Legislature passed House Bill 1589, which does not ban the use of natural gas but does require the state’s largest utility, Puget Sound Energy (PSE), to file a plan by 2027 that would “achieve all cost-effective electrification of end uses currently served by natural gas.”

In response, the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), the Washington Hospitality Association (WHA), and others were successful in getting Initiative 2066 on the ballot, which would repeal parts of HB 1589. According to BIAW, I-2066 “protects natural gas as an energy choice, ensures energy stability and security, and prohibits natural gas bans in Washington.” A slim majority of voters passed the measure, 51.5% to 48.5%, so Washington now joins the other 24 states that prohibit local governments from restricting the use of natural gas use in buildings.

After courts and voters have consistently blocked efforts to curb the use of natural gas, will environmental groups and government agencies abandon their attempts to restrict the use of fossil fuels in space and water heating? I think that’s highly unlikely. With increasing pressure to meet various climate goals, they are likely to shift tactics rather than abandon the fight altogether. Although the fight may become more challenging come January, when president-elect Trump returns to the White House, vowing to roll back numerous environmental regulations. Climate activists are prepared, though. As Caroline Spears, executive director of Climate Cabinet, noted in an article for Canary Media, “States took on the mantle of combating climate change during the first Trump administration. Now they need to redouble the work during the second.”