As U.S. natural gas utilities continue efforts to stave off legislative and regulatory assaults at the state and local levels, they’re receiving welcome support from stakeholders representing diverse interests who understand the real-world impact of forced electrification policies. Together, fuel-choice proponents have held their own in the gas-ban battle.
When America’s first local gas ban was being debated in Berkeley, California, some of the loudest opposing voices came from restaurants – especially those featuring Asian and Latin fare – who argued the ban would deprive them of the cooking techniques essential to their “flame-dependent” cuisine.
Fast forward five years to January 2024 in Seattle, where a proposed ban announced by state lawmakers elicited the starkest of warnings from a representative for a trade association of builders throughout the state: Ban natural gas and our power grid will fail.
As restrictions on natural gas have become a popular strategy for achieving state and local climate goals, utilities have begun to work to ensure that consumers and other stakeholders understand the implications of these proposed restrictions, while also talking up initiatives they are pursuing to reduce their own carbon footprint.
But in the very public debates over local and statewide bans on new natural gas hookups and total electrification mandates, U.S. utility executives from coast to coast may be humming the tune from Carole King’s 1969 hit, “You’ve got a friend.”
Indeed, in the five years since the recently overturned Berkeley ban took effect, a diverse array of stakeholders have become indispensable allies in efforts to slow the headlong rush to electrification, says Daniel Lapato, Associate Vice President for State Affairs for the American Gas Association (AGA).
“I think our opponents try to paint this as a utility-led effort, but at the end of the day I think you’ll see the utilities are just part of the conversation,” Lapato said. “There is a broader conversation with a variety of stakeholders who have begun to realize the impacts gas bans will have on their members, their businesses and their communities.”

Hospital associations, organized labor, small-business groups, low-income advocates, homebuilders and many other stakeholders all have helped turn up the volume and amplify utilities’ own messages about the benefits of the energy source 189 million Americans rely on every day and the risks of banning it.
So far, utilities are holding their own. Fuel-choice legislation is on the books in 25 states and proposed in eight more. Local gas bans or statewide building electrification codes are in force in 12 states and proposed in nine other states or local jurisdictions, according to the AGA. Forbes reported in March that 70 U.S. cities now have regulations requiring or incentivizing all-electric building construction.
“These 25 states have allowed the industry and our partners to talk about the benefits of natural gas from a national perspective, because at this point now half the country has preserved fuel choice,” Lapato said. “I think that’s really important to focus on.”
From his vantage point at AGA, which supports more than 200 local energy companies nationwide, Lapato sees a common thread – getting more people talking about the negative impacts bans on natural gas would have – running through utility efforts to resist moratoriums on new hook-ups and building-code changes that promote electrification.
“The utilities play a big role in these conversations—helping other stakeholders understand that these discussions are taking place and that this is a time for them to weigh in.”
Lapato points to a coalition of interests that came together to support a ballot initiative in Spokane that would have blocked the city from implementing a ban on new natural gas hookups. Homebuilders, organized labor, and even a trade association of gas fireplace manufacturers united to talk about the negative impacts a ban would have on housing affordability, small businesses, jobs and consumers.
The industry’s friends in the fuel-choice battle often have been willing to talk about the risks of forced electrification in a more direct way, plainly and bluntly pointing out the real-world ramifications in ways that hit home with consumers and policymakers alike.
In January, lawmakers in Washington state revived a bill to ban natural gas a few weeks after a historic cold snap forced Puget Sound Energy to plead with customers to reduce their energy use. Greg Lane, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington, didn’t mince words when a reporter asked him about the impact of the proposed ban: “Removing natural gas as a source of heating homes and water will cause our electrical grid to fail.”
At a January press conference in Chicago, officials of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 150 stood shoulder to shoulder with city leaders opposed to a newly proposed ban on new hook-ups. The union has taken to the airwaves and newspapers with hard-hitting ads slamming Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker for a state law enabling local gas bans and regulatory actions that wiped out 1,000 jobs.
The headline on the “Fight Back” section of the union’s website blares IUOE’s message in red capital letters: “TELL ILLINOIS GOV. PRITZKER AND THE ICC TO LIFT THE NATURAL GAS BAN AND MAKE A PLAN FOR GRADUAL TRANSITION TO CLEAN ENERGY.”
Nearly a year has passed since North Carolina became the latest state to join the fuel-choice club, but neither have there been any new statewide connection bans nor electrification mandates. However, the legality of bans has come to the forefront since a federal appeals court struck down the Berkeley ordinance in April 2023 in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by the California Restaurant Association (CRA).
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed its decision in early January, forcing many jurisdictions to weigh the impact on existing or proposed bans. Spokane and Palo Alto subsequently dropped their bans, and Berkeley itself settled the lawsuit in March by agreeing to stop enforcing its ban on new gas hookups and eventually repeal it. Meanwhile, legal challenges to New York’s year-old state law banning new natural gas hookups have been filed based on the same arguments underpinning the Berkeley decision.
Where legislative efforts to restrict the use of natural gas have foundered, some states and cities are taking the “back-door ban” approach of adopting electrification requirements in building codes or influencing the development of model codes that are pushed down to the state level. Once again, industry partners are weighing in.
“Some of the loudest and strongest voices in these discussions have been the builders, the HVAC contractors, realtors, the commercial building operators who have really been the ones pushing back because it comes down to cost, cost, cost,” Lapato said. “It’s driving up not just the cost of construction but also the cost of the building itself, whether it’s a home or a commercial building, and that cost is really becoming burdensome.”
“Given that natural gas accounts for only 4-10% of a home’s total GHG emissions, the focus is misplaced.” – Daniel Lapato, Associate Vice President for State Affairs for the American Gas Association (AGA)
Lapato says he hasn’t seen many utilities roll out broad consumer-facing communications campaigns aimed at promoting fuel choice because they understand the public doesn’t necessarily focus on abstract energy policy discussions, but rather, engage only when the personal impact becomes clear.
Last year’s public outcry over a regulator’s suggestion that natural gas stoves might be banned is a case in point. Five states that already had fuel-choice legislation in place – Florida, Georgia, Montana, South Dakota and Tennessee – passed freedom-to-cook laws preventing the prohibition of appliances.
Unfortunately, the focus on natural gas bans and forced electrification as a strategy for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has obscured the important strides utilities are making in reducing the carbon footprint of natural gas, whether through energy efficiency and weatherization efforts, ongoing investments in pipeline integrity or newer decarbonization initiatives such as RNG, certified gas, blue hydrogen and carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) technologies.
Given that natural gas accounts for only 4-10% of a home’s total GHG emissions, the focus is misplaced, according to Lapato, who says the emissions reductions can as easily be achieved using the natural gas technologies already available and under development at a fraction of the cost of total electrification. And the industry already has the infrastructure in place to deliver lower-carbon energy solutions.

“Utilities have been painted as the organization that are trying to argue for the status quo, but what the industry is more accurately making the case around is that these policies stymy our ability to innovate, and that’s what we do best,” Lapato said. “If you really are concerned about emissions reductions, don’t take any tools off the table.”
With energy experts already setting off alarm bells as U.S. demand for electric power surges due to the proliferation of data centers, the “reshoring” of U.S. manufacturing, and the growth in the use of electric vehicles, continued efforts to restrict the use of natural gas risk sacrificing the safety, reliability, resilience and affordability that Americans have come to expect from their energy system.
That’s a message U.S. utilities – with the help of the AGA and industry friends – can be expected to prioritize as they continue to position natural gas and the industry’s infrastructure as a critical piece of the emissions-reduction puzzle.
David Coburn is a strategic thinker, writer, media relations expert and communications consultant leveraging 30-plus years of print journalism and agency public relations experience.