Ban Gas, Pay More
Ban Gas, Pay More
DOE data shows natural gas is by far the cheapest form of residential energy. Now, the Left’s campaign to ban gas and mandate all-electric homes is headed to the Supreme Court.
Robert Bryce
Share
Publication Note: The Fire Time Magazine appreciates the opportunity to republish this article, which was originally released on September 5, 2026. It is reprinted with permission from Robert Bryce. To read more of his work, subscribe to his Substack. Further use, duplication, or distribution is prohibited without the author’s written permission.
Electricity prices across the U.S. are, pardon the pun, rising at shocking rates.
According to the Energy Information Administration, residential electricity prices in June were 5% higher than they were in June 2025. The average price of electricity in American homes is now about 18.3¢ per kilowatt-hour. In 2016, that same amount of juice cost U.S. residential consumers 12.5¢. Thus, over the past decade, consumers have seen their home electricity costs jump by 46%.
What’s driving the surge in power costs? According to a June report by Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy, the price increases “were driven primarily by investments in distribution and transmission networks, fuel volatility, routine maintenance, and policy mandates rather than load growth.”
Of course, there are different theories for the jump in power costs, and price increases vary, a fact highlighted on a handy new website, bluestateshighrates.com. Regardless of what’s driving those higher prices, the surging cost of power shows yet again that the electrify everything campaign launched several years ago by some of the richest NGOs in the U.S. is, in reality, a regressive energy tax that will hurt the poor and the middle class.
I have been reporting on the electrify everything scam for years.
In 2023, in “The Billionaires Behind the Gas Bans,” I spotlighted the Climate Imperative Foundation (2025 revenue: $272 million), a new NGO that was largely funded by a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires, including John Doerr and Laurene Powell Jobs. I showed how Climate Imperative is giving millions of dollars per year to groups like the Sierra Club (2025 revenue: $84 million) and Rocky Mountain Institute, that are actively working to ban the use of natural gas in homes and businesses, and that their effort is: “Part of a years-long, lavishly funded campaign that is being bankrolled by some of the world’s richest people.”
In 2023 and 2024, I reported on how Stacey Abrams, a prominent Democrat who served in the Georgia House of Representatives, had been hired by a dark money NGO called Rewiring America (2024 revenue: $37.6 million) to help “share the benefits of electrification.” Despite Abrams’ claims, I explained that electrifying everything will increase energy costs and “reduce our energy security by concentrating our reliance on a single energy network.” I also said the electrification push “will require putting massive new energy loads on an electric grid that’s already faltering under existing demand.”
That background provides context for a hearing that happened last Wednesday on Capitol Hill. The House Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs held a hearing captioned “No Flame, More Pain: How State and Local Bans on Natural Gas Increase Costs.” The testimony from that hearing shows that, despite the Trump administration’s efforts to enact more sensible energy policies, several state- and local-level regulations that ban the direct use of natural gas and propane remain in place.
In addition, the Department of Energy recently published data showing that, on an energy-equivalent basis, residential electricity in the U.S. now costs 3.6 times more than natural gas. Further, since 2009, the DOE’s numbers show that residential electricity costs have risen nearly twice as fast as residential gas prices.
Ban gas, pay more.
Despite the soaring cost of electricity and the regressive nature of the electrify everything push, the battle has now shifted to the federal courts, and the legality of the natural gas bans will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Let’s take a look.
The electrify everything movement began in 2019, when Berkeley became the first municipality in the country to ban the use of gas. After that, dozens of municipalities in California and elsewhere followed suit. And in 2022, the California Air Resources Board voted to ban the sale of all gas-fired space heaters and water-heating appliances in the state by 2030. New York City and Seattle have also banned the use of gas in new construction, and the state of New York imposed a similar ban in 2023.
But in 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Berkeley’s gas ban violates federal law. The three judges found that the city’s ordinance was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), which prohibits regulations that favor one type of fuel over another. (See my reporting on that ruling here.) In their ruling on the case, the federal judges wrote the EPCA:
Expressly preempts State and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances, including those used in household and restaurant kitchens. Instead of directly banning those appliances in new buildings, Berkeley took a more circuitous route to the same result and enacted a building code that prohibits natural gas piping into those buildings, rendering the gas appliances useless. . . . By its plain text and structure, EPCA’s preemption provision encompasses building codes that regulate natural gas use by covered products. And by preventing such appliances from using natural gas, the new Berkeley building code does exactly that (emphasis in original).
Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling didn’t stop the electrify everything campaigners. Today, the Rocky Mountain Institute (2025 revenue: $175 million) continues its push to electrify everything. And it is doing so despite survey data that finds that 51% of homeowners prefer gas for cooking.
In 2023, a group of plaintiffs led by Mulhern Gas Co., a small family-owned propane dealer in Hudson, New York, filed a federal lawsuit against New York over the state’s gas ban, which was slated to take effect at the end of 2025. The suit argues that the state’s ban is a clear violation of EPCA. The lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, known as Mulhern v. Rodriguez, is Sarah Jorgenson, who represented the California Restaurant Association in its successful lawsuit against Berkeley.
On Wednesday, Michael Fazio of the National Association of Home Builders told the House Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs that consumers should be able to choose the types of appliances they use in their homes and that “maintaining flexibility in building energy codes are critical to keeping housing affordable and attainable for American families.” He continued, saying, “Public policy should preserve that choice and allow technologies to compete in the market. The goal should not be to predetermine which energy source Americans use, but to ensure that families have access to affordable options that meet their needs.” Fazio went on to deliver the kicker:
As a New Yorker representing the state’s home building industry, I can tell you that this is not an abstract debate. A mandate to electrify a home can affect the mechanical system, electrical service, floor plan, equipment location, and construction cost. In colder climates, NAHB data show that a full electrification package can add more than $15,000 to the cost of constructing a new home. . . . The operating-cost implications are also significant. A 2026 analysis from the American Gas Association found that homes using natural gas appliances can save households up to $12,000 over 15 years compared with all-electric homes (emphasis added).
Alas, some federal judges aren’t supportive of consumer choice.
Between 2009 and 2025, the cost of residential gas increased by 27% while electricity prices jumped by 51%.
In June, in Mulhern v. Rodriguez, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs and found that New York’s gas ban was not preempted by EPCA. That ruling was cheered by the usual suspects, including Earthjustice (2025 revenue: $171 million), which intervened in the Mulhern case on the side of the defendants. A lawyer for the anti-hydrocarbon, San Francisco-based NGO claimed the Second Circuit’s decision was a “welcome return to a commonsense understanding of state and local control.” Meanwhile, the Sierra Club gushed that “more than 200 cities, counties, and states have adopted policies to transition buildings off of gas.”
Last month, Rick Cummings, whose family owns Mulhern Gas, emailed me, saying the Second Circuit’s ruling was “very disappointing, though not entirely surprising.” He went on to explain that his lawyers are “beginning preparations for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Honestly, I think this is where the case will ultimately be decided. So, the fight continues.”
I’ll conclude this piece with three charts that demonstrate the energy affordability issue. (Under EPCA, the DOE is required to produce these price figures, which are then published in the Federal Register.) As you will see, between 2009 and 2025, the energy-equivalent price differential between electricity and gas soared.
As shown above, in 2009, residential electricity cost $33 per million BTU, which was exactly three times the price of gas.
By 2023, the price of electricity had surged to $46 while gas was $14. Thus, electricity was 3.3 times more expensive that year than gas.
In 2025, the price of gas was still $14 per million BTU, but electricity costs had increased to $50, meaning electricity cost 3.6 times more than gas. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. A bit of simple math shows that between 2009 and 2025, the cost of residential gas increased by 27% while electricity prices jumped by 51%.
The punchline here is obvious: These gas bans and electrify everything mandates are anti-choice and anti-consumer, and they are being pushed by some of the richest NGOs in the country. And those outfits don’t give a flip about how energy costs impact the poor and the middle class.
The Supreme Court should issue a clear ruling on these illegal mandates before they cause further harm to consumers.
Want to get free content like this every month?
Robert Bryce
Robert Bryce is a Texas-based author, journalist, podcaster, film producer, and public speaker. Over the past three decades, his articles have appeared in numerous publications including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, National Review, Field & Stream, and Austin Chronicle. He has given nearly 400 invited or keynote lectures to dozens of groups including the Marine Corps War College, Sydney Institute, Jadavpur University, Northwestern University, and a wide variety of professional associations and corporations. He has also appeared on dozens of TV and radio shows, including NPR, BBC, MSNBC, Fox, Al Jazeera, CNN, and PBS.
