Heat Check: Federal Courts Weigh In on Natural Gas Appliance Restrictions

Recent federal court decisions in Maryland and the District of Columbia mark the latest developments in ongoing litigation over state and local restrictions on natural gas appliances. Both courts rejected preemption challenges under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), further deepening a growing split among courts and adding momentum to jurisdictions seeking to limit gas use in new buildings. Meanwhile, related litigation in New York remains pending on appeal, with implementation paused.

Maryland: Court Upholds Montgomery County’s All-Electric Building Law

On 25 March 2026, the US District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of Montgomery County, upholding its “all-electric building” requirements for new construction.¹ The ordinance prohibits the installation of gas-powered appliances in most newly constructed buildings.

The plaintiffs—industry groups and energy stakeholders—argued that the law is expressly preempted by EPCA because it effectively sets the “energy use” of covered appliances to zero.² The court rejected that argument, holding that EPCA’s preemption provision applies to regulations governing appliance efficiency or energy use standards—not to laws that dictate whether certain fuel types may be used in buildings.³

In the court’s view, the county’s law regulates the type of energy infrastructure permitted in new construction rather than the performance characteristics of covered appliances.⁴ As such, it falls outside EPCA’s preemptive scope. The decision aligns with several recent district court rulings that have declined to extend EPCA preemption to building electrification measures.

District of Columbia: Similar Result for Net-Zero Building Requirements

Just one day later, on 26 March 2026, the US District Court for the District of Columbia reached a similar conclusion, granting summary judgment to the district in a challenge to its Clean Energy DC Building Code Amendment Act.⁵

That law requires certain new or substantially improved buildings to meet “net-zero energy” standards, which effectively preclude the use of natural gas appliances.⁶ As in the Maryland case, plaintiffs argued that the law is preempted because it indirectly regulates the energy use of covered products.⁷

The court disagreed, emphasizing a distinction between appliance performance standards (which EPCA governs) and building-level energy requirements (which it found EPCA does not).⁸ The court concluded that EPCA’s references to “energy efficiency” and “energy use” concern measurable performance metrics under standardized testing conditions—not real-world usage or the availability of fuel sources in specific buildings.⁹

Accordingly, the court held that a prohibition on gas appliances in certain buildings does not amount to a regulation “concerning” the energy use of those appliances within the meaning of EPCA.¹⁰

Key Takeaways From Maryland and DC Decisions

Together, these decisions reinforce a narrower interpretation of EPCA preemption that focuses on product design and performance, rather than downstream use restrictions. Both courts rejected the argument—accepted by the Ninth Circuit in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley—that banning gas infrastructure effectively sets appliance energy use to zero and is therefore preempted.¹¹

Instead, the Maryland and DC courts joined a growing group of decisions concluding that EPCA does not prohibit state and local governments from regulating building energy sources, even where such regulations indirectly affect appliance choices.¹²

This divergence among courts underscores the continuing uncertainty in this area and increases the likelihood of further appellate review.

New York: Litigation Continues; Implementation Paused

In New York, litigation over the state’s gas restrictions remains ongoing. Following an adverse district court ruling, plaintiffs—industry groups and energy stakeholders—appealed to the Second Circuit. In the interim, the parties entered into a stipulation suspending the effective date of the challenged regulations pending resolution of the appeal and any subsequent US Supreme Court review.¹³

As a result, New York’s gas restrictions are currently on hold, preserving the status quo while appellate proceedings move forward. The Second Circuit heard oral arguments on this case, and the companion case challenging a similar ordinance issued by the City of New York, on 30 January 2026.¹⁴ The Second Circuit’s eventual decision may play a significant role in resolving the emerging split among courts.

Looking Ahead

The recent Maryland and DC decisions represent important developments in the evolving legal landscape surrounding building electrification and federal preemption. With courts continuing to reach differing conclusions—and appellate courts now actively engaged—stakeholders should expect further clarification in the months ahead.

We will continue to monitor these cases and provide updates as the legal framework governing gas appliance restrictions continues to take shape.