Image 01 Image 03

New York State Now Banning Natural Gas Hookups in Some New Construction

New York State Now Banning Natural Gas Hookups in Some New Construction

Unless the rule gets reversed, or New York state starts rapidly building nuclear power plants, the unintended consequences to New Yorkers will be many and painful.

Late last week, I reported that New York State was racing to ban natural gas in some new construction via the state’s 2024 budget, which included a future ban on natural gas hookups in new building construction.

The legislature has gone all-in on the climate crisis mania.

New York has become the first U.S. state to pass legislation banning the use of natural gas for heating and cooking in some new buildings, a plan designed to reduce carbon emissions but opposed by industry groups as excessive and costly.

Both the Democratic-led Assembly and Senate late on Tuesday approved the provisions, which are included the state’s $229 billion budget. Governor Kathy Hochul and lawmakers agreed to the outlines of the spending package last week.

…The move in New York comes amid fierce public debate in the United States over the health and environmental impacts of the cooking appliances that burn fossil fuel and over the broader role of natural gas in climate change.

Several exemptions include emergency backup power and commercial food establishments, laboratories, and car washes. But others see the looming unintended consequences and are pushing back.

Opponents derided the New York bill’s passage as governmental overreach. Republican Robert Ortt, the minority leader of the New York Senate, issued a statement criticizing the law as a “first-in-the-nation, unconstitutional ban” that “will drive up utility bills and increase housing costs.”

Michael Fazio, executive vice president of the New York State Builders Association said the new law would lead to construction delays and uncertainty for developers, especially those wondering if their current projects will be essentially grandfathered in, or need to be changed to comply with the 2026 deadline.

“We are concerned that the gas ban will hinder new housing affordability and make New York less competitive with its neighboring states that have been outpacing New York in new home construction over the last several years,” Fazio said in an email.

Others, seeing the inherent problems associated with relying on wind and solar energy in New York, are pushing for more nuclear power plants.

State officials want to reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century. But as New York works to meet that goal, advocates for nuclear power like Isuru Seneviratne say wind and solar may not be enough.

“If you’re talking about 90% or 100% emission reduction, you need some sort of means of generation for when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow,” he said.

Seneviratne, a member of the steering committee of the advocacy group Nuclear New York, is calling for New York officials to consider how nuclear power could be part of the state’s effort to transition to cleaner forms of fuel.

Upstate New York is home to four reactors. John Murphy of the United Association Plumbers, Pipefitters and Sprinklerfitters says there’s an economic benefit as well.

“It is an economic engine. It keeps towns alive and these are multi-generational jobs,” Murphy said. “Good quality, union jobs.”

It will be interesting to see if opponents of the construction ban will take their case to court. As a reminder, a similar measure Berkeley, CA, attempted to impose was tossed out by a federal court.

I would think the New York rules also go against the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

By completely prohibiting the installation of natural gas piping within newly constructed buildings, the City of Berkeley has waded into a domain preempted by Congress. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c), 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. It enacted a building code that prohibits natural gas piping into those buildings, rendering the gas appliances useless.

The California Restaurant Association [CRA], whose members include restaurateurs and chefs, challenged Berkeley’s regulation, raising an EPCA preemption claim. The district court dismissed the suit. In doing so, it limited the Act’s preemptive scope to ordinances that facially or directly regulate covered appliances. But such limits do not appear in EPCA’s text. 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.

We thus conclude that EPCA preempts Berkeley’s building code’s effect against covered products and reverse.

Unless the rule gets reversed or New York state starts rapidly building nuclear power plants, the unintended consequences to New Yorkers will be many and painful.

Meanwhile, the mocking of initially expressed concerns has commenced.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


CommoChief | May 5, 2023 at 9:28 am

Let Federalism work it’s magic and create very clear alternatives between State polices as well as display the equally clear result of the compare and contrast exercises. If y’all continue to choose to stay in States that no longer operate on what was universally accepted common sense until ten minutes ago what happens is there is up to you to fix…or not.

It’s one thing for those of us in common sense Red States to to oppose adoption of dumbass, lefty policies at the National level. We can and will. Speaking for myself I no longer care what you allow your State to do to you. Either get off the couch and reverse it, pack your shit and move somewhere that isn’t run by lefty weirdos or bend over and take it.

My advice is pack up and leave. Doing so not only removes you from the regulatory kill zone and your family from the purposefully inept criminal justice regimes but also denies the lefty, Blue State/Blue enclaves your taxes, your dollars circulating in their economy and reduces their National political power via lower Census count at re-apportionment time for CD.

    Ironclaw in reply to CommoChief. | May 5, 2023 at 3:11 pm

    The problem is the worthless parasites bail out of their so called utopias. But, they don’t stop voting like retards.

      CommoChief in reply to Ironclaw. | May 5, 2023 at 6:05 pm

      For arguments sake lets say that is true; what does tell us about those who remain? Wouldn’t that make those who don’t leave parasites too dumb to know the host is quickly dying or just benighted fools?

      I don’t think that’s entirely true. Some locusts flying to find new areas to consume? Sure. Not most. We can’t expect these NYC transplants to a Red State to immediately adopt the local cultural markers or become right wing populists by the time finish unpacking. Something pushed them through.

      The ones who get away from troubled blue enclaves have multiple reasons they left and a few reasons for not leaving sooner. In engaging with these sorts I find that they are happy not to face the problems they left but are uncertain about how to go on in their new environment. Outreach to them should be simple and focused on basic concepts; crime as an example, we lock folks up around here. No bond posted and your ass stays in jail for serious crimes. Which prevents repeat offenders while in pretrial confinement. Simple, effective and easily understood.

      Schools the same. Yes the local PTA is a little intrusive and a bit too pushy on their morality/religious interpretations for my tastes. On the other hand they pay attention to what is going on and we don’t have weirdo lefty ideological indoctrination attempts. It’s rather like taking care of the lawn. Using weed/feed, raking out the thatch, overseeding and watering are necessary things to keep a nice lawn. Same for a society.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to CommoChief. | May 6, 2023 at 4:42 pm

    This. Above all this. To be honest, nothing that Leftist controlled states [ New York, Illinois, New England as a whole, the West Coast, etc.] have done for at least a generation has been anything but the suppression of economic, political, or other freedoms under the Bill of Rights. Let them do to themselves what they will. And let them cope with the consequences with no aid from the rest of what used to be the United States.

    Subotai Bahadur

Democrats love of central planning knows no bounds. Consequences later on will be blamed on Republicans.

Fat_Freddys_Cat | May 5, 2023 at 9:31 am

“We’re not banning gas stoves! We’re just banning the gas you need for them to work! That’s a big difference!”

UnCivilServant | May 5, 2023 at 9:38 am

I know there was a municipal ban overturned in california. I forget the legal reasoning, though. So I can’t tell if the legal reasoning is applicable. Has anyone filed suit against this new ban?

    UnCivilServant in reply to UnCivilServant. | May 5, 2023 at 9:39 am

    I see, I should have finished the article, as the Berkley ban was referenced.

      guyjones in reply to UnCivilServant. | May 5, 2023 at 11:34 am

      I can’t see a reason why the same concept of federal pre-emption that resulted in Berkeley losing that lawsuit wouldn’t produce a similar result in a New York State-based lawsuit, unless the federal judge assigned to the case is a Dumb-o-crat activist who is brazenly seeking to produce an anti-“climate change” policy result, as opposed to a proper and correct legal outcome.

E Howard Hunt | May 5, 2023 at 9:40 am

Gastronomes will flee the state.

“Escape from New York” was prescient. Home of the TRUE fascists.

    guyjones in reply to MAJack. | May 5, 2023 at 11:28 am

    John Carpenter should have made “Escape from D.C., to complete the dystopian trilogy. Sadly, this great filmmaker is yet another, lemming, march-in-lockstep Dumb-o-crat.

ChrisPeters | May 5, 2023 at 10:00 am

New York residents should reach out to their representatives about this government overreach.

What unintended consequences are you talking about? This is just another small step to their end game of extermination camps to reduce the effect of humans on the climate. Think that’s a lunatic conspiracy theory? Then I have a gas stove I could have once sold a New Yorker.

Gas operated generators are popping up all over my neighborhood.

My neighbors appear very concerned about power failures.

NY state would deprive their residents of having a safety net.

    JackinSilverSpring in reply to ParkRidgeIL. | May 5, 2023 at 10:22 am

    They’ve already have deprived them of their right to self-defense, why are surprised if they deprive them if a safety net?

    Stuytown in reply to ParkRidgeIL. | May 5, 2023 at 3:35 pm

    That’s why I bought Generac stock. As electrification continues, the grid will become unstable and more people will buy generators.

JackinSilverSpring | May 5, 2023 at 10:28 am

Has anyone in NYS done a cost-benefit analysis of depriving people of natural gas? How much of a reduction in CO2 will it lead to, given that its nuclear power generating electric capacity has been replaced by gas-powered electric generation? Moreover, it has been estimated elsewhere that it will take a billion dollars to reduce temperatures by a tenth of a billionth of a degree. Is that worth it? I think not.

    CommoChief in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | May 5, 2023 at 11:04 am

    The website Manhattan Contrarian has done some very in depth analysis of the ‘green’ energy debacle coming down the pike in NY State as well as Nationally.

      JackinSilverSpring in reply to CommoChief. | May 5, 2023 at 11:28 am

      I know, I’ve been reading it.

        CommoChief in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | May 5, 2023 at 3:46 pm

        Then you know that the answer to your question isn’t no they haven’t so much as it is they don’t seem to give a f–k. The folks in NY State are very reminiscent of the bureaucrats in Atlas Shrugged who assert that the productive people will ‘find a way to make it work, they always do’.

I can see someone establishing a business for propane hook-ups to the kitchen stove and propane bottle delivery service and refilling stations in Connecticut and New Jersey.
I begin to wonder if one or two of the politicians in the New York State Legislature (or the Governor’s cousin) hasn’t already established such a company.
My bad !!!

    JackinSilverSpring in reply to paracelsus. | May 5, 2023 at 11:35 am

    Most gas stoves run on low pressure natural gas, not high pressure propane. I guess there could be conversion kits, but that’s an extra expense. Wouldn’t it be better to use low pressure natural gas tanks? Of course, for whole house generators, in the absence of a natural gas hook-up, propane tanks are the way to go. The generator will generate somewhat more electricity with propane than natural gas.

The not so novel modern model of energy supply will be achieved through Giant Green in an environmental blight or little Green with hydrocarbon or nuclear backup, or the battery pile that weighs heavily on ecology and road alike.

This a conspiracy theory. I was told not long ago by Brandon and his media this was not happening.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to diver64. | May 6, 2023 at 4:46 pm

    If Brandon and his media say one thing, it is an excellent indication that the opposite is all but guaranteed.

    Subotai Bahadur

The vile and totalitarian Dumb-o-crat apparatchiks can now claim that they’re not banning gas stoves, outright — only the practical means to connect them to a gas line and make them functional.

And, as Leslie’s post references, without a massive increase in the construction of new nuclear-generated power plants — not just in New York State, but, across the U.S.) — the Dumb-o-crats’ electrification efforts vis-a-vis electrical vehicles, cooktops/ovens, etc. are simply shifting fossil fuel consumption from the individual level to the fossil fuel-powered power plant level. Meaning that at the end of the day, there’s no practical reduction in carbon emissions. This is so much dishonest sleight-of-hand theatrics.

    JackinSilverSpring in reply to guyjones. | May 5, 2023 at 11:38 am

    And why do it? The climate models have been over-predicting global olwarming by an appreciable factor. The models use CO2 as the main component

      JackinSilverSpring in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | May 5, 2023 at 11:41 am

      of the model. If the models are wrong based on their underlying assumptions, then maybe the underlying assumptions are wrong. Specifically, CO2 has little to do with global warming.

        nordic prince in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | May 5, 2023 at 1:34 pm

        And that is predicated on the assumptions that “climate change” is occurring to a significant degree, there is something that man can do to affect it, and that global warming is in fact a “bad thing.”

        paracelsus in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | May 5, 2023 at 2:36 pm

        “And the seas shall rise”
        just not in my grandson’s lifetime

        Ironclaw in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | May 5, 2023 at 3:18 pm

        That would require being honest, they’re not going to do that

        Ironclaw in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | May 5, 2023 at 3:20 pm

        The big lie here is that carbon dioxide is the main driver. In the universe of greenhouse gases carbon dioxide is a small minority compared to water vapor. However even Democrats aren’t stupid enough to think water is a pollutant.

      To clarify — I’m not advocating for an increase in nuclear plant construction for the carbon-free benefit (although, I do think that the U.S. has foolishly underutilized nuclear energy and has stupidly given in to irrational, Dumb-o-crat fear-mongering from their environmental zealot contingent, with regard to nuclear power) — I’m merely stating that without an increase in nuclear power production, the Dumb-o-crats’ stated effort to combat “climate change” through electrification inherently fails, as a logical matter.

    jb4 in reply to guyjones. | May 5, 2023 at 11:53 am

    My guess is that this might actually increase carbon emissions. For example, all studies show a large carbon deficit for an EV at start, because of all the mining, etc to build the battery. Of course, for Democrats, more carbon emissions in China or the Congo do not count.

The smug b!tch in the video makes my skin crawl.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | May 5, 2023 at 1:18 pm

Several exemptions include emergency backup power


They are trying to destroy the gas infrastructure but will allow places to put, soon-to-be-useless (if they get their way) EMERGENCY gas devices in!! Awesome! So, when it really, really counts and people are at their most vulnerable they can experience dramatic failure and pain.

It’s amazing, really, that every time the fraud and insanity behind the global warming BS has been exposed the self-hating nihilistic Western Left has just pushed the Global Warming BS even harder. Most of the people who push this junk don’t have the mathematical sophistication to understand anything about it. I am distressed that idiots like Hochul and the morons in the legislature who vote for this stuff aren’t publicly interrogated about their knowledge of global warming “science” and forced to justify their positions. Of course, no one ever had to give any reasons for instituting un-Constitutional, un-American tyrannical Wuhan virus dictats, either, so I guess there’s some consistency in that …

New York state has joined the Church of Global Warming
Get out while you can

I really hate to throw shade at the Peloise clone, but it you take the way back machine to about 3 years ago, the company that supplies gas to new york and I think new england as to put in a second gas pipe line and Cuomo said no, they then asked cuomo to stop new installations of gas as they might not be able to supply the needs

henrybowman | May 5, 2023 at 5:28 pm

“It’s just a conservative “culture war,” they said.
No one is trying to ban gas stoves, they said.”

Whenever I hear somebody start with “No one is coming for your…” my left hand covers my wallet and my right hand clutches the grip of my Glock.

Halcyon Daze | May 5, 2023 at 8:59 pm

Democrats aren’t perceptive enough to understand the source of their pain.

fierce public debate in the United States over the health and environmental impacts of the cooking appliances that burn fossil fuel

What debate? There is no actual evidence that natural gas appliances have any health effects. If they did, people diagnosed with asthma or other breathing difficulties would have noticed them many decades ago.

I think there is a much more sinister motive behind the banning of natgas in new construction. What does it accomplish? First it forces the home/building owner onto all electric appliances, including HVAC and water heating. Next will be “smart” meters capable of disconnecting power at the meter can that are connected to the internet. Grid under stress? You have no power. Posted a mean tweet? You have no power for xxx hours/days. You voted wrongly? No power.
This is in new construction. Wait until they pass laws banning natgas in existing homes/buildings, and force all electric on them. I see it for house heating oil too.
It’s much easier to turn off electricity that it is natgas/oil.
Then you have the bigger picture: these climate death cultists want to actually lower the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The lower limit for plant life is 150-225ppm, we are at 400ish ppm right now and some agree that is too low for plant life in the biosphere. So what does this mean? These climate cultists want to basically kill plant life thus killing the human population. They are a death cult and they serve evil.

BierceAmbrose | May 6, 2023 at 2:38 pm

“Unless the rule gets reversed, or New York state starts rapidly building nuclear power plants, the unintended consequences to New Yorkers will be many and painful.”

Intended consequences. Known. Inevitable. Causing these problems is the point, so they can “fix” them later. If there aren’t enough organic crisis for you to not let go to waste, go create some.

And, BTW, a “rule” not a law, and part of a “budget compromise.” Perhaps, and I know this is crazy-talk, a restriction on commerce, construction, heating and eating might more appropriately be a law. Perhaps even debated before passed vs. snuck in as another late night compromise “deal” in a budget.

Maybe some of those “unintended consequences” would come out if we, you know, thought stuff through before mandateing.

BTW, “unintended consequences” isn’t an excuse; even less a mandate to do more to fix the emerged problem. “Unintended consequences” means you were stupid about what you went and did. If you don’t know what you’re doing, maybe just stop. (I know: more crazy talk.)