On Jan. 1, an gas bans act targeting gas-fueled infrastructure and appliances in new construction under seven stories was set to take effect in New York — a deadline that is now paused in the face of ongoing court proceedings. Similarly, New York City has attempted to implement its own gas ban law, which would prohibit combustion of fuels — such as propane — on the sites of new residential buildings. Both of these proposed bans are now being challenged in court by several fuel industry associations, led by the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA).
To learn more about these bans, BPN reached out to Stephen Kaminski, NPGA president and CEO. Kaminski updated us on the current state of the bans and how the propane industry in particular can continue to fight back in court.
Can you describe the proposed gas bans?
Kaminksi: The proposed gas bans in New York City and New York state target the use of conventional fuel appliances in new construction. New York City’s Local Law 154 prohibits on-site combustion of conventional fuels — including propane, natural gas and heating oil — in most new residential buildings by setting an emissions limit of 25 kg CO2 per million Btu, which effectively bans gas and propane appliances. New York state’s All-Electric Buildings Act similarly bans fuel-gas infrastructure and appliances in new buildings under seven stories. The ban was set to be effective Jan. 1, with phased dates for taller structures, but the coalition led by NPGA achieved a stipulation from the New York secretary of state to pause statewide ban implementation pending conclusion of litigation. If fully implemented, both bans would eliminate new propane installations in the affected buildings, force developers to adopt all-electric designs and significantly shrink propane’s market in new construction. This would directly threaten revenue, jobs and infrastructure investment for the propane industry, particularly in rural and suburban areas of New York.
What is the legal standing of the gas bans?
As of February, both the New York City and New York state gas bans remain under active legal challenge in federal court. The New York City ban was upheld by the Southern District of New York in March 2025, and the state ban was upheld by the Northern District of New York in July 2025. Both decisions are now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The state ban is currently fully suspended through the conclusion of appellate litigation, pursuant to a November 2025 stipulation secured by the NPGA-led coalition, meaning it cannot be enforced until the appeal is resolved — and potentially for an additional 120 days if the state ultimately prevails. The New York City ban remains in effect for buildings already covered. A favorable ruling from the Second Circuit would invalidate the bans.
What were the main points of the Oral argument(s) posed by the plaintiffs before the U.S. Court of Appeals?
At the Jan. 30 oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the plaintiffs — including NPGA, the New York Propane Gas Association (NYPGA), Mulhern Gas, plumbers, contractors, homebuilders and unions — argued that both bans are expressly preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). EPCA prohibits states and localities from adopting regulations ‘concerning the energy use’ of covered appliances such as furnaces, water heaters and stoves. The plaintiffs emphasized that the bans effectively set the energy use of gas appliances to zero by prohibiting them outright. They stressed that Congress intentionally designed EPCA with separate standards by fuel type to preserve consumer choice and prevent any single fuel from being regulated out of existence. They further contended that the bans conflict with federal appliance-efficiency standards, which assume gas appliances exist and can be improved. The plaintiffs urged the court to follow the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s 2023 ruling in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley, which struck down a gas ban in Berkeley, California.
What were the main points of the argument(s) posed by the defendants in both cases?
New York City and New York state argued that their respective bans regulate the type of fuel that is used, not the quantity of energy that an appliance consumes, and repeatedly characterized the policy as ‘agnostic’ to energy use. The defendants maintained that EPCA does not prevent states or cities from adopting all-electric building codes and contended that the Ninth Circuit’s Berkeley decision was wrongly decided and should not be followed by the Second Circuit.
What were some of the major takeaways from the most recent court hearings?
The Jan. 30 hearings before the Second Circuit panel — Judges Perez, Sack and Preska — produced several encouraging takeaways for the plaintiffs. Judge Perez was the most active in asking questions. The judges focused closely on the statutory text of EPCA rather than policy considerations, closely examining how appliances are tested for energy use, whether a regulation that effectively sets maximum energy use at zero is preempted and the precise meaning of the phrase ‘concerning the energy use.’ Judge Perez explicitly told the other side that she was not interested in policy arguments. The panel appeared to take the Ninth Circuit’s Berkeley precedent seriously. A written decision is expected in the coming months.
What are the next steps involved in this case?
Following the Jan. 30 oral arguments, the Second Circuit will issue a written opinion, typically within three to nine months. If the plaintiffs prevail, both bans would be struck down. Either losing side could then seek en banc rehearing by the full Second Circuit (rather than just the panel of three judges) or petition for review before the U.S. Supreme Court.
What would be the significance of winning these cases, both in New York and across the country?
A victory in these cases would have far-reaching implications. It would protect propane access in new construction throughout New York, establish strong precedent that EPCA preempts gas bans across the country and deter similar measures in other states and cities — especially those in the Second Circuit, which is comprised of Connecticut, New York and Vermont. Such a win would preserve consumer energy choice, affordability, reliability and backup-power options while safeguarding jobs and investment throughout the propane supply chain. As the second federal appellate court to consider this issue (in addition to the Ninth Circuit in the Berkeley case), a victory would strengthen the propane industry’s legal position nationwide. New York is the third-largest state propane market in the country, with roughly 430 million gallons sold annually. And the state is a vital market in PADD 1 [East Coast]. Furthermore, its combined residential and commercial sector is the largest in the U.S. The Empire State also presents tremendous opportunity for organic gallon growth, as 1.2 million households still rely on antiquated heating oil systems for space heating purposes. Converting these customers to efficient propane equipment would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality and better protect the land and water resources New Yorkers treasure.
How can industry members advocate for propane in their own spheres of influence?
Propane industry members can support these efforts in several ways. They can join or renew membership in NPGA and their state association. Members can also participate in their state association’s advocacy efforts or attend Propane Days, our [annual] Washington, D.C. advocacy day in June. Educating local officials, developers and customers about propane’s safety, efficiency, cost effectiveness and resilience advantages is another powerful step.
Is there anything else you would like to add about these cases?
These gas ban challenges are some of the most important legal battles the propane industry has fought — and proactively advocating for the propane industry is exactly why NPGA created the Legal Action Fund. I personally attended the Jan. 30 arguments, and our counsel was very strong. The judges’ focus on the statute and the Berkeley precedent is encouraging. NPGA, NYPGA and our coalition partners remain fully committed to pursuing this matter through to a final victory that protects propane access for generations to come. We will continue to share updates as soon as the Second Circuit issues its ruling.