By Michael J. Donohue
A small township in New Jersey has become the latest front in a national fight over not only energy policy but also the rule of law.
The U.S. Department of Justice recently sued Morris Township over a 2022 ordinance requiring certain new apartment buildings to be constructed as “all-electric.” The rule bars natural gas, propane, and fuel-oil infrastructure in apartment-style developments with twelve or more units. No gas piping means no gas appliances.
Local officials describe the policy as a climate measure. In truth, it is something else: an attempt to bypass federal law and to bar townspeople from the benefit of using cost-effective natural gas.
Congress settled this issue decades ago through the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), which created national standards governing the energy efficiency and energy use of common household appliances—from furnaces and water heaters to dryers and cooking equipment. Just as important, the law prevents states and localities from regulating those products in ways that conflict with federal standards.
Congress did this for a reason. Energy markets cannot function if every city writes its own appliance rules. Manufacturers would face a regulatory maze, consumers would lose choice, and costs would inevitably rise. A uniform national framework avoids such chaos.
Morris Township’s ordinance ignores that framework. By banning natural gas infrastructure in new buildings, the township has effectively banned the gas-powered appliances those pipes serve.
Courts have already rejected that strategy. In 2024, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Berkeley, California’s ban on natural gas piping was preempted by EPCA. The court held that preventing the installation of gas infrastructure still regulates the “energy use” of covered appliances, and federal law prohibits it.
Morris Township’s ordinance operates the same way.
The township also skipped the one legal avenue Congress provided. Under EPCA, states or municipalities can request a waiver from the Department of Energy if they demonstrate “unusual and compelling” local energy interests. Morris Township never applied.
Instead, it imposed its own mandate and hoped it would stand.
The consequences extend far beyond one New Jersey community. In recent years, local governments across the country have attempted to ban natural gas hookups in new construction as part of broader electrification efforts.
But eliminating consumer choice comes with real costs.
Natural gas remains one of the most affordable and reliable forms of household energy in the United States. Millions of Americans rely on it to heat their homes, cook meals, and run essential appliances. Forcing all-electric construction often raises costs for builders and renters alike, an especially troubling outcome during a nationwide housing affordability crisis.
All-electric mandates can also reduce resilience. When buildings rely entirely on electricity, a single outage can knock out heating, hot water, and cooking all at once. A diversified energy system provides greater stability.
These tradeoffs are exactly why Congress placed appliance regulation at the federal level. EPCA was designed to preserve consumer choice while ensuring efficiency and consistent national standards.
Local gas bans undermine that balance. If municipalities can outlaw natural gas appliances today, others could just as easily impose their own restrictions tomorrow. The result would be the compliance patchwork Congress sought to prevent.
That is why the Justice Department’s lawsuit matters.
This case is not simply about one township ordinance. It is about whether federal law still governs when local policies conflict with it. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause makes the answer clear: federal law prevails.
Local governments remain free to pursue environmental goals. They can promote efficiency, encourage innovation, and adopt lawful building standards.
What they cannot do is outlaw federally regulated appliances by banning the infrastructure those appliances require.
But there is more at stake here. It is the principle of choice and affordability for American families. Policies that eliminate options can drive up costs and limit access to reliable energy, placing the greatest burden on working households. The law should not be used to narrow those choices, but to preserve a system where consumers, not local mandates, decide what best works best for their homes and budgets.
Congress has already spoken. The courts should enforce that decision.
