{"id":29277,"date":"2026-07-13T12:14:31","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T17:14:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=29277"},"modified":"2026-07-13T12:14:31","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T17:14:31","slug":"two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/","title":{"rendered":"A Closer Look at Two Recent Decisions Electrifying the Building Decarbonization World"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Photo by Brett Jordan<\/a> on Unsplash<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Two major decisions in recent weeks are giving building electrification advocates good reason to be optimistic about the future of buildings that don\u2019t burn gas. In the first\u2014Association of Contracting Plumbers v. City of New York<\/em><\/a> (\u201cPlumbers<\/em>\u201d)\u2014the Second Circuit upheld New York State and New York City\u2019s laws restricting the use of fossil-fuel-burning appliances in new buildings. In the second\u2014Rinnai America Corporation v. South Coast Air Quality Management District<\/em><\/a> (\u201cRinnai<\/em>\u201d)\u2014the Ninth Circuit upheld the district\u2019s zero-nitrogen oxides rule.<\/p>\n

The two cases raise similar issues and are great news for building electrification\u2019s proponents. They also have major ramifications for cities\u2019 climate action. But neither of these cases will be the last word on municipalities\u2019 authority to electrify buildings. This post gives a rundown of where these cases came from, provides an overview of what they say, and offers some reflections on what comes next.<\/p>\n

The Winding Road Out of Berkeley<\/strong><\/h5>\n

Two pieces of background are necessary to understand the decisions in Plumbers <\/em>and Rinnai<\/em>. First, both involve a fairly small set of terms in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (\u201cEPCA\u201d). EPCA preempts \u201cState [or local] regulation concerning<\/em> .\u00a0.\u00a0. energy use<\/em><\/a> .\u00a0.\u00a0. [of a] covered product.\u201d Critically, EPCA defines \u201cenergy use\u201d as \u201cthe quantity of energy directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use<\/em>, determined in accordance with test procedures<\/em><\/a> under .\u00a0.\u00a0. this title.\u201d<\/p>\n

Second, both of the cases are in close conversation with the Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley<\/em><\/a> (\u201cCRA<\/em>\u201d).\u00a0In CRA <\/em>the court held that Berkeley\u2019s ordinance banning natural gas piping in new buildings was preempted by EPCA. Citing a dictionary, the court concluded that \u201cas a matter of ordinary meaning, \u2018point of use\u2019 means the \u2018place where something is used.\u2019\u201d As a result, the court held that a local law impeding \u201cthe end-user\u2019s ability to use installed covered products at their intended final destinations\u201d is one that concerns energy use and is therefore preempted by EPCA. Moreover, the court added, \u201cby using the term \u2018concerning,\u2019 Congress meant to expand preemption beyond direct or facial regulations of covered appliances.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit declined to rehear CRA<\/em> en banc, but Circuit Judge Friedland authored a now-famous dissent<\/a> on behalf of herself and seven more judges. She argued that the panel acted against Congress\u2019s intent in passing EPCA by reading technically defined terms in the statute according to their ordinary meaning. She pointed out that the meaning of \u201cenergy use\u201d in EPCA is \u201cdetermined in accordance with test procedures\u201d under the statute. When read in light of that caveat and the broader context of how energy use factors into EPCA\u2019s functional provisions, it becomes unavoidably clear that Congress gave \u201cenergy use\u201d a specialized meaning not tied to how a consumer uses a covered appliance.<\/p>\n

Association of Contracting Plumbers v. City of New York\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/h5>\n

In Plumbers<\/em>, the Second Circuit considered whether EPCA preempts New York State\u2019s All-Electric Buildings Act and New York City\u2019s Local Law 154 of 2021<\/a>, both of which it analyzes as essentially identical laws \u201cprohibit[ing] fossil-fuel-powered appliances\u201d in new buildings. The Sabin Center filed an amicus brief<\/a> in Plumbers <\/em>on behalf of the National League of Cities and the New York Conference of Mayors.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs in this case relied heavily on the Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision in CRA. <\/em>They contended that New York City\u2019s rule is one \u201cconcerning\u201d appliances\u2019 \u201cenergy use\u201d\u2014just like Berkeley\u2019s\u2014and thus preempted by EPCA. The court disagreed.\u00a0Closely tracking Judge Friedland\u2019s dissenting reasoning in CRA<\/em>, the court in Plumbers<\/em> reasoned that by tying \u201cenergy use\u201d to specific testing procedures described in EPCA, Congress gave that term a specific, technical definition. The court thus determined that reading the term in a looser, colloquial way would be unfaithful to what the legislature enacted.<\/p>\n

In the context of EPCA, \u201cenergy use\u201d refers to a \u201cstandardized, fixed measure assigned to a product before it reaches consumers.\u201d As a result, \u201conce an appliance has been sold, nothing a consumer does with the appliance changes that appliance\u2019s \u2018energy use.\u2019\u201d So, regulations like the All-Electric Buildings Act and Local Law 154 that only address what a consumer does with an appliance cannot be ones that set preempted standards for \u201cenergy use\u201d as the term is used in EPCA. With that, both laws survive.<\/p>\n

That would have been enough to decide the case. But Second Circuit Judge P\u00e9rez, writing for the panel, went significantly further. On top of the textualist bedrock grounding the court\u2019s ultimate decision, she elaborately buttressed the court\u2019s conclusion with a range of additional bases. Among other reasons, she wrote that if \u201cenergy use\u201d did<\/em> reach into consumers\u2019 hands, other provisions of the Act would make no sense. Further, even though \u201cconcerning\u201d is a broad term, it can\u2019t be so broad that it encompasses a law like New York City\u2019s for which enforcers \u201ccould very well remain blind to an appliance\u2019s \u2018energy use.\u2019\u201d Further still, Congress had multiple opportunities to amend EPCA\u2019s preemption provision in ways that would change this analysis and did not do so. Finally, and certainly not least among all the reasons Judge P\u00e9rez offers, she adds that absurd outcomes that would flow from finding this law preempted.<\/p>\n

All this extra analysis is exciting for fans of canons of statutory interpretation and to electrification advocates looking to take a victory lap, but it is much more important than drafting and gloating. The court explicitly rejects the Ninth Circuit\u2019s contrary holding in CRA<\/em>, as they \u201creluctantly believe it necessary to create \u2018a split among the Circuits\u2019\u201d\u2014teeing this up for Supreme Court review.<\/p>\n

Rinnai America Corporation v. South Coast Air Quality Management District<\/em><\/strong><\/h5>\n

In Rinnai<\/em>, the Ninth Circuit considered whether EPCA preempts the South Coast Air Quality Management District\u2019s Rule 1146.2<\/a>, which prohibits manufacturing, selling, and installing large water heaters, small boilers, and process heaters that emit more than zero nitrogen oxides. The plaintiffs relied, in the court\u2019s telling, \u201cexclusively on our decision in\u201d CRA<\/em> to argue that the district\u2019s rule is just like Berkeley\u2019s and thus preempted by EPCA. The Ninth Circuit disagreed.<\/p>\n

The Rinnai<\/em> court\u2019s primary basis for upholding Rule 1146.2 was totally distinct from the reasoning in CRA<\/em> or in Plumbers<\/em>: the rule was promulgated under\u2014and in fact necessary to comply with\u2014the district\u2019s authority and responsibilities under the Clean Air Act (\u201cCAA\u201d). After closely surveying the history of both acts, the court concluded that nothing there suggests that Congress meant for EPCA to limit the district\u2019s CAA responsibilities or authority. Leaning on the presumption against implied repeals, the court declined to find Rule 1146.2 preempted by EPCA.<\/p>\n

There was one more wrinkle the court had to address: even though the history of the two laws gave no reason to think EPCA impliedly repealed authority granted by the CAA, the latter does provide that the actual measures undertaken to comply with its mandates<\/a> must not be ones that are prohibited by federal or state law. The plaintiffs argued this as another reason an EPCA-preempted rule cannot be a way of complying with CAA responsibilities. Again, the court disagreed. It clarified that, \u201c[CRA<\/em>] had no occasion to consider whether EPCA would preempt a state\u2019s exercise of its regulatory authority under another federal statute.\u201d The court went on to provide some examples of statutory sources of authority likely not preempted by EPCA, including terminating existing gas utility service, declining to extend that service, and imposing taxes that might reduce consumption of gas.<\/p>\n

The text of EPCA was less important here than in Plumbers<\/em>, but the Rinnai<\/em> opinion complemented that decision by confirming that CRA<\/em> should be read narrowly. Further, it invited local governments (albeit in dicta) to explore the options they have under other sources of authority under federal law.<\/p>\n

What Might Come Next<\/strong><\/h5>\n

One outcome of these cases ought to be\u2014and will be, I think\u2014that municipalities and other sub-state governments are emboldened to take steps to get buildings off gas-burning equipment. Plumbers <\/em>and Rinnai <\/em>both reiterated the importance of local action on air pollution by their specific holdings and by articulating more generally how holding otherwise would have upset the balance of authority between the federal, state, and local governments. They built on the momentum that was already forming among District Courts, which have uniformly been upholding building electrification<\/a> measures under the reasoning offered by Judge Friedland\u2019s dissent in CRA<\/em>. Any lingering sense that CRA <\/em>portended the end of local building electrification policy should now be put to rest. It is clearer than ever that CRA<\/em> is an outlier\u2014even within the Ninth Circuit.<\/p>\n

Still, we are more likely than before to see a Supreme Court decision weighing in on these issues. District courts in the Second, Fourth, and D.C. Circuits had already split with the Ninth Circuit on EPCA\u2019s reach, but Plumbers<\/em> unequivocally confirmed a split at the appellate level that is ripe for Supreme Court review. We will know more when the deadline to seek certiorari has passed, but there is a possibility that Plumbers<\/em> will be overturned. Still, justices looking to go that way will have their work cut out for them.<\/p>\n

The Second Circuit has gone to extraordinary lengths to armor its opinion. Not only does the decision rest squarely on axiomatic principles of statutory interpretation, it also clearly explains where the Ninth Circuit went wrong and painstakingly lays out a half dozen more textualist arguments that would all need to be ignored or refuted to overturn the outcome. Further, on the two most important components of the statutory analysis supporting the court\u2019s all-important conclusion that \u201cenergy use\u201d must have a technical meaning, Judge P\u00e9rez\u2019s opinion draws exclusively on prior decisions written by Supreme Court justices that might have worried building electrification advocates. For example, for the proposition that a statute\u2019s own, technical definition of a term governs over that term\u2019s ordinary meaning, Judge P\u00e9rez relied on opinions authored by Justices Barrett and Thomas. On the canon that words should be interpreted in light of the context in which they are used, Judge P\u00e9rez quoted Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Souter. Obviously selecting those citations does not come close to guaranteeing a particular outcome at the Supreme Court. But it is one example of many highlighting the extraordinary care that went into this opinion. That care in drafting and reasoning, on the whole, should encourage cities interested in relying on this opinion to replicate New York City\u2019s approach with Local Law 154 that they are on a strong legal footing to do so.<\/p>\n

Finally, regardless of the outcome of any appeals in Plumbers<\/em>, cities will still have additional options independent of the reach of these cases. As my colleagues have previously pointed out<\/a>, there are other pathways to getting new construction off gas appliances. Among other things, EPCA contains an exception to its preemptive reach for state and local building codes, provided they meet specific conditions. Rinnai<\/em> nicely lays out the pathway based on nitrogen oxides that dozens of air quality districts have already used to reach zero-emissions outcomes, and Rinnai<\/em> further highlights gas-service and tax-related options that might reduce gas consumption without implicating EPCA at all.<\/p>\n

In sum: municipalities have a long and productive track record of finding effective, creative solutions that answer the challenges climate change brings while improving the lives of their citizens and visitors. These litigation developments showcase that their approaches work.<\/p>\n

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two major decisions in recent weeks are giving building electrification advocates good reason to be optimistic about the future of buildings that don\u2019t burn gas. In the first\u2014Association of Contracting Plumbers v. City of New York (\u201cPlumbers\u201d)\u2014the Second Circuit upheld New York State and New York City\u2019s laws restricting the use of fossil-fuel-burning appliances in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2659,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[68402],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-29277","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-cities","7":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nA Closer Look at Two Recent Decisions Electrifying the Building Decarbonization World - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Two decisions are giving building electrification advocates good reason to be optimistic about the future of buildings that don\u2019t burn gas.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A Closer Look at Two Recent Decisions Electrifying the Building Decarbonization World - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Two decisions are giving building electrification advocates good reason to be optimistic about the future of buildings that don\u2019t burn gas.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-13T17:14:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/07\/brett-jordan-XpyX9DnrXEc-unsplash-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Daniel J. Metzger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Daniel J. Metzger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/13\\\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/13\\\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Daniel J. Metzger\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/75d1beb7a8fa645d4284e1264db7a221\"},\"headline\":\"A Closer Look at Two Recent Decisions Electrifying the Building Decarbonization World\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-13T17:14:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/13\\\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1950,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/13\\\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/brett-jordan-XpyX9DnrXEc-unsplash-300x225.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Cities & Local Governments\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/13\\\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/13\\\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\\\/\",\"name\":\"A Closer Look at Two Recent Decisions Electrifying the Building Decarbonization World - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/13\\\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/13\\\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/brett-jordan-XpyX9DnrXEc-unsplash-300x225.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-13T17:14:31+00:00\",\"description\":\"Two decisions are giving building electrification advocates good reason to be optimistic about the future of buildings that don\u2019t burn gas.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/13\\\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/13\\\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/13\\\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/brett-jordan-XpyX9DnrXEc-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/brett-jordan-XpyX9DnrXEc-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1920,\"caption\":\"Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/13\\\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A Closer Look at Two Recent Decisions Electrifying the Building Decarbonization World\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/75d1beb7a8fa645d4284e1264db7a221\",\"name\":\"Daniel J. Metzger\",\"description\":\"Daniel J. Metzger is the Director of the the Cities Climate Law Initiative at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/danmetzger\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A Closer Look at Two Recent Decisions Electrifying the Building Decarbonization World - Climate Law Blog","description":"Two decisions are giving building electrification advocates good reason to be optimistic about the future of buildings that don\u2019t burn gas.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A Closer Look at Two Recent Decisions Electrifying the Building Decarbonization World - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Two decisions are giving building electrification advocates good reason to be optimistic about the future of buildings that don\u2019t burn gas.","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2026-07-13T17:14:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1920,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/07\/brett-jordan-XpyX9DnrXEc-unsplash-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Daniel J. Metzger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Daniel J. Metzger","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/"},"author":{"name":"Daniel J. Metzger","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/75d1beb7a8fa645d4284e1264db7a221"},"headline":"A Closer Look at Two Recent Decisions Electrifying the Building Decarbonization World","datePublished":"2026-07-13T17:14:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/"},"wordCount":1950,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/07\/brett-jordan-XpyX9DnrXEc-unsplash-300x225.jpg","articleSection":["Cities & Local Governments"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/","name":"A Closer Look at Two Recent Decisions Electrifying the Building Decarbonization World - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/07\/brett-jordan-XpyX9DnrXEc-unsplash-300x225.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-13T17:14:31+00:00","description":"Two decisions are giving building electrification advocates good reason to be optimistic about the future of buildings that don\u2019t burn gas.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/07\/brett-jordan-XpyX9DnrXEc-unsplash-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2026\/07\/brett-jordan-XpyX9DnrXEc-unsplash-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1920,"caption":"Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2026\/07\/13\/two-recent-decisions-electrifying-building-decarbonization\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A Closer Look at Two Recent Decisions Electrifying the Building Decarbonization World"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/75d1beb7a8fa645d4284e1264db7a221","name":"Daniel J. Metzger","description":"Daniel J. Metzger is the Director of the the Cities Climate Law Initiative at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/danmetzger\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29277","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2659"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29277"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29277\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29301,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29277\/revisions\/29301"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}