An effort to curb Southern California’s smog problem by phasing out gas-powered water heaters and furnaces has stalled with a recently rejected proposal that was being considered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD).
Following a marathon public hearing that drew hundreds of speakers and more than 30,000 written comments, on June 6 the AQMD voted 7-5 to reject two proposed rules that were aimed at virtually eliminating the sales of gaspowered water heaters by 2036.
The proposed rules, Amended Rule 1111 and Amended Rule 1121, attempted to reduce the region’s biggest sources of smog, nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.
NOx is a group of gases that are primarily released during the combustion of fossil fuels and comprise the region’s largest sources of smog through their reaction with volatile organic compounds.
The rules had set non-binding sales targets for zero-emission appliances beginning in 2027. By 2036, the proposal envisioned 90 percent of all new residential and commercial heaters and furnaces sold in the fourcounty region (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino) would be electric.
Traditional gas-powered heaters and furnaces could still be sold by that date, but manufacturers would have faced per-unit fees for continued sales of gas-powered models, which would likely have been passed on to consumers.
Proceeds from those sales would have helped fund low-income consumer incentives.
According to most estimates, the switch to electric appliances would reduce emissions by six tons per day by 2061, equivalent to the projected output of regional oil refineries.
CalMatters, which calls itself a non-profit and non-partisan California news organization, said the now-rejected rule was the biggest smog-fighting proposal the region has considered in years.
And drafting the proposal was also years in the making.
For two years, in fact, the South Coast AQMD, which regulates air quality across much of LA, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties, had been working to update gas furnace and water heater regulations and incentivize their replacement with all-electric appliances.
But the pushback against the proposals had been considerable, with affected appliance manufacturers, industry associations, and utilities lobbying against the rules.
SoCal Gas stated that the rules would force the public to pay hundreds of dollars more to replace gas appliances and that it is not in the public interest to raise upfront costs for consumers seeking affordable energy.
The Association of California Cities — Orange County wrote to the South Coast AQMD expressing concerns over cost, public awareness, and infrastructure capacity.
“We have substantial concerns about the electrical grid’s capacity to handle the increased demand that would result from widespread electrification,” Kris Murray, executive director of the Association of California Cities — Orange County, wrote in the letter.
“Without detailed cost analysis and firm commitments regarding rebates and incentives, we risk placing an undue burden on homeowners and multifamily property owners — many of whom are already struggling with housing affordability.”
The Pool and Hot Tub Alliance and the California Pool and Spa Association have objected to proposals that ban natural gas pooland spa-related appliances, arguing that the technology to replace gas heaters with electric alternatives is not yet sufficiently advanced.
Nonetheless, in June 2024, the South Coast AQMD did vote to enact a new rule phasing out gas-fired water heating equipment for pool and hottub owners.
The zero-emission standards phaseout for pool and spa equipment is scheduled to begin in 2027 for new buildings and conclude 2033 for existing buildings.
The current vote also captured national attention after U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli issued a warning that the U.S. Justice Department would sue to block the rules, citing federal preemption over appliance energy standards.
“California regulators are on notice: if you pass illegal bans or penalties on gas appliances, we’ll see you in court. The law is clear — feds set energy policy, not unelected climate bureaucrats,” Essayli wrote on X.
(According to the federal preemption argument, because the rules sought zero-emission appliances, they were effectively a ban on natural gas appliances, which state or local governments may not impose because only the federal government may regulate appliance energy use. That’s because in the 1970s, the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act was enacted to improve energy efficiency for certain products like appliances, which overrides state or local laws when they are in conflict.)
It was on the heels of this legal action that the South Coast AQMD called the vote, with board members voicing both sides of the debate.
“I, like everybody here, support clean air,” said Janet Nguyen, AQMD board member. “But we must also pursue environmental progress without punishing the very people we serve today.
These rules don’t target refineries or shipping ports.
They target people.” Other AQMD board members felt that the proposed rules did not go far enough to address the severity of Southern California’s air pollution and said that the region consistently fails federal air quality standards.
“We have to make tough decisions on the greater good every day,” said AQMD board member Holly Mitchell. “I think that we have to do what we can as quickly as we can, to get into [air quality] attainment, to avoid federal penalties and to do what’s in the best interest of the public’s health.”
Ultimately, South Coast AQMD sent the rules back to committee, citing increased housing costs and equity concerns.
Most were convinced by arguments about the financial burden for low- and fixed-income residents, particularly related to electric panel upgrades and the higher upfront costs of electric heat pumps.
Environmental advocates have called the board’s reversal a capitulation to political threats and industry lobbying, viewing the board's decision as a setback for public health and climate action in the region.
The proposed rule is now headed back to the agency’s Stationary Source Committee, with any revisions unlikely to return for a full vote before 2026.
