That is why the next wave of natural gas appliance policies needs to clear two hurdles: a legal test and a market reality test.  

Courts are divided on whether states can restrict gas appliances, require all-electric construction, or impose emissions standards that effectively eliminate certain products. Federal courts have reached different conclusions on how federal energy preemption applies to these policies. These disagreements will continue to create uncertainty for states, manufacturers, distributors, and contractors unless the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately decides how far state authority extends.  

The Supreme Court has already shown that federal appliance mandates affecting consumer choice remain unsettled. In June, the Supreme Court sent the U.S. Department of Energy’s 95% furnace and commercial water heater efficiency standards back to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for reconsideration after the federal government reversed its position.  

HARDI’s amicus brief in the case argued the standards would effectively eliminate many commonly used non-condensing furnaces and water heaters. The rule stays in effect for now while the case is reconsidered, but the court’s action confirms that federal appliance mandates limiting consumer choice remain very much an open question.  

In fact, a recent ruling out of New York is proof that winning the legal argument isn’t a given. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the state’s All-Electric Buildings Act and New York City’s Local Law 154 against a federal preemption challenge, rejecting the argument that federal energy law blocks state and local electrification mandates. That decision may encourage other states to pursue similar all-electric building requirements in 2027.  

For distributors and contractors, a court ruling does not answer every practical question. It does not determine whether consumers retain meaningful choices, whether a policy accounts for different housing types and energy needs, or whether customers are left with fewer, more expensive, or less practical options.  

This is where the market-reality test comes in. The question is not only whether a state can impose these policies, but whether those policies preserve meaningful consumer choice in the real market. Do compliant products exist, and are they available in sufficient volume? Can distributors stock them? Can contractors install and service them? Do they work for propane customers, manufactured housing, rural communities, emergency replacements, older buildings, and small businesses?  

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then the policy does not preserve choice. True choice requires a market in which multiple lawful, available, and practical products can compete. When a state bans natural gas appliances, limits gas service, or sets emissions standards that only a narrow set of products can meet, consumers lose options long before they ever reach a contractor’s proposal.  

Colorado is the clearest recent example of what happens when a policy overlooks market reality. Colorado’s ultra-low-NOx law was not written as a direct ban on gas and was framed as an emissions standard. But the market-reality problem still appeared, especially for propane and manufactured-home applications, where compliant products simply weren’t available in sufficient supply. For the consumers affected, the practical result was the same as a ban: The choice they had before the mandate was gone.  

Colorado lawmakers eventually had to revisit the law and create relief for propane-fueled products and products used exclusively in manufactured homes. HARDI supported this legislative relief as a necessary correction when compliant products were unavailable. It’s a warning for every state considering natural gas restrictions, or low-, ultra-low-, or zero-NOx rules in 2027: A policy that looks reasonable on paper can still fail consumers if it assumes product availability that isn’t there.  

The outlook for 2027 is clear. More states will consider electrification requirements and energy choice protections. More agencies will look to emissions standards as an indirect means of restricting combustion equipment. The central question for legislators should not be whether they can write increasingly creative restrictions, but whether those restrictions preserve consumer choice in the market as it exists today.  

For HARDI, that means pushing lawmakers to reject policies that eliminate lawful, available, and practical equipment options. At a minimum, any state considering appliance restrictions or emissions mandates should require a product availability review before implementation. Policymakers should also include clear exemptions for applications for which compliant products are unavailable, delayed effective dates when the market is not ready, and automatic safety valves when consumers would otherwise be left without workable replacement options.  

All of these developments make distributor participation in grassroots advocacy more important than ever. In legislative discussions, consumer choice is often treated as a broad concept, but distributors are well-positioned to show what it looks like in practice. They can explain which products are currently stocked, which manufacturers can supply, where compliant models are unavailable, and what happens when a homeowner, small business, restaurant, or resident of a manufactured home needs a replacement product that the policy has effectively taken off the table.  

Without these local, real-world accounts, lawmakers may assume the market will adjust automatically once a mandate is in place. In reality, the supply chain requires time and coordination. Manufacturers must design, test, certify, and produce compliant products. Distributors must purchase and stock them. Contractors must be able to install and service them. Consumers need options that work for their homes, businesses, budgets, and urgent replacement situations.  

Distributors do not need to be legal experts to be effective advocates. The most persuasive messages cover what consumers can buy today, what options would be lost under a proposal, and where replacement products are not yet available or cannot be supplied at scale.  

Future gas appliance policy must pass the consumer choice and market reality tests. Before states limit products, restrict fuels, or impose emissions standards that narrow the market, they should prove that consumers will still have lawful, available, affordable, and practical options.  

Colorado shows what happens when policy runs ahead of product availability. New York shows that these debates will continue moving through statehouses even while courts are divided. Looking to the near future, distributors need to make sure lawmakers hear from the businesses that know what is actually available before another patchwork of mandates restricts consumer choice and leaves the supply chain to sort out the consequences.