An act to add Section 43013.4 to the Health and Safety Code, and to add Section 25969 to the Public Resources Code, relating to energy.
AB 1238, titled the California Energy Consumer Freedom Act, would limit the ability of state agencies and local governments, including charter cities, to adopt or enforce rules that directly or indirectly prohibit the use of gas stoves in residential or nonresidential buildings. The bill also extends that restriction to rules that would prohibit the buying, selling, or use of gasoline-powered vehicles or equipment. In addition, it expressly frames these restrictions as matters of statewide concern, not municipal affairs, so they would apply uniformly across all cities in California.
The measure is written to preempt local or state policies that could be interpreted as banning gas appliances or gas-powered transportation and equipment, including ordinances affecting natural gas hookups for new buildings. It would add one section to the Health and Safety Code and one to the Public Resources Code, creating a statutory barrier against local restrictions in these areas. The bill is positioned as a consumer-freedom and anti-ban measure rather than an energy-efficiency or emissions-reduction measure.
If enacted, AB 1238 would constrain state and local regulatory authority over gas stoves, natural gas hookups, gasoline-powered vehicles, and related equipment. It would likely affect local climate, building, and transportation policies by preventing jurisdictions from adopting measures that function as de facto bans on these products. The bill would also create a statutory basis for challenging local ordinances or agency rules that are seen as indirectly prohibiting their use, sale, or purchase, including in charter cities.
The available context suggests the bill was advanced without recorded committee debate or vote detail, and it was ultimately filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. The bill’s framing indicates support for consumer choice and resistance to local restrictions on gas appliances and gasoline-powered vehicles. At the same time, the subject matter places it squarely in the middle of California’s broader policy conflict over electrification, emissions reduction, and local control, which typically generates strong partisan and stakeholder interest.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s preemption of local authority, especially for cities that have adopted or considered climate-related building and transportation restrictions. Supporters would likely argue that the bill protects consumer choice, preserves access to gas appliances and gasoline-powered vehicles, and prevents fragmented local bans. Opponents would likely argue that it undermines local climate policy, interferes with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and limits municipal and state flexibility to transition away from fossil fuels.