California Air Resources Board

I am a homeowner, and I recently became aware of the California Air Resource Board's proposed rule to ban gas water and space heaters beginning in 2030 and that this proposed rule was recently revised on 12/11/2025 to extend the time frame for banning these items until 2040, or possibly later until 2045. I don't fully understand the "Credit System" described in the amended proposed rule change, but I would hope it would not result in supply shortages or higher prices when a consumer is in need of a replacement water or space heater.  It's also my understanding that CARB has not finalized its recommendation and could choose to reverse this amended proposal back to its original 2030 deadline.

For the record, I oppose the banning of replacement gas water or space heaters.  With respect to the forthcoming decision, the longer the extension permitted the better for me and homeowners like me who find California's State and local taxes, fees, and cost of living unacceptably high. In speaking with many other homeowners, none of them were aware of this proposed mandate and wouldn't support any such mandates, especially when the option is always available to voluntarily install electric appliances instead of gas. In light of this, I have to question if CARB has done an effective and acceptable job communicating this proposed rule.  Are even 10 percent of California homeowners even aware of this proposed change?

I find it difficult to understand why this direction is being considered when the State's current electrical grid's ability to meet future anticipated needs for new housing, electric cars, data centers, etc. is tenuous at best.  There are so many other ways to address the climate concerns of CO2/other emissions.   I offer as an example, why isn't the restricting of private jets flying in California being considered?  In one of Bill Maher's many political commentaries in which he asks this very question, he shares a video showing the hundreds of private jets flying into and then out of Las Vegas just for the Superbowl; the majority of which were from California. [Reference: You Tube: #billmaher #climatechange #privatejets]. I would anticipate the aggregate avoidance in unwanted emissions from these private jets, along with other non-essential activities, would be very significant and over the course of a year may even be equivalent to the CARB's emissions goal under this proposed rule. It also seems reasonable to me that such alterative emissions reducing opportunities should have been looked at first before considering this mandate.   As it stands, California homeowners will be required to first figure out if their home's electrical panel and wiring is sufficient to accommodate the replacement electric units and then how to afford the additional cost that would not be necessary today.  I would also expect such a process (from engineering, permitting, to construction) to be lengthy leaving homeowners without hot water or heat for an extended period.

In closing, mandates that result in higher costs for essential needs such these is not the answer, incentivizing the market and California homeowners to move toward alternative options is.