Governing Fair Building Electrification in Australia and California

Building electrification can reduce emissions by replacing fossil gas, but its effects on households depend on how the transition is managed. This paper compares Australia and California to examine how institutional arrangements affect the equity of the gas-to-electricity transition. The analysis draws on a review of 35 policy, regulatory and academic documents, supplemented by 14 stakeholder consultations undertaken between 2023 and 2025. The consultations were used to test interpretation of the documentary evidence and clarify institutional and implementation issues rather than to provide a representative qualitative dataset. Three areas are examined: planning and institutional coordination, management of declining gas infrastructure, and impacts on household energy costs and participation. Australia’s electricity planning framework provides a basis for least-cost planning, but does not yet provide an explicit framework for retiring distribution gas networks or allocating associated costs. California has substantial climate and energy policy capacity but a more fragmented regulatory system, including federal constraints on local action. The review identifies distributional differences and affordability pressures in both jurisdictions, including higher energy expenditure among Australian renters and substantial electricity tariff increases in California. The comparison suggests three areas for policy attention: considering equity in infrastructure planning, actively managing declining gas networks, and improving coordination between institutions. Building electrification is therefore not only a technology and investment issue but also a question of how infrastructure costs, network decline and household participation are governed.