In 2024, over 533,000 registered Washington voters signed initiatives.
That figure was the second largest initiative signature number in Washington State history. One of them, I-2066, was the only initiative of the four on the Nov. 5 ballot that passed. I-2066 was designed to allow the continuation of natural gas as an energy source besides electricity. The initiative was backed and funded by the conservative Building Industry Association of Washington and hedge fund manager Brian Heywood. The initiative is opposed in court by the city of Seattle and King County and several environmental groups. I-2066 passed with 51.7% yes votes.
Two lawsuits have been filed, one by the B.I.A.W., demanding that I-2066 amend state law for new construction which can include natural gas. This is based upon the election results.
The opponents of I-2066 are also suing Washington State to strike down the initiative as unconstitutional. The main issue is that the initiative as written is too broad and that it is trying to stop the ban on natural gas. I-2066 opponents argue that natural gas is not banned by state law.
Here are the arguments both pro and con:
Pro: “Brian Heywood has stated: ‘The legislature’s decision to eliminate natural gas as an energy source was clear overreach,’ Heywood stated. “We fought for Washington’s rural communities that couldn’t survive the freezing winters and grid blackouts without natural gas. We fought for small businesses who could not afford to retrofit their buildings to electric. We fought for Washingtonians tired of being forced to comply with policies that make their lives more difficult from a legislature that has proven they aren’t listening to citizens.”
Con: “The measure’s opponents claim that it rolls back necessary climate protections, while running up costs in the long run by forcing utility companies to maintain natural gas services, which are less efficient than sustainable alternatives” (King 5 News October 24, 2024).
The problem that I have for both positions is two-fold. I don’t trust the conservatives on the pro side because of their emphasis on profit over public good. I also don’t trust the environmentalists or progressives because this state has been dominated by progressives since 1985, the last time we had a Republican governor. Power tends to corrupt. Being in power for such a long time tends to create arrogance. Our current and future governors and the state legislature represent this hubris.
Part of me is happy that I-2066 is going to be decided by the state courts. Part of me hopes that the justice system will be fair and impartial. The realist in me also knows that the State Supreme Court is populated by progressives.
Here’s the non-partisan resource Ballotpedia states: “Among donors coded as either progressive or conservative, more than 99% of significant contributions toward the campaigns of winning state supreme court candidates were from progressive sources. 97% of significant contributions to losing Washington State Supreme Court candidates were from conservative sources.”
Here’s what the U.S. Energy Administration tells us about natural gas: “Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy.”
Just a few weeks ago, a large part of western Washington saw an enormous wind storm that knocked out electricity for over 600,000 residents. It took us two days to get our power back, and we live within the Enumclaw city limits. It took some of our relatives who live in the county four days.
We have a natural gas fireplace. That fireplace kept us warm during the power outage. If we had been limited to an electric heat pump as advocated by the current and future governors and current laws before I-2066’s passage, it would have been difficult to keep warm over time.
If Washington state progressives get their way, the option of having natural gas as an energy source will eventually disappear. Additionally, during the winter, current energy production by PSE is not up to the task of providing power in times of power outages without the inclusion of natural gas. Natural gas is a viable alternative and it should be maintained, especially in more rural settings where power outages take longer to repair.
The state Supreme Court will be the final arbitrators. Let’s hope the justices act in the best interests of all the residents of the state, not just the progressives.
