We can all agree, using natural gas as a fuel source causes air pollution.

But are the environmental costs of this fuel source worth ridding the state of its benefits? That is the real question that will be explored in this column.

Here’s what the text of 2066 initiative says:

• “The commission shall not approve, or approve with conditions, a multiyear rate plan that requires or incentivizes a gas company or large combination utility to terminate natural gas service to customers.

• The commission shall not approve or approve with conditions, a multiyear rate plan that authorizes a gas company or large combination utility to require a customer to involuntarily switch fuel use either by restricting access to natural gas service or by implementing planning requirement that would make access to natural gas service cost-prohibitive.”

If one looks at the contributions to this initiative, supporters contributed $12.8 million. Opponents contributed $27,564 to defeat it. Here’s an announcement from Ballotpedia, a non-partisan research organization:

“Ballotpedia has not located a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure. You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.”

“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. For comparison, for every 1 million Btu consumed (burned), more than 200 pounds of CO2 are produced from coal and more than 160 pounds of CO2 are produced from fuel oil. The clean-burning properties of natural gas have contributed to increased natural gas use for electricity generation and for fleet vehicle fuel in the United States.”(eia.gov)

Here are arguments for and against passage of Initiative 2066:

Greg Lane, Executive Vice President of the Building Industry Association of Washington: “It is very simple. If you have natural gas, this protects you to be able to keep natural gas in your home or your business. And it protects the freedom of every single Washingtonian to have the clean energy of their choice.”

Leah Missik, Acting Washington Director for Climate Solutions: “It’s really about folks who are trying to squeeze out profit at our expense and our health. And it’s really important that we transition to cleaner and healthier energy — we’re on a path to do so —and that we’re very thoughtful about it. And this initiative would repeal policies that would put us on that pathway in a very smart way.”

Here’s my analysis of Initiative 2066:

The arguments for this initiative play on the fear that environmentalists — Democrats — are out to get rid of natural gas as a fuel source. Based upon the Climate Control Act passed by the State Legislature, this fear is realistic.

Here’s a quote from my earlier column on the Washington Climate Commitment Act from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission:

“The problem is that the rates will continue to rise. Each year utilities receive “no cost allowances” in the amount of 93% in 2023 in regard to natural gas prices. That percentage will decrease by 7% per year. The floor and ceiling prices of the auction market are mandated to increase by 5% plus inflation each year.”

Initiative 2066 overlaps with Initiative 2177. Both initiatives seek to undermine the Washington Climate Commitment Act passed by the Democratically controlled legislature and Democratic Governor Jay Inslee. Initiative 2066 goes after issues that directly affect the building and hospitality trades. Initiative 2177 seeks to stop the state from taxing natural gas out of existence and ending the Cap and Invest “allowances” which are designed to be used to subsidize low-income workers for higher energy costs, to buy non-polluting electric ferry boats and busses and move toward all electric energy. Paying $200 to low-wage workers seems a pittance in contrast to the actual price increases to energy.

The arguments in favor of the Washington Climate Commitment Act reducing global warming and pollution don’t provide enough evidence that the benefits of cutting/eliminating natural gas as an energy source in Washington State are worth the costs of rising inflation and taxation.

If only $27,644 could be raised in opposition to Initiative 2066 and no organized opposition has stepped forward, it doesn’t speak well to environmental support.

My recommendation is to vote for Initiative 2066.