The state Supreme Court on Thursday invalidated a ballot measure approved by voters in 2024 that sought to slow Washington’s shift from natural gas toward technology like electric heat pumps.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices affirmed a lower court ruling, finding Initiative 2066 “unconstitutional in its entirety” because it runs afoul of a provision limiting citizen initiatives to no more than one subject.
Because the measure includes “several provisions with markedly distinct purposes and regulatory effects, embracing four distinct subjects. It is not possible by judicial construction to sever and save any of the separate provisions and therefore I-2066 is unconstitutional in its entirety,” Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote for the majority.
Justice Sal Mungia wrote a dissent that Justices Sheryl Gordon McCloud and Charles Johnson joined. He argued he would find the initiative constitutional after removing three sections that “silently amend the law” in a way that voters could not understand their impact.
“Courts are required to construe initiatives in favor of constitutionality when possible,” he wrote. “This court can uphold much of I-2066 as constitutional and should do so.”
The initiative was 21 pages and broken into more than a dozen sections. It aimed to unwind changes to the state energy code that offer builders incentives in the permitting process for choosing electric heat pumps – which provide both heating and cooling in the same unit – instead of natural gas furnaces.
And it sought to repeal provisions in a 2024 state law intended to accelerate Puget Sound Energy’s transition away from natural gas. The measure also would have prevented approval of utility rate plans that would end or restrict access to natural gas, or make it too costly.
The Building Industry Association of Washington drew up the measure and enlisted Let’s Go Washington, a conservative political committee, to gather signatures to get it on the ballot.
Nearly 52% of voters approved it as it passed in 34 of Washington’s 39 counties including Snohomish and Pierce.
A coalition including Climate Solutions, Washington Conservation Action, Front and Centered, King County and the city of Seattle filed its suit within days of the election’s certification.
Its attorneys argued in a court filing that the measure’s “most obvious constitutional infirmity” was that it violated a prohibition on what is known as “logrolling.”
This is a practice in which an unpopular policy is attached to a popular one to increase its likelihood of enactment. The measure, opponents argued, contained several distinct policy choices and required voters to enact all or none of them.
The state of Washington is the primary defendant. The Building Industry Association of Washington was allowed to intervene to defend the measure.
Greg Lane, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington, repeatedly said in the course of the legal fight 2024 that “every single section” addressed the broader policy of protecting consumers’ choice to access and use natural gas.
The case known as Climate Solutions vs. State of Washington/Building Industry Association was argued on Jan. 22.
This is a developing story.
Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com.