Natural gas initiative ruled unconstitutional by Washington state Supreme Court

https://www.kuow.org/law/2026-09-17/natural-gas-initiative-ruled-unconstitutional-by-washington-state-supreme-court

It’s a loss for Let’s Go Washington, a conservative-backed funder of a flurry of initiatives in the last few years intended to provide a check on Democrat-dominated Olympia. The group managed to get some initiatives through the legislature in 2024, but has only been able to pass this one initiative at the ballot box. The group has three more initiatives up for a vote statewide in November.

Washington’s homebuilders’ association, which originated and defended the initiative, expressed disappointment at the ruling, but said they have no plans to appeal.

"Today's decision represents a direct rejection of the clearly expressed will of Washington voters," Greg Lane, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington, said in a statement. "Nearly 2 million citizens voted in favor of Initiative 2066 because they believed families and businesses should retain the freedom to choose the energy source that best meets their needs. The Court has now taken that choice away from them. This is government telling the people, ‘Your opinion doesn’t matter.’"

Climate advocacy groups and Seattle and King County sued to throw out the legislation after it passed, saying it deceptively bundled too many subjects under one initiative, limiting local authority over air quality standards and amending statewide building codes as well as repealing a part of the Decarbonization Act.

“You're presenting to voters a choice where you have to vote for something that is put out there as seemingly popular, and then you're bundling it with other provisions that are not popular in order to get those passed,” said Kai Smith, a partner at Pacifica Law who argued against the initiative in King County Superior Court last year. “That is deceptive, and that's why it's prohibited. The legislature can't do it, and we can't do it through initiatives to voters either.”

14 points · 20 comments · view on lemmy.world

20 Comments

chaospatterns@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 4d

Forcing everybody to go to electric, while good, is going to be very expensive. I'm dealing with a residential, high rise condo HVAC project that's considering switching to heat pump and ignoring the 2x-3x estimate cost difference with a like for like gas solution, the electrical capacity in our building is going to be strained.

I really think there should be some more incentives to help financially. We looked into a number of options. There were incentives to cut gas usage, or to cut electric usage, but none that I found that would incentivize switching from gas to electric.

That said, this initiative was clearly an over reaction and over regulation trying to even prevent cities from incentivizing reducing gas. I'm glad this initiative was over ruled.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm happy to see this decision. I am happy with this decision. I was adding some perspective from somebody dealing with a large project and the complexities of switching away from gas.

Large buildings are going to have to deal with electrical capacity limits. My building is lucky to have capacity for electrical HVAC units, but after that we don't know what we're going to do for the next gas unit that fails and if there's costly wiring.

tidderuuf@lemmy.world · -9 pts · 4d (18 replies)

Just goes to show that initiatives are pointless when the state is controlled by one party.

velma@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 4d (17 replies)

Initiatives are supposed to be about a single issue. Forcing in other items into the initiative other than the single issue is what made it unconstitutional.

If Let’s Go Washington had left it at the single issue of natural gas, the initiative would have stood. Instead they tried to trick the constituents of Washington State and got caught.

tidderuuf@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 4d (16 replies)

The state verified and approved for it to be on the ballot.

Theyve challenged the wording and legality of initiatives before they go on the ballot before. Why is it this one fell through and didn't get rejected or changed before going on the ballot?

velma@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 4d (15 replies)

Why even have a Supreme Court if all initial decisions are totally legal and never worth taking a second look at?

tidderuuf@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 4d (14 replies)

That wasn't my question.

velma@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 4d (13 replies)

Why do you think that the initiative being allowed on the ballot means that the Supreme Court decision is invalid?

Six of the nine Supreme Court justices signed onto a majority opinion that 2066 did include “four constitutionally distinct subjects,” and “it is impossible for us to assess which of these four subjects, if any, would have received majority support had they been presented alone at the November 2024 general election.”

”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,” said the majority opinion, which was signed by Chief Justice Debra Stephens and justices Raquel Montoya-Lewis, Steven Gonzalez, Colleen Melody, G. Helen Whitener, and Barbara Madsen, who has since retired.

tidderuuf@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 4d (12 replies)

Again... That wasn't my question. I was talking about the SOS and Governor and SAG, that state not specifically the State Supreme Court.

But it doesn't matter anyways people are going to believe what happened was right because it was their side that won.

velma@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 4d

It doesn’t matter now that the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional.

I’m sure that Heywood and Let’s Go Washington pulled all the strings and greased all the palms they possibly could to force this through. That’s my personal opinion based on their actions.