Two of the four measures on Washington state’s ballots this fall, Initiatives 2066 and 2117, take aim at the state’s climate policies. I-2117, the better known of the two, would repeal the state’s cap-and-invest law, the Climate Commitment Act. I-2066 would restrict Washington’s ability to decarbonize buildings, the state’s second highest emitting sector.
Yet support for the two initiatives diverges. Roughly 44 percent of respondents indicated they would approve I-2066 compared to just 30 percent who said they would approve I-2117, according to an October Seattle Times poll. Roughly a quarter of respondents were undecided on each measure. And some media outlets, such as the Seattle Times, recommend Washingtonians split their votes: approving I-2066, while rejecting I-2117. (In case you missed it, I fact-checked the Seattle Times editorial board’s misleading and mistake-laden “yes” endorsement of I-2066).
Contrary to what the divergent polling and endorsements suggest, I-2066 and I-2117 are closely interconnected. So, too, are the underlying climate policies they would roll back.
Sightline does not support or oppose any 2024 ballot initiatives. But we do endorse clear thinking and consistent reasoning. And in this case, a split vote is inconsistent. Here’s why:
Recap: What are I-2117 and I-2066?
I-2117 would repeal the Climate Commitment Act, Washington’s landmark cap-and-invest law, and prohibit the state from enacting another similar policy in its stead. The Climate Commitment Act, which Washington elected officials passed in 2021, sets a declining limit on carbon pollution for the state’s biggest emitters. The law has so far raised more than $2 billion for climate- and community-friendly projects in Washington since it went into effect in January 2023. Here’s my detailed explainer of the Climate Commitment Act.
I-2066 takes aim at Washington’s efforts to decarbonize buildings, the state’s second highest emitting sector. It does this in two big ways. First, I-2066 would repeal numerous sections of a 2024 state law (HB 1589) that requires Washington’s biggest utility, Puget Sound Energy (PSE), to develop a plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I-2066 specifically would get rid of a requirement that PSE create a plan for cost-effective electrification (e.g., swapping out gas-fired furnaces for high-efficiency electric heat pumps). Second, I-2066 would add preemptive restrictions on Washington cities, towns, and state agencies, making it harder to incentivize buildings in the state to transition away from burning gas and toward using clean electricity and to move toward all-electric new construction. Here’s my detailed explainer of I-2066.
The Contradiction: Maintaining Washington’s Emission’s Cap, While Repealing a Policy that Aims to Curb Emissions
If the latest polling is indicative, voters could reject I-2117, thus keeping the Climate Commitment Act as state law. At the same time, voters could approve I-2066, which would make it harder for Washington’s biggest utility to achieve the goals of the Climate Commitment Act. Let me explain why.
The Climate Commitment Act incentivizes all big polluters in Washington, including utilities like PSE, to reduce their carbon pollution to levels consistent with the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. Gas utilities receive a set number of emissions allowances every year, each worth one metric ton of carbon pollution. Utilities receive fewer allowances each year proportional to the statewide emissions cap set by the Climate Commitment Act. (Washington provides utilities with free allowances to mitigate the cost of compliance with the Climate Commitment Act on utility customers.) If a gas utility’s carbon pollution exceeds the number of free allowances it receives, the company must buy more allowances, which become scarcer and thus more expensive over time.
In other words, the Climate Commitment Act encourages gas utilities like PSE to reduce their carbon emissions by making polluting more expensive, but it does not require them to do so. A company could be in compliance with the Climate Commitment Act without meaningfully reducing its pollution.
PSE proposed relying heavily on buying additional allowances—and passing those costs on to customers—to comply with the Climate Commitment Act, rather than reducing its emissions by helping its customers transition from gas to electricity.
In fact, buying emissions allowances to keep polluting is exactly what PSE planned to do before lawmakers passed HB 1589 (the law I-2066 repeals in part). PSE proposed relying heavily on buying additional allowances—and passing those costs on to customers—to comply with the Climate Commitment Act, rather than reducing its emissions by helping its customers transition from gas to electricity. The company’s “preferred portfolio” would only reduce its emissions by 27 percent by 2050—the same year Washington has committed to zeroing out its carbon pollution. The chart below from PSE’s 2023 integrated resource plan shows in the dark grey shading these “net additional allowances” the company planned to purchase to keep polluting.
Chart 1: Puget Sound Energy’s most recent plan proposed relying heavily on buying allowances, rather than reducing emissions, to comply with the Climate Commitment Act
At least, the chart above was PSE’s plan for complying with the Climate Commitment Act before lawmakers passed HB 1589 in March 2024. (Reminder: HB 1589 is the law that I-2066 would repeal in part.)
HB 1589 requires PSE to develop a plan that actually reduces its greenhouse gas emissions as the Climate Commitment Act intends, not simply pay to keep polluting. More specifically, HB 1589 requires PSE to develop a plan to electrify end uses, such as home heating, currently powered by burning natural gas. (All credible climate studies, including Washington’s own 2021 state energy strategy, show that electrification is the cheapest and most efficient way to curb climate-warming pollution from buildings.) HB 1589 also requires PSE to devote more of the money it makes by selling its free allowances to programs that help its customers electrify as well as to evaluate alternatives to spending customer money laying down new gas pipes.
But I-2066 would repeal all of these electrification planning requirements in HB 1589. In doing so, it would rob the state of the only policy on the books that asks PSE to chart out a plan for complying with the Climate Commitment Act in a way that actually reduces emissions.
Here’s another way to look at what a split vote would mean. Keeping the Climate Commitment Act while repealing the electrification planning requirements in HB 1589 is like saying you’ll clean the house but throwing away your broom. Or taking your kids hiking but not letting them bring their shoes. Or buying a new bicycle but taking the chain off the gears. You can perhaps use a dry mop, hope your kids have healthy calluses, and ride the bike downhill at least, but it’ll all be harder, less pleasant, and less efficient for getting the results you want.
At Stake: Washington’s Commitment to Cleaner, Healthier Future
There is no world in which Washington state will meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets without transitioning buildings to clean electricity and away from burning fossil fuels, including gas. The cap-and-invest program of the Climate Commitment Act is one big step to helping Washington achieve its emissions goals, but it alone will not get the state all the way there. That’s especially true if companies like gas utilities simply pay to keep polluting to comply with the program, rather than reduce their emissions.
HB 1589 is one example of a complementary policy that helps put the Climate Commitment Act’s goals in motion, pushing the state’s biggest utility to meaningfully curb its pollution by planning for electrification. A split vote—to keep the Climate Commitment Act but repeal parts of HB 1589—is a split commitment to a cleaner, healthier future for Washingtonians.
