Washingtonians narrowly approved Initiative 2066, the ballot measure that will hinder the state’s efforts to reduce climate pollution from buildings. It is the only one of the four state ballot measures backed by conservative group Let’s Go Washington that voters passed. I-2066 squeaked by with a 3-point margin, according to the latest vote tally, with 90 percent of ballots counted. That’s compared to the whopping 24-point margin by which voters rejected I-2117, which would have repealed the state’s cap-and-invest law, the Climate Commitment Act. (Environmental groups are promising legal challenges to the constitutionality of I-2066.)
The choice to pass I-2066 but reject I-2117 is contradictory, as I wrote before the election. In essence, it was a vote to maintain a cap on emissions, while rejecting tools that could actually reduce emissions.
What explains this inconsistency? And where does the effort to stop burning gas in Washington’s buildings go from here?
One lesson may be that future gas transition policies need to clearly paint a picture of what people gain by going all-electric—cleaner air, more comfortable homes, thicker wallets—not just what they’d be missing—in this case, the indoor air pollution that comes from gas-powered appliances and the greenhouse gas emissions that come from fracking for gas in the first place, among other drawbacks.
Moving forward, legislators and Governor-elect Bob Ferguson would be wise not to interpret I-2066’s narrow passage as a signal from voters to slow climate progress. Instead, they can take inspiration from Washingtonians’ overwhelming rejection of I-2117 and hold gas utilities accountable to fulfilling the intent of the immensely popular Climate Commitment Act.
Money, messaging, and movement backing: Why voters rejected one anti-climate initiative and passed the other
Of the four Let’s Go Washington measures on Washingtonians’ ballots, Initiative 2066 was the most likely to pass, according to pre-election polling. Initiative 2066’s confusing language certainly played a part. Five percent of voters left the question about I-2066 blank, the most of any of the four initiatives, according to the No on 2066 campaign.
But the effort to oppose I-2066 faced several other headwinds, which could help explain why voters approved the measure even though they signaled strong support for state climate solutions by resoundingly rejecting I-2117.
Scant funding and a misinformed Seattle Times endorsement made for an uphill battle against I-2066
The campaign against I-2066 ran on a shoestring budget, compared to the campaign against I-2117 to protect Washington’s Climate Commitment Act. No on 2066 raised less than 2 percent of the money that No on 2117 pulled in: $301,645 compared to more than $16 million. (Let’s Go Washington had more than $9 million at its disposal to support all four of its ballot measures.) The top two contributors to No on 2117—protecting the well-known Climate Commitment Act—included high-profile billionaires Steve and Connie Ballmer and Bill Gates, whereas the top two contributors to No on 2066 were local nonprofit environmental organizations Washington Conservation Action and Climate Solutions.
A misleading, error-ridden “yes” endorsement from the Seattle Times no doubt also helped I-2066 eke out a win. The two measures that the Seattle Times recommended voters reject, I-2117 and I-2109, both failed by more than 20-point margins. By contrast, the other initiative (besides I-2066) that the Times recommended a “yes” vote for, I-2124, failed by a narrower 10-point margin.
Voters could already see tangible wins from the Climate Commitment Act, helping the opposition to I-2117
One advantage that the No on 2117 campaign had over the No on 2066 campaign was the vested interest the Climate Commitment Act has already created across the state of Washington. The cap-and-invest program has raised more than $2 billion for diverse projects statewide in the less than two years it has been in effect. That money is going to fund real benefits for Washingtonians, from free transit passes for youth to cleaner, healthier school buildings. The spread of this funding throughout the state likely also helps explain how even counties that president-elect Donald Trump won voted to keep the Climate Commitment Act.
In other words, a “no” vote on 2117 likely felt like protecting benefits that Washingtonians already enjoy or feel invested in.
“Gas ban” disinformation confused voters and drowned out messaging about electrification benefits
By contrast, a “no” vote on 2066 may have felt like giving something up. The Yes on 2066 campaign’s repeated fearmongering about a ban on gas stoked this sentiment. Efforts by advocates to explain to the electorate that Washington does not and would not have any gas ban, regardless of the 2066 outcome, may have inadvertently reinforced the yes campaign’s loss or sacrifice framing.
To be clear, there are plenty of good reasons to give up burning natural gas in our homes and businesses. Burning gas for heat is responsible for about half of Washington’s carbon emissions from buildings. (Buildings are the second highest-emitting sector in the state, after transportation.) Gas that Washingtonians burn in their homes is also supremely dirty. It’s mostly fracked, an environmentally destructive extraction method linked to low birth weights, water pollution, and abrogation of First Nation treaty rights. And study after study shows that burning gas to cook food is a hazard to human health, with gas stoves emitting cancer-causing benzene and asthma-causing nitrogen dioxide, including in home kitchens with small children nearby—and their sensitive, developing lungs.
Still, a lesson for advocates may be the opportunity to doubly emphasize the major upsides that transitioning off gas makes possible. A vote to keep Washington hooked on gas locks people into a dirty, antiquated energy system, limiting their energy freedom and precluding the benefits of electrification. Like a cooler, more comfortable home to get through summer heat waves. Lower housing construction costs. A few extra dollars in your bank account each month, thanks to lower utility bills. And the carefree pleasure of cooking with your kids breathing the air nearby.
The law 2066 took aim at didn’t have the same movement backing as the Climate Commitment Act
Another key difference between I-2117 and I-2066 was the breadth and depth of support from advocates for the underlying policies that each sought to repeal. A broad array of organizations across Washington supported the original Climate Commitment Act. Detractors included some environmental justice groups, such as Front and Centered, which nonetheless urged its supporters to reject the I-2117 repeal effort. By contrast, the policies that I-2066 took aim at did not enjoy the same big tent of supporters.
Most notably, one of the laws that I-2066 repeals in part is House Bill 1589. The legislature first considered a similar law in 2023, ultimately passing a final version in 2024. The idea and original drafts of that bill were brought forward not by advocates but by Puget Sound Energy (PSE), the state’s biggest gas and electric utility and the company at the center of 1589’s focus. (Interestingly, PSE did not endorse the No on 2066 campaign.)
In between the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions, a handful of organizations that represent environmental and low-income consumer concerns, including Sightline Institute, spent several months developing recommendations for lawmakers who were considering re-proposing HB 1589. For example, several groups believed the legislature should take up a bill focused on decarbonizing all gas utilities in the state, instead of using the 2023 version of HB 1589 as a starting point, which only focused on PSE. Most groups also wanted to see a bill that required gas utilities to start piloting geographically targeted electrification and gas infrastructure pruning, something that could protect low-income gas customers from rising utility bills.
In the end, lawmakers declined to take up these recommendations, moving forward with a bill that focused only on PSE. That bill asked PSE to assess the potential for geographically targeted electrification but did not go so far as to require the utility to propose pilots for doing so. Initiative 2066 repealed that requirement from HB 1589.
Perhaps partially as a result, the No on 2066 coalition counted roughly 200 supporting organizations, compared to the nearly 600 groups that joined the No on 2117 effort.
Lawmakers now have another chance to put forward policies to shift Washington’s buildings off gas. By incorporating more of advocates’ recommendations, legislators may find their proposals to be more durable this time around.
What’s next: How WA leaders can hold gas utilities accountable to the Climate Commitment Act’s goals
The legislature cannot, according to the Washington state constitution, repeal the laws that I-2066 enacted for two years—at least not without a two-thirds majority in each legislative chamber. But there’s nothing stopping legislators from passing a new, stronger policy than HB 1589 that holds all gas utilities in the state to meeting Washington’s legally mandated climate targets.
When developing a new gas decarbonization policy, legislators would be smart to lean into the decisive victory of the Climate Commitment Act and more clearly communicate how the two policies connect. As I’ve written elsewhere, the gas utilities in Washington do not actually plan to reduce their emissions in line with the state’s greenhouse gas targets to comply with the Climate Commitment Act. Instead, they intend to buy allowances to keep pollution levels nearly unchanged over the coming crucial decades, according to their most recent integrated resource plans filed with regulators.
In fact, if the gas utilities in the state proceed according to their plans—complying by paying rather than by decarbonizing—they will require more allowances in 2050 than the program’s budget should allow to stay consistent with Washington’s greenhouse gas targets. What happens if that occurs? The state can issue more allowances, above the budgeted cap. That’s because lawmakers wrote an allowance price ceiling into the law: if demand for allowances exceeds supply, therefore pushing prices above the ceiling, the state can simply increase the supply of allowances to pull prices back down. (Most cap-and-trade laws include a price ceiling; this is not unique to Washington’s program.)
But counting on the price-pressure release valve of extra allowances defeats the purpose of the Climate Commitment Act, which is to encourage entities like PSE to find creative efficiencies, invest in cleaner infrastructure, and plan ahead for a steady path to lower emissions. Companies continuing to pay to pollute at levels close to today was likely not what voters had in mind when they rejected I-2117. A gas decarbonization policy could fill the gap.
Models from Massachusetts and WA’s own clean electricity law
Massachusetts’ 2021 Climate Roadmap bill offers perhaps the best example of a gas transition policy that Washington could emulate. That law, which applies to all gas utilities in Massachusetts, holds companies accountable for meeting their proportional share of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions. It also makes explicit utility regulators’ mandate to prioritize “reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to meet statewide greenhouse gas emission limits.”
Another way to think of a stronger, more comprehensive gas transition policy is like a Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) for gas utilities. CETA is Washington’s clean electricity law, a law that, interestingly, neither of the anti-climate initiatives on this year’s state ballot targeted for dismantling. Under CETA, electric companies must generate power free from greenhouse gas emissions by 2045, with interim targets between now and then. Electric utilities, like gas utilities, are covered under the Climate Commitment Act’s emissions cap. But it’s CETA, not the Climate Commitment Act, doing the heavy lifting to reduce these companies’ pollution. A similar measure to CETA for gas utilities makes sense.
Appoint a climate-forward commissioner to the Utilities and Transportation Commission
If the 2025 legislature does not take up a new gas transition policy in the wake of I-2066’s passage—or even if it does—the most promising place for Washington to keep curbing pollution from buildings will be the state’s Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC). The UTC regulates investor-owned gas utilities, among its other duties. As such, as I wrote last week, one of the first and most important climate decisions Governor-elect Bob Ferguson will make is whom to appoint to fill the soon-to-be-open seat at the Utilities and Transportation Commission.
Arguably, the legislature does not need to pass any new laws for the UTC to lead on climate. Lawmakers have already given the UTC instructions to: 1) consider “environmental health and greenhouse gas emissions reductions” when determining if a gas utility’s proposal for a rate increase is in the public interest; 2) develop new performance measures to assess utilities (a shift from traditional regulatory incentives) and consider factors including “attainment of state energy and emissions reduction policies”; and 3) study how gas utilities can decarbonize, a process that resulted in the finding that “regulatory agencies and utilities need to plan for a decadal drawdown of natural gas consumption.”
What could a climate-forward UTC that honors these mandates accomplish?
- It could require all gas utilities to show how they will achieve the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions mandates.
- It could demand that gas utilities plan for electrification, which study after study, including Washington’s own 2021 state energy strategy, shows is the cheapest and most efficient way to decarbonize buildings.
- It could prevent gas utilities from profiting from gas system expansion if non-gas alternatives, such as electrification or energy efficiency, are viable (a position Massachusetts regulators adopted in 2023).
- It could require that gas companies identify opportunities to shrink the gas system, to save ratepayers from paying for a bloated gas system.
With voters’ approval of I-2066, climate leadership at the state’s utility commission becomes more critical than ever.
Washingtonians want a cleaner, healthier future; a transition from gas to electricity is instrumental to getting there
Initiative 2066, the only one of the four conservative Let’s Go Washington ballot measures that voters passed—and narrowly so—benefited from an under-resourced “no” campaign, an endorsement from the Seattle Times, and confusing ballot language. That nearly half of Washingtonians voted against the measure despite these headwinds is testament to how popular climate action is in the state.
The opportunity ahead for state leaders, then, is to help constituents better understand the future denied to Washingtonians when the state is locked into a gas-fired system, as I-2066 tries to do. A future hooked on gas prevents Washingtonians from accessing best-in-class heating and cooling options to keep comfortable year-round and cleaner indoor air for workers and families going about their daily lives.
Washingtonians want a future of abundant energy options, clean air and water, and the benefits they enjoy from making polluters take responsibility for their pollution. They made that clear in their full-throated defense of the Climate Commitment Act. From Governor-elect Bob Ferguson to the legislature to the Utilities and Transportation Commission, the state’s leadership can help ensure we get there.
