Legal wrangling over the ballot initiative blocking Washington’s efforts to phase out natural gas use in homes intensified Wednesday when opponents sued, alleging the measure violates the state constitution and should be tossed.
The lawsuit, filed in King County Superior Court, argues Initiative 2066 is unconstitutional because it runs afoul of a provision limiting citizen initiatives to no more than one subject and requiring them to contain the full text of the portion of state laws they would alter.
Plaintiffs, who include Climate Solutions, Washington Conservation Action, Front and Centered, King County and the city of Seattle, also seek an injunction to prevent the initiative from being implemented. The state of Washington is the sole defendant.
“This Initiative is too broad to be implemented constitutionally. It could affect regulations that protect our air, protect public health, ensure building safety, and respond to the realities of climate change,” Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell said.
Wednesday’s action comes after sponsors of Initiative 2066 sued on Dec. 6 to force a state building panel to bring Washington’s energy rules for new construction in line with requirements in the initiative. The measure passed in November with 51.7% of the statewide vote.
“Millions of voters have spoken and Initiative 2066 is now law,” said association Executive Vice President Greg Lane. “Above all else, the members of the State Building Code Council have a duty and obligation to follow state law.”
One measure, two lawsuits
Initiative 2066 takes aim at the state’s combination of regulations and laws to move swiftly away from natural gas toward technology like electric heat pumps.
It aims to unwind changes to the energy code, approved by the state Building Code Council, that went into effect in March. Those rules offer builders permitting incentives for choosing heat pumps – which provide both heating and cooling in the same unit – instead of natural gas furnaces.
The 21-page measure repeals provisions in a state law, House Bill 1589, intended to accelerate Puget Sound Energy’s transition away from natural gas. The initiative also requires utilities and local governments to provide natural gas to eligible customers. And it prevents approval of utility rate plans that end or restrict access to natural gas, or make it too costly.
Opponents contend that the measure is unconstitutional because it deals with at least two different subjects – the law concerning future planning by Puget Sound Energy and the array of changes to the state energy code.
Their suit also contends it “improperly amends existing laws” by not spelling out the full text of proposed alterations. And a third claim is that the ballot title did not fully describe for voters what the initiative would do.
Advocates maintain that I-2066 backers misled Washington voters with an extensive misinformation campaign that did not address its broad scope and potential harms, including higher energy bills and reduced access to energy efficiency upgrades.
People thought they were voting on one thing, natural gas, and found out they were voting on others, Leah Missik, deputy director with Climate Solutions, said Wednesday.
“With this lawsuit, we are glad to be standing up to misinformation and to challenge industry interlopers in Washington politics,” she said.
Lane has repeatedly brushed aside those arguments, saying Initiative 2066 was carefully crafted with such a challenge in mind and that every section addresses protecting the choice to access and use natural gas.
“Those who want to ban natural gas have been clear that they’ll use every avenue available to undermine Washington’s democracy and the people of Washington’s right to initiative. We stand ready to fight,” Ashli Penner, general counsel for the building association, said Wednesday.
A hearing on the constitutional challenge is expected early next year. Ultimately, the state Supreme Court may have the last word, said attorney Kai Smith with Pacifica Law Group which is representing the plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, officials with the Building Industry Association of Washington said attorneys for the state will be responding to the group’s complaint in January. It could be months later before the matter comes to trial.
Before suing, the builders’ group pressed the state Building Code Council to quickly adopt changes through emergency rules.
Instead, in late November, the council voted to have a technical advisory group review revisions made to the residential and commercial building codes earlier in the year that are targeted by the initiative and recommend any changes needed to true them up.
At the time, council members said they wanted to be deliberative, knowing there was a potential for court challenges that could roil the regulatory landscape. They viewed their approach as a “good faith effort” to comply without disrupting or creating regulatory uncertainty for builders.
– By Jerry Cornfield, Washington State Standard
Why is it that our government and activist groups fight the will of the people, do the people have a voice anymore or have we devolved into authoritarian rule?
Wait what is going on here? Follow the money..$$$$$. We voted and this should be ILLEGAL to do.
Big brother doesn’t like the the people’s choice!
THE PEOPLE SPOKE! Get over it!
Remember when we voted for $30 car tabs?
Thank goodness someone is fighting this asinine measure. It was written in a way to confuse people and make it difficult to understand what it was doing. Hopefully the courts agree and fix it.
You are correct Mr. Bond, it was written in a manner that was confusing, because it was influenced by the very people who are suing to block it now. All 4 initiative were written in such a way that they were virtually unrecognizable from the petitions we signed. This initiative and other 3 had overwhelming support when expressed simply to the people voting and I have little doubt they all would have passed if worded more simply on the ballot.
The backers of this measure lied telling petition signers that Washington was banning gas. Even PSE said this was not true. Washington was just incentivizing new homes being built to have heat pumps put in but builders could still put in gas if they want. There was no ban. The cheapest time to put in a heat pump is when a home is being built. New home owners would benefit if clean and efficient heat pumps save them dollars every month on their energy bills. It would be a pain-free way to slowly transition off of fossil fuels to save our Children’s future. Since the backers of this initiative lied, I am glad for the lawsuit to overturn it. We need to think of the children and what their lives will be like because of climate breakdown. The backers cheated and apparently didn’t follow the law when writing up the ballot measure. You need to follow the law.
Where do those incentives get funded? Either through more restrictive and prohibitive natural gas pricing strategies (i.e. more taxes or a higher cost of delivery), or through tax incentives with money the State does not have, but would probably craft legislation that passes unfunded mandates down to the Cities a la the recent Housing legislation, through subsidized purchase programs, or all of the above. Decommissioning gas infrastructure costs money too, add that new surcharge to the mix. The good news is that China, India, and other populated producing Countries will gladly continue to buy cheap US LNG, and US Coal to burn the hell out of while we price our industries out the market (WA has the luxury of relatively cheap power with Hydro, Nuclear, and Wind – not everyone does), but if not our industries, additional costs will certainly make housing less affordable for some of those impacted by increased costs. That’s okay, the State has given us some guidelines to handle the affordability of homes, so those guidelines coupled with a few billion dollars and 20 years of upzoning combined with this restrictive legislation on natural gas will save us from environmental Armageddon.
No George. It was not a monetary incentive. It was just points in the building code. And you do realize that anyone using fossil fuels is not paying the true costs of using them. The damage that we are already seeing from climate change to infrastructure and disaster costs like fighting wild land fires or cleaning up after floods that are increasing from climate breakdown are huge costs born by every single taxpayer. We should all be thankful for anyone who reduces their carbon output by using more efficient appliances because they are helping to cut those future costs to all of us.
It’s a net increase in the cost of service. You’re telling me the Heat Pump folks are going to subsidize the fixed cost of gas delivery spread over their power bill? While we are at it, let’s go down the list. 2. Agriculture – charge a surtax on meat. People need to eat less meat. 3. Humankind – we need to cull the population by 10-20%, the act of mere human body functions and decomposition is killing us. 4. Fashion – the overwhelming demand for Costco synthetic clothes, synthetic fabrics, and again, cheap trends is killing us. Surcharge for anything that is not carbon neutral or derived from natural gas. 5. Restaurants and Open Flame cooking – in conjunction with less.mear,.we can replace barbecues with stamped tofu grill marks and heat those tofuburgers with solar. I am not arguing that this measure wouldn’t reduce Statewide natural gas use. It would. How? Less demand, higher prices, additional taxes (incentives) and miracles that shoot out of unicorn tails….
this might be relevant:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prakashdolsak/2024/11/12/washington-voters-favor-pollution-cap-but-not-transitioning-from-gas/
In fact, I think we should pass legislation that taxes every individual who is not a.Washington Citizen the “F.A.R.T. Program'” that i just thought up. It’s the Fart Assement Reduction Treaty and is a.formula fee based on weight and certification of dietary habits, to contribute additional funding to the carbon trade pool, funded by people importing their natural gas.into our fair State. If they are deemed to be skipping the fee, they will be forced to pay double the average F.A.R.T. Levy.
I want a safe and safer environment. I want a reasonable way to get there. Every action government takes through “incentives” has a cost.
My program also includes regulations for the fashion and fabric industry.
S.H.I.R.T. – synthetic harm incentives, reduction, taxation program will administer several programs and offices.
O.F.F. – The office of finance and finest will be responsible for setting a collecting the surcharge on synthetic clothes.
M.Y. – This is the impound lot Material Yard for counterfeit synthetics that have usurped any fees.
B.A.C.K. – Finally, the enforcement division of the program. The Bureau of Assement, Compliance, and knowledge will make sure all those puffy jackets have been properly taxed.
Unfortunately, much like any government program, the administration of the program will use 65% if the funds, dozed out to only the finest consultants, but overall, I am pretty sure people will start wearing more burlap dresses and flour sacks made from only natural fibers and we will not only save ourselves, but probably some of Oregon and BC too. They should be thanking us.
To further protect the most vulnerable urban populations West of the mountains, I support and propose the following program to penalize those evil Meat producers east of the Mountains. It’s simple – B.U.LL. – Bovine Urban Liability Licensing will be required to force farmers to consider the downtrodden lives us Urban dwellers are forced to live because of their animal husbandry and promotion of beef as a food. C.R.A.P. – Committee for Restricted Animal Products is the enforcement arm. Again, this will teach those evil farmers the real.meaning of the sacrifices that us Urbanites suffer because of their Bivine emissions.
Now the Courts will decide if the Initiative is Constitutional or not. I voted against all the Initiatives because I don’t think law by Initiative is a good idea on the philosophical side of things in general. On the practical side we just replaced our gas furnace with the cheapest gas furnace we could find. We made this decision based on simple economics ($20K vs. $6K) and new up zoning state law that will affect the viability of both our keeping our house long term (along with our advanced age) and the high probability that our house will soon get torn down due to the probable effect of the new state zoning law. That’s how decisions get made in the real world where people just have to cope with the latest version of what politicians think is a good idea.
In your case it makes sense to replace your furnace like you did since the ROI was not there…. But for others they may save way more in heating costs over the years with a heat pump and there are subsidies available to help with the initial costs. We just don’t need initiatives that would stand in the way of people making the transition to heat pumps and induction stoves or heat pump water heaters or dryers. And encouraging builders to put these appliances in homes that are just being built is the most effective way to do this. I think the important thing is to realize that doing nothing to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels is going to cost so much more in dealing with the catastrophic effects. It will break our economy. There will be so many displaced people too which will create a burden on places like Washington as they show up here. And long before it gets to this extreme our homeowners insurance will go through the roof because insurers can’t keep up. This is already happening across the country even in places like the Midwest where common things like windstorms are getting more destructive. Do you want your insurance rates to go up?
And where do we get all the electric power to run these heat pumps, cook stoves, and heaters? ANS: fossil fuel. The existing grid is, already, overloaded. WPPSS (Whoops) would come in handy about now!
This is a slow transition. It doesn’t happen overnight. And the biggest way to help is too put in energy saving devices like heat pumps hir heating and cooling as well as heat pump water heaters and dryers and also induction stoves. When you save energy through these appliances you don’t need as much new energy. That is called energy conservation and a lot still needs to be done.
I 100% agree with what you are saying,.my issue is that “just points in the building code” is an incentive. I agree with any legislation that removes barriers for smart decisions. Much like affordable housing regs that offer community benefits, the benefit to the community can be measured against the incentives we give to the developers. I live in a 1962 home piped for gas with a brand new gas furnace and a brand new gas instant water heater. Why? The upfront costs were cheaper, and 9 year payback in the difference wasn’t worth it to do a heat pump, and I figured i could do minisplits for cooking. Again, Washington has the luxury of cheap power. Every initiative that encourages electric should be used, but the taxpayers, through incentives, shouldn’t subsidize those points in the building code. The developers should or the home buyer who is paying less for utilities should understand the value.
But it’s the builder who pays the costs when they build the house not the taxpayer And remember that there are costs to the utility for adding new gas supply infrastructure and maintaining it. Even with nuclear it is the taxpayer that has to pay for storage of waste and the taxpayer is on the hook for cleanup of any radioactive accident. Conservatives never mention all the costs associated with the costs of energy they like… they just whine about the costs for cleaning up the climate. It will be less expensive to clean up the climate through weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels than to keep on the way we are headed. We have cheap fossil fuel energy because we are not paying for all the destruction it is causing and we have for decades been subsidizing oil and gas and coal through tax subsidies. Taxpayers need to realize the cost to them of not getting off fossil fuels.
It is only “unconstitutional” if Democrats don’t like it. They think “the people” are too stupid to know what they voted for. They are the true threat to Democracy.
I one half agree with you Mark. Democrats aren’t the enemy within, the party system as a whole is the enemy within. It’s making us all enemies of each other instead of bringing us together to share ideas that might really solve problems for everyone instead of just rich people or poor people. The middle class which you and I are probably both members of is getting destroyed by this party group think outlook on everything. We are slowly becoming a nation of mostly peons serving a group of really really rich people who are now banded together world wide. Sort of like before we were a stand alone country. Our first President warned us about this when he refused to become our KIng.
Good point, our founding fathers feared political parties. I think we are witnessing why.