State voter Initiative 2066 seeks to overturn regulations that discourage the use of natural gas. It’s one of four initiatives that the Let’s Go Washington campaign is promoting with the slogan, “vote yes, pay less.”
But opponents – including a list of cities – say it would drive energy bills up and undo critical work toward reducing climate-warming emissions.
The initiative’s backers say political leaders in Washington have waged a war against natural gas in recent years, using building codes and local government policies to force a transition to electricity.
They argue that the transition is still too costly for homeowners and businesses, who must pay tens of thousands of dollars each, for what they say would be a small reduction in carbon emissions.
“And then the second reason is simply that people should have the choice of the energy resource that they use in their home,” said Greg Lane, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington.
BIAW is sponsoring Initiative 2066 along with restaurateurs, realtors and many other independent businesses.
“They should be in control of what they want to use to heat and cook with. Natural gas is much less expensive than electricity, and it's more reliable than electricity,” Lane said.
Anthony Anton, the president and CEO of the Washington Hospitality Association, said he wasn’t sure at first about how phasing out natural gas would affect hotels and restaurants. So he went on a road trip to visit 20 cities statewide and talk to his members about the technology available to them that might replace natural gas.
“And that’s when my concern skyrocketed,” Anton said.
He said realistic replacements for things like commercial gas stoves and hotel fireplaces don’t exist yet.
“Your average restaurant went through COVID with the most horrific time in our industry, and came out of it with about $160,000 in debt. They don't have cash to make all these changes. We are so not ready for this,” he said.
Anton added that before allowing the state’s largest gas utility, Puget Sound Energy, to start planning for the transition, the legislature or state agencies “should have taken several years to work with us, and talk to us about how can we make this work.”
A number of local governments have struck back, by passing resolutions against I-2066.
Vancouver, Washington’s City Council was the first, in mid-September – followed by Bellingham, Sammamish, Redmond, Kirkland, King County and Olympia.
In formal discussions of the legislation, many city council members said they were supporting the resolutions against I-2066 to help guide local voters, who might find the ballot measure confusing or lack time to research it.
Others said it was important to send a message because their constituents had pushed them to do more to help their jurisdictions reduce the use of fossil fuels, especially in buildings, which are the second-largest source of carbon emissions in Washington, after transportation.
In Olympia, Mayor Pro tempore Yến Huỳnh spoke at length before the council vote. She said the messaging of the initiative’s sponsor’s is catchy and clever, but ultimately misleading.
“I actually feel like this limits choice. I mean, just by merely prohibiting our city municipality from being able to offer any sorts of discounts or or anything in the way of incentives to switch to energy, which would again, get [us] to our carbon — our climate goals — and also have a healthier community,” Huỳnh said.
The No-on-I-2066 campaign, backed by progressive groups, says the broad language in the initiative will shut down all kinds of programs, like rebates on heat pumps or incentives for energy efficiency. And this will cause energy costs to go up, especially for lower-income families.
It also prohibits utilities and local governments from planning for the transition to cleaner energy sources, driving their costs up and putting the state behind on its carbon reduction goals.
Leah Missik, Washington deputy policy director with the nonprofit Climate Solutions, said her group’s analysis indicates I-2066 would raise the average state resident’s gas bill by $150 per year in the coming years — because it takes away guard rails that help Puget Sound Energy navigate its evolving business model and its obligations to residents.
She said Puget Sound Energy specifically asked for help managing the transition toward increased electrification, with fewer gas and oil hookups.
“Because they were seeing a shrinking customer base and shrinking usage, and they needed to be able to manage that,” Missik said. “Otherwise you have a smaller and smaller group of folks who are responsible for paying the cost of a large system.”
“So if it [I-2066] passes, we could see an unmanaged transition, a chaotic transition and increased costs that will most likely fall on our neighbors living with lower incomes and BIPOC communities,” Missek said.
Voters must decide by casting their ballots by 8 p.m. on Election Day, Nov. 5..
Northwest Issues, Northwest Voices
The latest local news and stories about the 2024 election.
