WA Supreme Court strikes down voter-approved natural gas initiative, drawing sharp reactions from both sides

The Washington Supreme Court has struck down a voter-approved initiative that sought to protect access to natural gas, ruling that the measure violated the state Constitution by combining multiple subjects into a single initiative.

The 6-3 decision Thursday invalidates Initiative 2066 in its entirety. The measure was approved by Washington voters in November 2024, with 51% voting in favor.

The court did not rule on every constitutional challenge raised against the initiative. Instead, the majority focused on Washington’s constitutional requirement that a bill or initiative contain only one subject.

The initiative:

I-2066 was divided into more than a dozen sections, targeting several state policies aimed at moving buildings and utilities away from natural gas.

One provision would have rolled back changes to the state energy code that give builders permitting incentives for installing electric heat pumps, which provide both heating and cooling, instead of natural gas furnaces.

Other provisions would have repealed portions of a 2024 state law designed to accelerate Puget Sound Energy’s transition away from natural gas. The initiative also would have blocked regulators from approving utility rate plans that ended or restricted natural gas service, or made it prohibitively expensive, and removed several zero-emission goals from state law.

The Building Industry Association of Washington drafted the initiative and partnered with Let’s Go Washington, a conservative political committee, to collect the signatures needed to put it on the ballot.

However, the initiative never took effect after lawyers for Climate Solutions, Front and Centered, Washington Conservation Action, the City of Seattle, and King County filed a lawsuit. Those attorneys argued the initiative violated rules against “logrolling” multiple measures into a single measure, and in 2025 a King County Superior Court judge agreed, which led to the case ultimately winding up in the state Supreme Court.

Majority opinion:

Chief Justice Debra Stephens, writing for the majority, said I-2066 contained provisions with “markedly distinct purposes and regulatory effects.” The court identified four separate subjects: protecting access to natural gas, restricting local air-quality authorities, changing statewide building-code requirements, and repealing the severability provision of the state’s Decarbonization Act.

“Article II, section 19 forbids combining separate subjects in a single bill or initiative, requiring instead that distinct subjects be enacted separately to protect against unconstitutional logrolling and to ensure transparency in the legislative process,” Stephens wrote in her opinion. “I-2066 violates this single-subject rule because it includes several provisions with markedly distinct purposes and regulatory effects, embracing four distinct subjects.”

The court rejected arguments that those provisions could be treated as parts of a broader energy policy. The majority said the initiative was effectively a collection of separate policies involving utilities, natural gas, local government authority, building and energy codes, and decarbonization requirements.

Dissent:

Justice Sal Mungia, joined by Justices Charles Johnson and Sheryl Gordon McCloud, disagreed with the majority’s approach.

Mungia wrote that Washington courts are required to presume initiatives are constitutional and interpret them in a way that preserves their validity when possible. He said the central purpose of I-2066 was protecting Washingtonians’ access to natural gas, and argued that the initiative’s various provisions were rationally connected to that goal.

Mungia specifically argued that the majority failed to give the initiative the constitutionally required presumption of validity. He said provisions dealing with utilities, building codes, and local governments all had a rational relationship to protecting consumers’ access to natural gas.

“Although, as members of the judiciary, we at times may not agree with the policies behind an initiative, it is our job to maintain and uphold the law,” Mungia wrote in his dissent. “Here, following our long-standing rules of constitutional interpretation, this court can uphold much of I-2066 as constitutional and should do so.”

Mungia ultimately wrote that courts should not strike down an initiative based simply on incidental effects or policy changes. In his view, most of I-2066 dealt with the same overarching subject, which is protecting consumers’ access to natural gas, and the unconstitutional portions could be severed.

Impacts moving forward:

The Supreme Court’s Opinion leaves I-2066 unconstitutional.

According to Greg Lane with the Building Industry Association of Washington, it also fundamentally resets the bar for all future and past legislation.

“I think that the court has really stepped into the legislative process and changed it,” Lane told The Washington State Standard. “This could mean laws approved by the Legislature won’t hold up.”

Lane told The Washington State Standard his group considered how the initiative aligned with past rulings on the single-subject rule by the Supreme Court and that he felt their measure addressed consumers’ protections broadly — along with their choice to use natural gas.

Attorney Kai Smith, who represented the Climate Solutions-led coalition, doesn’t agree and told The Washington State Standard, “Every law, whether passed by the Legislature or through the citizen initiative process, has to comply with the constitution… and, today, I-2066 does not.”

Reaction:

“What a win for Washington families in keeping our energy affordable and clean,” Gregg Small, executive director of Climate Solutions, told The Washington State Standard. “And we welcome this timely ruling in support of clearer, more honest information on how initiatives impact our lives and communities.”

Former Governor Jay Inslee, who championed many of Washington’s clean energy policies, reacted on X.

“Above all: This is a major victory for the health of Washingtonians, for our clean air and water, and for our utility bills – prevailing over the deception of corporate special interests and big polluters,” he wrote.

Brian Heywood, founder of Let’s Go Washington, said in a statement, “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is shameful, not only because it punishes families making heating their homes more expensive, but because it appears to be a coordinated effort by all three branches of the government to annihilate the initiative process itself.”

On social media, Let’s Go Washington responded to Inslee’s message, “Jay thinks it’s a huge victory for homes and small businesses not to be allowed to decide what energy they use to heat their homes and power their businesses, and it’s a huge victory to overturn the will of the people. Whose team is he on?”

Follow Luke Duecy on X. Read more of his stories here. Submit news tips here.