Press contact
Stephanie Noren, Climate Solutions, stephanie.noren@climatesolutions.org, 360-580-7885
Zachary Pullin, Washington Conservation Action, zachary@waconservationaction.org, 206-639-3760

Broad coalition challenges I-2066 as unconstitutional 

Lawsuit would invalidate the misleading initiative and protect energy affordability

SEATTLE — A coalition of local governments and environmental, climate, and health advocates from across the state filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of Washington State Ballot Initiative 2066 (I-2066). In a statement, the plaintiffs charged that “I-2066 jeopardizes the ability of local governments and other entities to promote clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; it undermines programs that promote the construction of energy efficient buildings; and it would make the clean energy transition chaotic and more expensive, especially for low-income households.” Advocates maintain that I-2066 backers misled Washington voters with an extensive misinformation campaign funded by industry (the BIAW and other major building industry trade groups) and two gas utilities (NW Natural and Cascade Natural Gas). The I-2066 campaign made it difficult for voters to recognize the broad scope of the initiative and its potential harms, including higher energy bills, reduced access to energy efficiency upgrades, and continued disproportionate negative health impacts on overburdened populations and vulnerable populations.

Addressing the questionable constitutionality of I-2066, plaintiff representative Kai Smith with Pacifica Law Group said, “I-2066 violates the Washington Constitution in several ways. First and foremost, it violates the requirement that an initiative can concern only a single subject because it impermissibly includes several short-term items that make immediate changes and other changes are broad and long-term—all in violation of the Constitution. I-2066 also violates the separate subject-in-title requirement of the Washington Constitution, and the requirement that the initiative must set forth in full each of the state law provisions it would alter.”

The plaintiffs—including Climate Solutions; Washington Conservation Action; Front And Centered; Washington Solar Energy Industries Association; King County; City Of Seattle; and Anthony Maschmedt—assert that I-2066 is illegally overbroad, addressing more than one subject, targeting multiple laws, regulations, and programs designed to upgrade buildings, and proactively preventing any similar measures in the future. 

Polling trends ahead of Election Day showed that voters disliked I-2066 more as they learned more about it; the initiative passed by a slim margin. Washington voters generally have shown strong support for the state’s existing climate policies and a clean energy transition; in the recent election, voters easily defeated an effort to repeal the Climate Commitment Act, with 62% voting no on I-2117. 

Gas-heated homes and buildings are the source of 25% of Washington state’s greenhouse emissions.

Additional plaintiff statements

“The multiple programs and policies repealed by I-2066 have long been beneficial to families across Washington. These include energy efficiency rebates and funneling more federal program dollars to benefit low-income households struggling with utility bills. These are all popular, bipartisan, and actually improve people’s lives because they reduce pollution in overburdened communities and make the option of transitioning to cleaner energy more accessible and affordable,” says Christina Wong, Vice President of Programs, Washington Conservation Action. “I-2066’s backers misled voters by failing to mention it would threaten multiple programs across multiple agencies and jurisdictions. We must fight to restore what belongs to Washington families and protect our state from industry meddling and chaos.”

“We know Washington voters are proud of our state’s accomplishments on climate action and clean energy,” said Leah Missik, Deputy Washington Director with Climate Solutions. “The gas industry used overly broad and misleading language, along with a short timeline and lack of voter awareness, to barely eke out passage of I-2066 that will undoubtedly harm Washington families and reverse progress on making clean energy more affordable. With this lawsuit, we are glad to be standing up to misinformation and to challenge industry interlopers in Washington politics.”

“The City of Seattle is proud to stand with a broad coalition of partners working to build a healthier future for our city and state to challenge the constitutionality of Initiative 2066,” said Mayor Bruce Harrell. “Let’s be clear: this Initiative is unconstitutional and will affect regulations that protect our air, protect public health, ensure building safety, and respond to the realities of climate change. We need to plan for an equitable and timely transition to clean energy now – the consequences of waiting are far too great.”

“By encouraging the use of natural gas even when other energy sources are available, I-2066 will decrease the demand for electricity that can be provided by renewable energy sources, including solar power,” said Jon Lange, a Washington Solar Energy Industries Association (WASEIA) Board Member.

“King County is determined to ensure a clean future and healthier neighborhoods,” Executive Constantine said. “I-2066 threatens our ability to advance clean energy goals, uphold strong energy codes, and reduce our reliance on fossil fuel in buildings.”

 “I-2066 is an attempt to derail slow, but critical progress our state government is making on a Just Transition to clean, health, and sustainable power sources to keep our homes safe, warm, and energized for our daily lives,” said Mariel Thuraisingham, Clean Energy Policy Lead with Front and Centered. 

Note: 

The advocates are represented by Kai Smith, Paul Lawrence, and Noe Merfeld of Pacifica Law Group.

Full claim document can be found here. 

###