The story of Initiative 2066 begins with a natural gas law passed earlier this year.
In March, Gov. Jay Inslee signed Engrossed State House Bill (ESHB) 1589 into law.
The legislation was designed to help the state’s largest utility companies – Puget Sound Energy, in particular – plan a transition to 100% clean energy by 2045 , as mandated by Washington’s Climate Commitment Act.
A big piece of that transition will be shrinking the state's use of natural gas.
“We have no choice but to go to cleaner sources of fuel. The health of our children depend on it,” Inslee said when the bill was passed. “It's not a decision by a politician. It's a decision by Mother Nature and the science that mandates that we go to cleaner sources of fuel.”
This is where Initiative 2066, which will be on the ballot this November, comes into the picture. It’s supported by many of the critics of this year’s natural gas law, including building and hospitality associations. To make it on this year’s ballot, supporters gathered more than 500,000 signatures less than two months ahead of the deadline to file.
Simply speaking, I-2066 would prohibit penalties for using natural gas in construction, limit the ability of building codes to discourage the use of natural gas, and keep utility officials from making planning decisions that would lead to natural gas being cost-prohibitive. Sponsors of the initiative say it guarantees access to natural gas as a consumer energy option.
It would do so by modifying – through addition and revision – key pieces of ESHB 1589 .
To learn more, Soundside host Libby Denkmann spoke with voices for and against the initiative.
A ban on gas bans
Initiative supporters claim that to comply with the state’s climate commitments, utilities and consumers will face a total ban on the use of natural gas as an energy source. They see this year’s natural gas bill, ESHB 1589, as a roadmap for an eventual ban.
“The intent and the outcome of the legislation is that natural gas service in the Puget Sound Energy service area is going to be turned off,” said Greg Lane, the executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) , the sponsor behind I-2066 .
In response, PSE, which played a large role in crafting the legislation, has emphasized that 1589 is just a “planning” bill requiring the utility to look at cost-effective alternatives to natural gas use, as well as demonstrate how the utility plans to reduce its overall use so it can stay in line with the state's long-term climate goals.
A big piece of that plan is a series of assessments into how the state can best assist consumers if they choose to transition from gas to electric, and how the utility could effectively transition from gas to electric energy production and transmission.
That message has been a point of emphasis for opponents of the initiative, who say the legislation doesn’t contain a “ban” on natural gas use, and that a state law requiring access to natural gas remains unchanged.
“Current state law says that if you live in a gas utility service territory, they have the obligation to provide you with gas if you want it,” said Leah Missik, acting Washington director for Climate Solutions and a member of the executive team for No on I-2066. “There is not a ban on natural gas in state law. In fact, quite the opposite.”
Earlier versions of ESHB 1589 did repeal the state requirement for natural gas access. However, the provision was ultimately struck from the final bill.
Lane said that even if the word “ban” is not included in the bill itself, a forced move away from natural gas will be necessary if the utility is to meet its state-mandated clean energy goals.
“Whether that's in two, three, four, five years down the road, that is the intent of the legislation,” Lane said.
Electrification readiness
So if natural gas access remains legally unchanged, what would I-2066 change?
First, it would restore rebates and incentives for natural gas adoption that were phased out under ESHB 1589, requiring their availability wherever electrification incentives are also offered.
“What the initiative will do is allow Puget Sound Energy or government entities to still offer incentives,” Lane said. “They can offer incentives, even under the initiative for electrification or for gas appliances, whichever one consumers want. It doesn't prohibit that at all.”
Lane said the initiative won’t preclude the choice to electrify, and that these revisions are to keep the utility from forcing customers into an electric transition in the future. Lane said the cost of fully electrifying a home can cost upwards of $40,000.
Missik disagreed and said the legislation isn’t forcing anyone to electrify. In response, she said suggested changes, brought about if the initiative is approved, would jeopardize PSE's ability to assess cost-effective alternatives to natural gas and offer assistance to consumers, regardless of their energy preferences.
“It is really important that the utility is able to do this cost-effective planning for its customers, to keep costs low for electric and gas customers alike,” she said. “HB 1589, this planning process that we're discussing, keeps energy costs the lowest, the longest, for Washingtonians. Again, that is including for gas customers.”
To this point, Missik emphasized sections of the initiative that would strike selected uses of the words “cost-effective." I-2066 also strikes assessments for the potential electrification of aging natural gas infrastructure, assessments into geographically targeted electrification, and includes the strike of a provision dedicating funding for “electrification readiness.”
Building code changes
Proponents of the initiative have said that while natural gas use is still technically available, access has become more difficult in recent years as building code changes have made gas a more expensive option in construction.
Several cities throughout the state and country have attempted to phase out natural gas use through construction mandates requiring electric heat pumps for central cooling and heating. Those policies, at large, have been thrown into flux by a decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case from Berkeley, California , that found city codes prohibiting the use of natural gas violate the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
As a workaround, cities like Seattle and the Washington State Building Code Council have raised efficiency standards , requiring homes with natural gas appliances to meet the same level of efficiency as heat pumps.
The BIAW has criticized these changes , saying the resulting price hikes for natural gas use are the equivalent of a ban on gas in new construction. As a result, I-2066 repeatedly adds language throughout ESHB 1589 that keeps state agencies from prohibiting, penalizing, or disincentivizing natural gas use, including in building codes.
“Housing has become so unaffordable for Washington residents now, and we keep adding more and more costs onto new construction,” Lane said. “So that's our biggest concern, is the cost associated with all of these mandates.”
Opponents said those standards are important for consumer protection and would lead to higher utility bills.
“I lived in a home that was extremely inefficient, it was very leaky, and my monthly energy bills were more than my rent,” Missik said. “In our state, our building codes, by law, have to achieve increasing amounts of energy efficiency. It's to protect Washingtonians.”
Big picture
Looking forward, proponents of I-2066 say the initiative is necessary to preserve natural gas as an energy choice in the future. Opponents of I-2066 have emphasized that the legislation in question, ESHB 1589, does not change the state’s mandate to offer natural gas. Voices both for and against the initiative say this is an issue of choice.
For the YES campaign, the issue is about protecting natural gas and leveling the playing field for those who want the choice to use it. They also said the state's current electrical grid is not prepared to accommodate a full transition to all-electric energy.
“We have to do this in a very common sense way,” Lane said. “Banning natural gas outright right now is not a common sense approach to climate reduction, and it's not a common sense approach to our energy needs.”
The NO campaign emphasized that the choice to use natural gas is still available. They said that voting against the initiative is about protecting programs and assessments that will make electrification more affordable and feasible.
“What initiative 2066 would do would gut programs that would help folks who cannot currently make that switch and realize the same benefits, and it would increase their risk of being left on a system with rapidly escalating costs," Missik said.
To hear both sides of the argument, listen to Soundside's interviews with YES 2066 here and NO 2066 here.
Local News
