Members of the Washington state Supreme Court heard arguments over a voter initiative touching on natural gas and energy policies Thursday morning.
While a decision isn’t expected for months, the hearing marked one of the last steps before the initiative, which voters passed by around 52% in November 2024, becomes settled law or is ruled unconstitutional.
While the nine Supreme Court justices are reviewing the case “de novo,” or completely new without consideration for past rulings, a King County Superior Court judge ruled in March the initiative was unconstitutionally broad, violated the state’s single-subject rule and improperly changed existing laws.
The Republican-led initiative sought to explicitly protect access to natural gas in Washington. After its passage, it was challenged by advocacy groups Climate Solutions, Washington Conservation Action and Front and Centered, plus King County, the city of Seattle and other parties.
The initiative is defended by both the Washington state attorney general and the Building Industry Association of Washington, which originally backed the effort with Republican megadonor Brian Heywood.
Environmental advocates have criticized the initiative as being too broad and illegally weakening laws around building codes, clean air regulations and laws passed to help the state’s largest utility plan to decarbonize. Proponents of the initiative have downplayed those impacts and argued the initiative would not be nearly as wide-ranging.
Central to legal arguments on both sides is whether the initiative violates parts of the constitution that states initiatives and laws must have a “single subject” or topic and that the subject is in the title of the law. Also relevant is whether the initiative violates a complex portion of the constitution that requires amended laws to be “a complete act” or written in a way that the effect is clear.
The state’s deputy solicitor defending I-2066, Karl Smith, and proponents of the initiative argued it’s narrowly focused and consistent with previous decisions concerning laws that touched on various topics. Proponents have also argued additional changes the initiative makes to laws, like the growth management act and the state’s utility decarbonization bill, are relevant to protecting natural gas access.
In contrast, Paul Lawrence, an attorney who represented the plaintiffs at the hearing, argued the initiative takes a “popular subject” of whether to preserve the use of natural gas and applies it widely in ways voters never anticipated, like restricting energy efficiency building codes and preventing utilities from educating consumers about sustainable energy.
In the one-hour hearing, three attorneys representing the BIAW, attorney general’s office and the plaintiffs faced detailed questioning on their arguments from the panel of nine judges.
The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Kai Smith, said he was pleased the justices appeared to be well prepared and asked thoughtful questions.
“Given the questions and given the Superior Court, we remain optimistic that they will rule that it’s unconstitutional,” he said.
BIAW Executive Vice President Greg Lane said he was glad the Supreme Court focused on the constitutionality of the initiative, adding that the King County judge made a “politically biased ruling” and focused too much on arguments around policy impacts.
“We are hopeful that we can get resolution and positive resolution upholding the vote of the people and the people’s will,” he said.
Heywood’s political action committee, “Let’s Go Washington,” which supported I-2066, also sought to eliminate the state’s capital gains tax, repeal the state’s Climate Commitment Act and make optional a payroll tax that funds the state’s long-term care insurance program in the November 2024 election.
Material from The Seattle Times archive was used in this report.
