Voters in Washington State Say Yes to Block Natural Gas Ban

The ballot measure bans state and local governments from restricting access to natural gas.

Blue flames rise from the burner of a natural gas stove in Orange, Calif., on June 11, 2003. David McNew/Getty Images

Washington state voters have rejected all but one of this year’s ballot initiatives, the one that preserves natural gas as an option for homes and businesses across the Evergreen State.

The office of the Washington state secretary reported on Nov. 9 that with all 3.4 million votes counted, a little more than half of voters (51.64 percent) embraced I-2066, the natural gas policies measure.

Under I-2066, state and local governments are banned from restricting access to natural gas for purposes such as heating homes and running kitchens in restaurants. It also prohibits the state building code council from discouraging or penalizing the use of natural gas in buildings

In addition, the measure bans the state’s utility regulatory agency from approving any rate plan that requires or incentivizes utility companies to terminate natural gas service or otherwise make it too expensive to afford.

Opponents of I-2066 argued that the initiative undermines critical climate-related efforts and could ultimately increase energy costs. Its supporters, however, maintained that people should have the freedom to choose the type of energy used to power their homes and businesses.

The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), the industry group championing the ballot initiative, celebrated the preliminary results as a win well before the official vote was called.

“Given the voting trends both on election night and these past two days, it’s clear that Initiative 2066 has been approved by Washington voters,” Greg Lane, BIAW’s executive vice president, said in a statement on Nov. 7. “Their message couldn’t be more clear: Washington families and businesses support keeping natural gas service, and they demand to have energy choice.”

I-2066 came as a response to a recent law known as the Washington Decarbonization Act, part of the Democrat-led state’s broader climate action agenda. While the 2024 law doesn’t outright order a phaseout of natural gas, it mandates that Puget Sound Energy (PSE), the state’s largest natural gas provider, submit a plan on how it will reduce greenhouse emissions by transitioning from natural gas to electricity.

The law further requires PSE to stop offering rebates or incentives to customers for buying gas appliances starting from Jan. 1, 2025. Instead, the company must “educate its customers about the benefits of transitioning to electricity” and the availability of incentives for “energy-efficient electric appliances.”

Industry groups, including BIAW, have criticized the law for using what they consider misleading language.

“A ban by any other name is still a ban,” BIAW said in a statement advocating for I-2066. “A ban this year or ban 10 years from now is still a ban.”

The initiative is expected to go into effect next month.

The three rejected initiatives are I-2109, which would have repealed a 7 percent capital gains tax on the sale or exchange of stocks, bonds, and other assets valued above $250,000; I-2124, which would have allowed people to opt out of the state’s long-term care insurance program; and I-2117, which would have repealed the Climate Commitment Act, Gov. Jay Inslee’s signature law that makes Washington one of the only two states to require businesses to pay a carbon tax.

Inslee, a Democrat whose very brief 2020 presidential campaign almost entirely focused on climate-related initiatives, celebrated the defeat of I-2117.

“Over the next four years, the nation will ... be looking for advances in these value systems, particularly in climate change,” Inslee said at a press briefing on Nov. 6.

“It can now look at Washington and have the message from this time and place that it’s a winning message to stand against climate change. This is a message that will spread throughout the United States. That’s why it’s so important that we don’t lose this initiative; otherwise, it could’ve dampened enthusiasm for climate change action.”