AdobeStock
The annual Re-Wire Conference, hosted by the Washington Observer, was held Tuesday, the day before certification of state election results. It brings together state elected officials and others for discussions on hot political topics, and this year it included a panel discussion on Initiative 2066, the measure approved by voters to ensure natural gas remains an energy choice for Puget Sound Energy customers.
As previously reported by The Center Square, opponents of the measure have been preparing a legal challenge, arguing the initiative violates the single subject rule and is therefore unconstitutional. Opponents contend I-2066 rolls several subjects into one initiative by addressing future planning by Puget Sound Energy and changes to the state's energy code.
At Tuesday’s Re-Wire Conference, moderator Scott Greenstone, who covers politics for KUOW, asked Building Industry Association of Washington legal counsel Ashli Penner about her confidence the measure will hold up in court.
“We’re very confident, having drafted the initiative, that it’s going to withstand any constitutional challenge, specifically single-subject,” Penner said. “It covers one specific subject in a lot of different ways, but it’s all about natural gas and propane, and it doesn’t cover anything else, so we’re very confident it’s going to stand.”
Sen. Drew MacEwen, R-Union, agreed with Penner’s take on the measure, but also voiced concern with how the court will rule.
“I think the court should defer to what the will of the people was. I think it is written strong enough to withstand it, but we’ll see,” he said, hedging a bit. “I’m a little leery of our courts in this state and how they oftentimes take a political stance as opposed to a judicial stance.”
Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Seattle, who helped craft the Climate Commitment Act and other clean energy legislation, said he believes the measure violates the single-subject rule.
“2066 repealed utility planning requirements, it preempted the state energy code, and it preempts local building standards including in places like Seattle that overwhelmingly voted against this initiative,” Fitzgibbon explained.
Puget Sound Energy’s State Public Policy and Government Affairs Manager Matt Miller was asked about claims from opponents of I-2066 that natural gas rates will climb as a result of the measure's passage.
“We’ve seen a decline in gas use last year, about 8% residential and 3% commercial, and what that means is folks are using less gas,” Miller said. “Some folks are electrifying and that could leave more cost on the system for the remaining customers, so that I think is what the no campaign was talking about when they were talking about more costs.”
While the fight plays out in court, Fitzgibbon said lawmakers are likely to stay out of it.
“I think we will probably take a breather on natural gas policy while we wait to see what the courts say on the initiative,” he said.
Penner was asked about the fact more homeowners are choosing to electrify versus keeping natural gas.
“I think that really goes to the heart of what 2066 was trying to do,” Penner elaborated. “You let people decide if they want to keep their natural gas; they can keep it and if they want to go fully electric they can, but a ban on natural gas, or legislation, isn’t necessary if people are already going away from that on their own volition.”
The moderator asked why BIAW cares what energy source their customers choose.
“Part of what our members do is to build the homes that people can afford to live in; they build the American dream and access to natural gas makes those homes more affordable,” Penner responded. “Our members don’t think that all these houses can sustain a full electrical grid. All these regulations are just adding to the cost of building a home which makes home ownership unattainable."
I-2066 takes effect on Thursday, with legal challenges expected to be filed almost immediately from both sides.