The Washington Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in a case challenging Initiative 2066, a measure approved by voters in Nov. 2024, to make sure natural gas wasn’t phased out as an energy choice.
The courtroom was packed, with extra seats brought in to accommodate the large interest in the case as opponents urged the justices to throw out the measure for violating the single subject rule, while supporters argued the initiative is constitutional and should be upheld to support the will of the people.
The argument was brought to the state’s highest court after a King County Superior Court judge ruled in March, 2025, I-2066 was unconstitutional due to violating the single-subject rule by covering multiple unrelated topics.
I-2066 was approved by nearly 2 million voters in November 2024 and the Building Industry Association of Washington, which backed the measure, argues it did not violate the single-subject rule and should be ruled constitutional.
The Washington Supreme Court accepted direct review of the case and stated that it would consider it “de novo,” meaning the justices will consider the merits of the case without being bound by the lower court’s decision.
During Thursday’s arguments, Paul Lawrence with Climate Solutions, one of the environmental groups that challenged the constitutionality of the initiative, argued the measure deals with more than one subject.
“I-2066 represents a classic case of a logrolling, combining popular proposals with proposals that voters might or might not reject,” Lawrence said. “I think the law is very clear right now that under Article 2, Section 19, if there are multiple subjects, you have to strike the entire initiative.”
Lawrence suggested voters who supported the initiative were confused.
“Having a voter who might want to protect their ability to have gas stoves in their home or gas without understanding that this has significant impacts on the policies of the state, trying to limit gas emissions, trying to look at and promote energy-efficient appliances and energy-efficient housing, I think that just doesn’t work,” said Lawrence.
Attorney Callie Castillo, representing BIAW, argued voters knew exactly what they were voting on when they passed the initiative.
“The people of Washington enacted 2066 for one singular purpose, to ensure that they have the option of gas as a natural source of energy for their homes and their buildings,” said Castillo. “Because all the 2066 provisions are germane to achieving that purpose, the voters knew what they were voting on.”
Chief Justice Debra Stephens then interrupted Castillo.
“Can you tell us whether you now agree with the state as to what the subject of this initiative is?”
“We actually are talking about both sides of the same thing, and this court can actually look to the title of Initiative 2066, in which it says it’s an act relating to promoting energy choice by protecting access to gas for Washington homes and businesses,” Castillo said. “So whether you use the select words of promoting energy choice as intervenors do or protecting access to natural gas that the state does, it’s really the same thing.”
After arguments concluded, BIAW Vice President Greg Lane Told The Center Square that he was optimistic the court would side with giving energy users choices.
“We feel really good about our case and how the arguments went this morning and that we’re going to get a positive outcome that will affirm the initiative,” Lane said. “I think for us it was pretty clear that the court was focused on questions surrounding that single subject and the legal precedents that the court has set previously.”
Lane said he believes the court understands that the consequences of invalidating I-2066.
“Because legislative bills have to meet that same test. So if they are going to rule and agree with the emotional arguments of our opponents, the impact moving forward on legislation that’s being passed, it pretty vast and I think the court understands the ramifications,” Lane said.
The court has discretion as to when a ruling would be issued, but Lane said he’s hopeful the justices will expedite a ruling to potentially come out this summer, rather than waiting until fall.
“It’s been almost two years since we collected 540,000 signatures and then people voted on this in the fall of 2024, so they’ve been waiting and waiting to find out if this law that they approved is going to take effect, so I hope the court will take that in mind,” he said.
