The core issue of Initiative 2066, which was approved by voters this month, is energy reliability and affordability. As Washington lawmakers and policymakers move toward a clean-energy future, they must not lose sight of the message delivered by the statewide vote.
Initiative 2066 passed with approximately 51.7 percent of the vote (in Clark County, it was supported by 56 percent). The measure repeals some legislative actions designed to reduce the use of natural gas and protects the fuel’s availability as an energy source in the state.
Notably, I-2066 was the only one of four statewide initiatives approved by voters, who otherwise upheld legislative actions that critics deemed to be excessive overreach. Voters maintained a capital gains tax and the Climate Commitment Act with emphatic majorities; and they supported the state’s long-term care insurance plan with 55 percent of the vote.
But when it came to protecting the use of natural gas, voters rebuked lawmakers. Although The Columbian’s Editorial Board had recommended a “no” vote on the measure, the approval of I-2066 is a reasonable response to concerns about a fragile electrical system in a changing economic environment.
That environment largely will be defined in coming years by efforts to reduce carbon emissions. The clear threat posed by climate change calls for such a reduction, but also calls for attention on reliable and affordable electricity for homes and businesses. With 1.3 million customers in the state, natural gas comprises a significant portion of the state’s electrical grid.
Washington’s Clean Energy Transformation Act, passed in 2019, prohibits the use of coal-generated electricity by the end of 2025. The state’s last coal-fueled plant — a facility owned by TransAlta in Centralia — will close by the end of next year, and utilities will not be allowed to import coal-generated power.
Currently, approximately 9 percent of Washington’s electricity comes from coal. Although the move away from such energy has been in the works for years, a full transition will take some time.
That is where natural gas comes in. Although it also is a fossil fuel, it is regarded as less environmentally damaging than coal.
That assertion is open to debate. As NPR reported last year: “A new peer-reviewed analysis in the journal ‘Environmental Research Letters’ finds that when even small amounts of methane escape from natural gas wells, production facilities and pipelines, it can drive up the industry’s emissions to equal the effects of coal.”
Indeed, there is a long-term need to reduce the use of natural gas in the state. But that will require infrastructure designed to provide replacements. A hoped-for transition to electric vehicles rather than gas-powered cars will increase demand on the electrical grid; so will the growing prevalence of data centers and household heat pumps.
While Washington leaders have done an effective job of fostering the state’s wind- and solar-energy industries, those alternatives are not yet capable of replacing all fossil fuels. And because those sources produce energy only intermittently, increased storage capacity is needed.
That is the message that Washington voters sent to lawmakers. Although the public recognizes the need to reduce carbon emissions and strongly supports such measures, the need for electricity will not dissipate. Reliable and affordable energy is necessary for a robust economy and — for now, at least — that includes a place for natural gas.
