Washington's Initiative 2066 (Protect Natural Gas)
Voters narrowly moved to protect gas hookups against an electrification push - then a court threw the whole thing out.
Grade withheld
1 · The idealist case (in its proponents' own framing)
Initiative 2066, approved by Washington voters in November 2024 with nearly 52%, aimed to unwind recent energy-code changes that gave builders permitting incentives for choosing electric heat pumps over natural-gas furnaces, and to bar utilities and local governments from restricting gas service. Backers - led by the building industry - framed it as protecting consumer and builder choice against a top-down mandate to electrify.
2 · The realist counter-case
Critics argued the initiative was a grab-bag that touched many separate laws at once, would lock in higher-emission heating, and raise long-run costs for households as the grid decarbonizes. They also pressed a procedural objection: that the measure violated Washington's single-subject and full-text rules for initiatives - the constitutional guardrails against 'logrolling.'
3 · Predicted vs. measured — with caveats
Predicted (by backers): preserved gas access and reversed electrification incentives. Measured: in March 2025 a King County Superior Court judge ruled I-2066 unconstitutional for violating the single-subject and full-text requirements, voiding it; the Washington Supreme Court took up a direct appeal, with arguments continuing into January 2026 and a ruling pending. Caveat: with the initiative struck down and under appeal, there is no implementation to measure - only a live constitutional question about how broad a citizen initiative may be.
4 · Liberty check
This one cuts toward consumer liberty: the right of a homeowner or builder to choose gas heat, against a policy nudging everyone toward electrification for collective climate benefit. That is a genuine and evenhanded freedom conflict - individual energy choice versus a shared decarbonization goal. But the courts intervened on a different liberty altogether: the procedural rule that an initiative must address one subject so voters aren't forced to take undesirable provisions bundled with desirable ones.
5 · The real tradeoff
The tradeoff: there is a real argument that abruptly discouraging gas hookups raises costs and removes choice, and a real argument that bundling many law changes into one initiative is exactly what the single-subject rule forbids. Washington voters said yes; a court said the question was improperly framed. Grade withheld - struck down, on appeal, no measured outcome - but a sharp reminder that how a measure is drafted can decide its fate before its policy is ever tested.
Allies & Playbook
If you want to copy this, start here — the people who made it work or fail, and how to reach them.
Washington Initiative 2066 (2024)
Worked: Asserted consumer/builder choice on home heating against electrification incentives.
Watch: Struck down as unconstitutional (single-subject/full-text); pending at the state Supreme Court - no outcome to grade.
Browse the full Allies directory → · See graded scorecards →