Washington’s highest court voided a voter-approved natural gas measure, replacing a clear 2024 choice with a constitutional fight over how initiatives are written.
KOMO News reported that the Washington Supreme Court struck down Initiative 2066 in a 6-3 ruling issued this week.
Washington voters approved the natural gas initiative in 2024. The measure required covered utilities to serve qualifying customers who sought natural gas, even when other energy sources were available.
The court called Initiative 2066 “unconstitutional in its entirety,” citing Washington’s single-subject requirement. That rule requires state laws to focus on one subject rather than combining separate issues.
The result is another case in which judges determined the fate of a choice made at the ballot box. Our earlier coverage examined the same Washington natural gas ruling and its effect on the voter-approved measure.
The initiative’s text placed a direct duty on gas companies and large combination utilities. They had to provide service to eligible people and businesses within their territories when those customers requested it.
The operative provision stated:
“Every gas company or large combination utility shall provide natural gas to all persons and corporations in their service area or territory that demand, apply for, and are reasonably entitled to receive, natural gas under this section, even if other energy services or energy sources may be available.”
The language put consumer access and energy choice into law. By striking down the entire initiative, the court removed the voters’ chosen safeguard rather than limiting its decision to one provision.
Courts often sit at the center of disputes involving ballots and election policy. Similar institutional questions have surfaced in the national fight over mail voting, where judicial rulings can determine which rules remain in force.
Republican state Sen. Matt Boehnke, who represents Kennewick, pointed back to the decision Washington voters made in 2024.
“[Washingtonians] voted to preserve access to natural gas and protect families' and businesses' ability to choose the energy source that works for them. Today's ruling doesn't erase what voters told us."
That distinction matters. The court invalidated the legal measure, but the ruling did not change the political message delivered by voters: They wanted to protect natural gas access and preserve consumer choice.
Legal fights over elections do not end when ballots are counted. Recount demands, eligibility rules and court challenges can continue afterward, as seen in another state Supreme Court dispute.
Washington Conservation Action welcomed the ruling. Caitlin Krenn, the group’s climate and clean energy director, called it a “huge win for Washingtonians.”
Krenn argued that Initiative 2066 threatened the state’s climate agenda:
“Initiative 2066 was a deceptive attempt, backed by a megamillionaire, to lock our state into expensive, polluting fossil fuels for decades and undermine the State’s climate policies,”
She also said the court had returned Washington to a preferred energy course.
“By upholding the state’s constitution, the Supreme Court has put us back on track to reap the benefits of cheaper, cleaner renewable energy.”
Krenn’s response exposes the central divide. Supporters of the initiative focused on access and choice, while opponents wanted state climate policy protected from the voter-approved measure.
The same tension appears whenever courts rule on politically charged voting rules. Questions about who sets those rules also drive the continuing voter verification fight in federal court.
Washington lawmakers may still take up the natural gas issue. But any legislative response must wait until the next session begins at the start of next year.
That leaves voters with a clear gap between their 2024 decision and state policy. They approved Initiative 2066, yet the measure will not remain in force after the court’s 6-3 ruling.
Courts must enforce constitutional limits, but elected lawmakers should not treat a ruling as permission to ignore the public’s plainly stated demand for energy choice.