Washington is a deep blue state with strong support for climate action. In the recent elections, Washington voted on two climate policy initiatives: Initiative 2117 (I-2117) which sought to overturn the state’s “cap-and-invest” system established by the Climate Commitment Act (CCA), and Initiative 2066 (I-2066) which would prohibit state and local regulations discouraging natural gas use. Specifically, I-2066 sought to repeal building code revisions aimed at higher energy efficiency standards and the directive to energy utilities to study phasing out gas.
While voters overwhelmingly rejected I-2117 by a 62%-38% margin (that is, voted to continue cap-and-invest), they narrowly supported I-2066 by a 51% – 49% margin (that is, they opposed transitioning from gas).
Why are voters sending conflicting signals on climate policy? Political scientists suggest costs and benefits drive the politics of regulations. Voters support regulations that create local benefits, even when these policies impose new costs. Although cap-and-invest increased gasoline prices, voters recognized that its revenues ($3.2 billion in 2023-25) created local benefits such as public transportation and better roads, new ferries, improved forest health, and wildfire prevention. In contrast, voters did not see sufficient local benefits from restricting gas access; they saw additional costs and reduced energy choices. Hence, they supported I-2066 which sought to repeal policies incentivizing gas transition.
Direct Democracy and Carbon Pricing
Voters elect representatives to make policies. However, sometimes voters unhappy with the legislative process seek to legislate via referendums or initiatives. Washington is one of the 26 U.S. states that allow citizens to do so.
Until 2018, Washington faced a legislative gridlock on climate policy because Republicans controlled at least one of the chambers of the state legislature. Unhappy with legislative inaction, Carbon Washington, a newly minted NGO, proposed Initiative 732 in 2016 to enact a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Voters rejected this initiative by a 41% – 59% margin. Subsequently, in 2018, mainstream environmental NGOs proposed Initiative 1631 to enact a revenue-positive carbon tax. Voters rejected this initiative as well by a 43% – 57% margin.
In 2018, Democrats secured control of both chambers, which allowed them to enact carbon pricing via the CCA. Instead of a carbon tax (where the costs are visible to voters and invite a political backlash), in 2021, they enacted a “cap-and-invest” system (where the costs are indirect).
Washington state’s climate policy efforts went beyond the CCA. Buildings account for about 23% of Washington’s carbon emissions. Therefore, along with the CCA, Democrats passed laws at the state and city level to incentivize the transition from natural gas. These laws outlined higher energy efficiency standards which could be met by using heat pumps (that run on electricity) or by expensive building upgrades. Moreover, the state legislature (via House Bill 1589) directed the state’s major utility, Puget Sound Energy, to outline a plan for phasing out gas by targeted neighborhood electrification.
Explaining Inconsistent Climate Votes
What explains voters’ support for cap-and-invest but opposition to gas transition? Some suggest that I-2066’s language was confusing. Although confusion lies in the eyes of the reader, we find the I-2066 language to be straightforward. For context, the language of any initiative is drafted by the Attorney General. In 2024, this was Democrat Bob Ferguson, who is now the Governor-elect.
However, we doubt the initiative language influenced I-2066 votes because this initiative was debated in both TV and radio shows and was heavily advertised. Yard signs made it clear who supported the “Yes” or the “No” vote and why.
We propose the “rational voter” argument: diverging electoral outcomes reflect voters’ perceptions of the cost and benefits of the two initiatives.
I-2117 sought to ride on voter frustration with high gas prices. Its proponents claimed that the CCA increased gasoline prices by about 50 cents per gallon, making Washington prices among the highest in the country (behind California and Hawaii). CCA supporters challenged this assertion and until June 2023, the debate was about the correct estimate for the impact of the CCA on gasoline prices. The focus on the “cost frame” meant that both sides agreed that the CCA entailed sacrifice to create a global public good of climate mitigation. And asking for sacrifice is seldom popular. No wonder in the July 2024 poll, I-2117 seemed to be winning by a 48%-32% margin.
Starting July 2024, however, climate groups adopted a new framing strategy. While I-2117 supporters continued to harp on the gasoline price increase (Vote Yes, Pay Less), the 2117 opposition began highlighting the CCA’s local benefits.
Show me the Benefits
Rational voters are willing to pay higher taxes if they see the local benefits these taxes provide. This is why voters routinely approve new taxes, levies, and bonds for funding schools, sea walls, water projects, coastal restoration, protecting lands, and so on. This is probably why voters responded well to the message that cap-and-invest monies support important services that voters need. Instead of getting into a war on the CCA’s impact on gasoline prices (which focused attention on costs), the “benefit frame” probably converted some voters from CCA skeptics (before July 2024) to CCA supporters in November.
On the other hand, I-2066 won because voters did not see many local benefits from discouraging gas. While the transition from gas might create global benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, voters probably saw these regulations as imposing costs to replace gas appliances. Surprisingly, I-2066 critics did not sufficiently harp on how new efficiency standards would reduce health risks posed by gas stoves, a local benefit from gas transition.
In sum, the differing electoral fortunes of Washington’s climate initiatives provide an important lesson for climate policy. Climate regulations can get electoral traction when they demonstrate local benefits. Voters are smart and know their interests well. They are ok with making sacrifices if they see how they will benefit from paying the higher costs. On the other hand, they are less likely to support climate policies that predominantly create global benefits, irrespective of how well scholars and policymakers articulate the need for global action.
