Colorado voters are expected to decide in November whether to put a “right to natural gas” into the state constitution, after the conservative nonprofit Advance Colorado submitted petitions for Initiative 177 on June 25.
Advance Colorado wrote the measure and led the signature-gathering campaign to place it on the statewide ballot. The proposal, titled “Right to Natural Gas,” would create constitutional language protecting the sale of methane gas, the fuel commonly marketed as natural gas.
The fight is over more than a household stove. According to the measure’s description, the amendment could protect fossil fuel companies’ ability to sell methane gas in Colorado. It could also put pressure on communities that have tried to remove gas appliances from new construction, possibly forcing them to back away from those policies if the amendment passes.
A short amendment with broad effects
Initiative 177 is unusually compact: its operative language runs only 60 words. That brevity is part of the problem for state and local officials. The broad wording makes it difficult to forecast how Colorado agencies would apply the amendment, or how far it would reach into local building policy.
The measure’s title frames the issue as access to natural gas. Its practical target appears to be government limits on gas hookups and gas appliances, especially in new buildings. Some Colorado communities have explored or adopted efforts to move new construction away from gas appliances as part of climate policy. Initiative 177 could interfere with those efforts, though the exact effect would depend on how state agencies and, potentially, courts interpret the amendment if voters approve it.
Opponents and other people concerned about the measure worry it could threaten Colorado’s climate goals. The concern is straightforward: if the state constitution protects the continued sale of methane gas, regulators and local governments may have less room to reduce fossil fuel use in buildings.
Advance Colorado’s petition filing moves the proposal into the election process for November’s state vote. The measure asks voters to settle a policy fight that usually plays out in building codes, utility rules and local climate plans. Putting it in the constitution would raise the stakes, because constitutional language is harder to change than ordinary law and can constrain later policy choices.
For now, the most concrete facts are the filing, the sponsor and the text’s broad scope. The consequences remain uncertain, which is doing a lot of work in this debate.
This story draws on original reporting from Ars Technica.
