OFFICIAL BALLOT QUESTION

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution creating new law granting the right for consumers to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in homes or businesses and for distributors and utilities to sell natural gas to consumers?"

Source  Colorado Secretary of State certified 2026 ballot list

NEUTRAL OVERVIEW

Amendment 82 would add two sentences to the Colorado Constitution. Consumers would have a statewide right to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in homes or businesses, and distributors and utilities would have a right to sell it for those uses. A YES vote creates that constitutional protection. A NO vote leaves access to natural gas governed by existing constitutional rules and by future statutes, regulations, utility decisions, building codes, and local ordinances.

The amendment protects commerce in natural gas; it does not set prices, fund new pipelines or hookups, expressly require service at every address, or state which safety, environmental, zoning, and utility regulations remain permissible. Because the text does not define the scope of the new right, courts may ultimately have to decide when regulation becomes an unconstitutional interference with purchase or sale.

THE PROPONENT CASE

Supporters frame the measure as consumer, business, and property-owner choice. They argue that families should not be forced to replace lawful gas furnaces, water heaters, fireplaces, or cooking appliances because a future state or local government prefers electric-only buildings. Restaurants and other businesses may rely on gas for specific cooking or heating needs, while property owners may face major conversion costs if existing equipment or utility connections are made unusable by policy.

Proponents also cite reliability and infrastructure. Natural gas and electricity can serve different needs and can provide alternatives when one energy system is strained. They argue that Colorado can reduce methane emissions, improve efficiency, and encourage cleaner technologies without allowing government to eliminate a lawful energy option. A constitutional protection, in their view, prevents temporary political majorities from imposing an expensive one-size-fits-all mandate.

THE OPPONENT CASE

Opponents argue that the amendment is broader and less precise than a statute barring local gas bans. The words right, purchase, and sell are not defined, and the text contains no express exception for fire codes, indoor-air rules, emissions standards, utility planning, zoning, or limits on extending service. They warn that governments, utilities, builders, and ratepayers could face lawsuits while courts determine which ordinary regulations remain valid.

Opponents also contend that placing one fuel source in the Constitution can privilege existing infrastructure and make future energy policy harder to change as technology, costs, climate conditions, and public-health evidence evolve. They argue that local communities should retain authority to adopt building standards suited to local goals and that protecting current users could be handled through narrower legislation rather than a permanent constitutional right.

OFFICIAL MEASURE INFORMATION

Committee listings can change. Current listing and full contact information  Colorado Secretary of State

THE COLORADO CONSERVATIVE RECOMMENDS: YES

WHY WE RECOMMEND YES

We recommend YES because government should not force a household or business to abandon a lawful energy source when safety and environmental goals can be pursued through standards rather than prohibition. Consumers should be free to compare cost, reliability, performance, and personal need instead of having one technology selected for them by mandate.

The practical benefit is protection against forced conversion. A family should not have to replace a working gas furnace or water heater solely because a political body adopts an electric-only policy. Restaurants, manufacturers, landlords, and homeowners also deserve reasonable confidence that lawful equipment and existing utility connections will not be stranded without a compelling safety justification.

Our caution is the drafting. The amendment does not define how the new right interacts with rate regulation, service territories, building and fire codes, indoor-air protections, emissions rules, or decisions not to extend a pipeline. Passage could therefore produce litigation and may invalidate some policies that regulate more than outright bans. Those are real institutional costs, and courts should distinguish reasonable health and safety rules from measures whose practical purpose is to eliminate access.

On balance, the benefit of protecting energy choice outweighs the risk, provided the right is interpreted as protection against prohibition rather than immunity from reasonable regulation. Colorado can promote electrification and cleaner energy by making those options better and more affordable; it should not make natural gas unavailable by force. The Colorado Conservative recommends YES.

HOW WE REACHED THE SCORES

Each category uses five tests worth 0 to 10 points. The fixed anchors are: 0 for clear harm or failure; 2 for a material weakness; 5 for mixed or neutral evidence; 8 for a clear benefit with workable safeguards; and 10 for an exceptional benefit with strong controls. Intermediate whole numbers are used only when the evidence falls between anchors.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY   34 OF 50   ★★★☆☆

The measure may prevent forced conversion costs, but litigation and utility effects are uncertain.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT   38 OF 50   ★★★★☆

The amendment strongly restrains bans, but it also restricts local authority and is difficult to revise.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY   41 OF 50   ★★★★☆

The measure provides strong household, property, and commercial choice, with an unclear safety boundary.

INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY   27 OF 50   ★★★☆☆

The core policy is understandable, but its legal boundaries and enforcement method are undefined.

LONG-TERM COLORADO IMPACT   35 OF 50   ★★★★☆

The measure can preserve resilience and existing investment, but it may constrain future policy choices.

OVERALL RESULT

The result supports a YES recommendation while recognizing that undefined constitutional language may create litigation and must not be treated as immunity from reasonable health, safety, utility, or environmental regulation.

WHAT WE WILL HOLD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR

Whatever the election result, the publication will revisit this measure after implementation. We will track household and business energy costs, forced-conversion disputes, utility rate effects, service reliability, litigation, changes to building and safety codes, emissions outcomes, and whether courts preserve reasonable regulation while preventing government from using regulation as a disguised ban.

HOW WE WILL DO IT

• Establish a baseline. Before implementation, we will record current residential and commercial energy prices, representative utility rates and tariffs, applicable building and safety codes, reported emissions, and relevant pending litigation.
• Review the results regularly. We will publish an initial review six months after implementation and an annual review for at least five years. Additional updates will follow major appellate rulings, statewide code changes, or significant Public Utilities Commission orders.
• Require verifiable evidence. We will count a forced-conversion dispute only when supported by a filed complaint, court record, agency decision, utility proceeding, inspection report, or other identifiable public record. Each matter will be labeled as alleged, pending, settled, dismissed, or decided. Anonymous accounts will not be presented as verified cases.
• Measure costs consistently. We will compare household and business energy costs with the established baseline, showing both dollar and percentage changes. When possible, we will distinguish the effects of this measure from unrelated influences such as fuel prices, weather, utility infrastructure spending, and changes in energy use.
• Track legal and regulatory effects. We will review changes to building and safety codes, utility rules, enforcement practices, and court decisions. We will specifically examine whether governments continue to impose reasonable health and safety regulations without using those regulations as an indirect prohibition.
• Track reliability and environmental outcomes. We will report available data on outages, service disruptions, capacity constraints, emissions, and other measurable effects, while distinguishing correlation from demonstrated causation.
• Publish the evidence. Each review will identify its data sources, explain its methodology, report favorable and unfavorable findings, disclose significant data limitations, and link to the underlying public records whenever possible. Material errors will be corrected publicly and dated.

Primary records will include Colorado Public Utilities Commission proceedings and decisions, federal energy-price data, state building-code materials, state emissions reports, and court records. Useful official sources include the Colorado PUC E-Filings System, U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Colorado price data, Colorado Energy Office building-code resources, Colorado greenhouse-gas inventory, and Colorado Judicial Branch case search.

APPENDIX EXACT TEXT OF INITIATIVE 177

Source  Colorado Secretary of State final text of Initiative 177

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

SECTION 1. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, add section 17 to article XVIII as follows:

Section 17. Right to natural gas.

(1) CONSUMERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE NATURAL GAS FOR COOKING OR HEATING IN HOMES OR BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

(2) DISTRIBUTORS AND UTILITIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELL NATURAL GAS FOR HOMES OR BUSINESSES.