Whether “cooking with gas” has a long-term future or not, passing Amendment 82 would lock a right to use and sell gas into the Colorado Constitution.

At its simplest, passing Colorado Amendment 82 would amend the Colorado Constitution to add a “right to purchase” natural gas in Colorado along with a “right to sell.” However, it gets more complex when considering the potential ramifications, and there will be more about them below.

Since 82 is a Constitutional amendment, It would need 55% (plus one) of the vote to pass.

This initiative is short enough to post in full here:

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.

What Would Amendment 82 Do?

Beyond enshrining the rights to purchase and sell natural gas in the state Constitution, it might be tough to really tell what Amendment 82 would do in practice until there are legal challenges. It does seem likely that state or local governments would face legal challenges for proposing or passing full or partial bans, and as opposed to current situations surrounding natural gas use or sales, these challenges would be on Constitutional grounds.

There are no legal penalties written into Amendment 82 for attempts to prevent natural gas sales or purchases. There is no language defining, modifying, or placing conditions on the word “right,” so it seems possible that there could be very broad legal interpretations as to the rights that passing Amendment 82 would entail.

Amendment 82 also has no language saying what would happen with ordinances pertaining to natural gas that are already in place. The striking down or neutering of existing ordinances seems possible, or existing ordinances might remain on the books but become unenforceable. There is nothing in Amendment 82 language that “grandfathers” any existing laws.

Why Was It Proposed?

The designated representatives for Amendment 82 are Michael Fields and Steven Ward, and the organization Advance Colorado is listed under both of their names. Fields is the president of Advance. Advance Colorado often sponsors and/or supports conservative initiatives, and has used dark money to fund advocacy for these ballot measures.

Some local governments in Colorado have proposed restrictions on natural gas in their communities. Crested Butte banned it for all new construction in 2022, Lafayette requires all-electric systems in most new construction, while Boulder and Denver have updated their building codes to discourage gas use in new construction.

Fields has released media statements saying the initiative is s meant to protect consumers against rising energy costs, per Colorado Public Radio. Also, Advance Colorado has released a fairly lengthy report partially about why they believe the use and sales of natural gas should continue in Colorado: https://www.advancecolorado.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Natural-Gas-Clean-Affordable-Reliable-Energy-for-Colorado.pdf

This is a general observation and not from Fields or Advance, but Colorado is in fact a significant natural gas producer and user, so a reduction in gas sales or use could have economic impacts. Just for perspective, a 2024 report from Metro Denver Economic Development Commission showed Colorado ranked 8th in the nation for natural gas production.

Opposition Positions

Natural gas extraction releases methane into the environment, one of the greenhouse gases linked to climate change. Gas is often obtained through fracking, which can pollute the air, use large amounts of water, and disturb the subsurface geology in a way that might even contribute to earthquakes. Indoor gas use can introduce chemicals like benzene into the home environment.

Environmental organizations are likely to oppose this initiative for the reasons above and because it puts an absolute right to use and sell gas into the Constitution. Though it hasn’t been tested in court yet, it seems as if even small updates to building codes having to do with natural gas might land a local or state government in court. Since Amendment 82 is a Constitutional amendment, it might be difficult or impossible for the state government to pass a statute that would limit gas use or sales, since the Constitution supersedes statutes. Or, even if a bill passed, chances are great that it would be challenged in court.

“Renewable energy is the fastest and cheapest energy to deploy, so this cynical attempt to lock fossil fuels into the state constitution would leave Coloradans with higher utility bills and dirty air…” said Kelly Nordini, CEO of Conservation Colorado in a March 2026 press release.

Proponents:

  • A Brighter Colorado has registered to support Amendment 82 (also Amendments 81, 85, and 86, Props 132 and 136, and opposes Prop NN and Amendment 87). It’s listed under the name of Steven Ward, one of the two designated representatives for this measure. As of Oct. 6, it had reported $2,612,150.00 in total contributions, including a non-itemized report from Oct. 6 of $2,305,525.00 in contributions, $250,000 from McLean, Virginia-based Common Sense America, and $100,000 from Colorado Dawn.
  • Energy Freedom Alliance of the Rockies had reported $160,890.18 in total contributions as of Oct. 6.

Opponents: The committees “No Pollution in the Constitution” and “Vote Common Sense” have registered with the Secretary of State’s office to oppose Amendment 82.

  • No Pollution in the Constitution had reported $1,864,500.99 in monetary contributions and $17,155 in non-monetary contributions, including $600,000 from Utility Action Alliance, $500,000 from Sixteen Thirty Fund, $250,000 from League of Conservation Voters, $164,400 from Conservation Colorado Education Fund, and $213,427.97 from Conservation Colorado.
  • Vote Common Sense also opposes Amendments 81, 84, and 85, and Propositions 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136. It has reported $646,500 in total contributions, including $200,000 from Washington, DC-based Green Advocacy Project, $100,000 from Merle Chambers of Denver, $65,0000 from Colorado Fund for Children & Public Education, $50,000 from Coloradans for Real Safety Solutions, $50,000 from Colorado Immigration Rights Coalition, $50,000 from Colorado WINS, and $35,000 from COBALT.

Proponent Points

  • Natural gas is a commonly used fuel and proponents don’t believe it should be banned.
  • Household or business electrification might be an alternative to gas, but a sizable percentage of Colorado’s electricity is generated from burning natural gas, and many people can use gas for cooking if the electricity goes out.
  • Colorado produces a lot of natural gas, so curtailing its use could have negative impacts on the state’s economic activity. Also, local production might reduce reliance on foreign energy sources.
  • People should have the right to heat their homes or cook their meals with the fuels of their choice, not have those rights denied by a local government.

Opponent Points

  • This initiative should not go into the state Constitution.
  • Passing Amendment 82 might contribute to future litigation, and it’s not yet certain how various attorneys might interpret the amendment’s language.
  • There might be perfectly good reasons for the state or local governments to pass ordinances to regulate natural gas, whether they’re environmental or economic in scope.
  • The ballot measure could be seen as vague – what constitutes a right to use natural gas? What happens if a local government passes an ordinance anyway?
  • The full impact of natural gas is perhaps not known yet, and it might have impacts on human health or a number of parts of the environment.

For More Information:

Richard’s Take

I’ll be voting NO, but not without a tiny amount of sympathy as to why it’s being proposed.

Primarily, I think it’s excessive to try putting the right to use and sell natural gas into the Constitution, and that to me is a deal-breaker by itself. But I must assume the proponents are running it in part to nip state or local gas bans in the bud, and it’s not even remotely beyond the realm of possibility that some local governments might propose certain measures since it’s already happened in several Colorado cities.

Here’s just a little story about how quickly energy-related bills or ordinances can happen. One of the first energy bills I witnessed as a Capitol staffer was HB 10-1365 in 2010, called the “Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act.” This might seem really strange to modern-day anti-fracking activists, but this bill actually encouraged MORE natural gas electrical generation to replace coal-fired plants. The bill passed by wide margins, not so oddly with Republicans from gas-producing parts of the state joining Democrats in support.

The point I’m really trying to make with Clean Air, Clean Jobs is that I’ve seen legislative bodies that include lots of legislators who aren’t energy experts work on energy-related policy positions quickly, and in some cases maybe a little too quickly without fully considering other sides of the story. In politics, sometimes bodies work fast because they have a majority and want to get something passed while they still have said majority. But to me, policy at its best should take some time because quick decisions might neglect deeper considerations.

But back to Amendment 82 – here, we basically have a partisan proposal to protect natural gas, and it really reads to me like it means “no matter what.” In my opinion, that’s bad policy even if it’s not going in a Constitution, but it’s even worse if it’s going in a Constitution. If we find out at any point into the future that gas leads to serious problems we don’t understand today, or that the consequences of things we know today are no longer acceptable, passing 82 would mean that governments couldn’t take action without going back to the voters and again amending the Constitution. So, for that reason alone I can’t support amending the Constitution this year with Amendment 82.