Colorado lawmakers have halted plans for a bill responding to a proposed constitutional amendment that would guarantee consumers the right to use natural gas, saying the legislation would not significantly affect the measure’s impact even as debate intensifies among environmental groups, the oil and gas industry, and state leaders.

The bill — initially planned by House Speaker Julie McCluskie, D‑Dillon, Majority Leader Jennifer Bacon, D‑Denver, and Sen. Lisa Cutter, D‑Evergreen — was intended to address how the ballot measure might affect the state’s air quality.

Bacon also raised concerns that the amendment’s wording was overly broad and could create unintended consequences.

The proposed constitutional amendment introduced by the advocacy organization Advance Colorado would establish a right for consumers to purchase natural gas and for distributors and utilities to sell natural gas to homes and businesses.

As of Tuesday, it has about two-thirds of the required number of signatures to get on the ballot.

Climate activists and the oil and gas industry have been at odds for years about the future of Colorado’s energy portfolio. In 2024, they seemed to have reached a truce of sorts in which environmental groups and oil and gas producers promised not to bring forward any ballot initiatives until 2027.

However, Advance Colorado told Axios News it was not part of that agreement.

In March, the environmental group Conservation Colorado introduced its own response to Initiative No. 177 with four ballot measures establishing liability for oil and gas companies for damage to the state’s environment and communities, prohibiting them from requiring customers to pay for pipeline extensions or decommissioning costs, and requiring them to pay for repairs to aquifers damaged by wastewater generated from drilling operations.

House Republicans say their efforts to filibuster the bill’s introduction by having several bills read at length during floor debate on Monday were ultimately successful.

I’m pleased to report that strong opposition from House Republicans successfully prevented the introduction of last-minute legislation that would have undermined the proposed ‘right to natural gas’ ballot measure and circumvented the proper legislative process,” said Rep. Dan Woog, R-Erie, who sits on the House Energy and Environment Committee.

According to Woog, the bill’s sponsors planned to refer it directly to the Judiciary Committee rather than to Energy and Environment.

“This policy was directly within our committee’s scope and expertise, and yet, we would have been bypassed,” Woog said. I’m grateful that with guidance from our leadership, our caucus held the line and made clear that we would not stand for such a blatant disregard of the legislative process. Legislation of this magnitude deserves a transparent and deliberative process, not backroom maneuvering in the eleventh hour with limited public input.”

McCluskie released the following statement when asked for comment:

“Energy policy is complicated and impacts every Coloradan, which is why lawmakers supported the 2024 agreement between environmental groups and oil and gas companies to craft smart policy that reduces costs and protects our environment from harmful emissions. Voters tell us time and again they want more action on climate and air quality, not less. We are on the right track, but dark money special interests are bringing ballot measures to derail our progress.”

McCluskie said Initiative No. 177 is “overly broad, lacks clarity, and could upend years of work to craft durable policy that advances our goals of better air quality, more affordable transit and cleaner energy.”

However, after discussions with stakeholders, McCluskie said she and her cosponsors determined their proposed policy would not “meaningfully change” the impacts of Initiative No. 177.

“The only rational way forward for the good of our state is for Advance Colorado to pull down their measures so that compromise and common sense can prevail,” she said, “Short of that, I call on local governments, utilities, labor and community organizations to work in opposition to the measure.”