A natural-gas rights initiative backed by Advance Colorado is likely headed to the November ballot, triggering a parallel campaign by environmental groups seeking to impose new liabilities on oil and gas operators.

Petitions for Initiative No. 177 were turned in to the Secretary of State’s Office on Tuesday for review, totaling 200,000 signatures. To make the ballot, about 124,000 of those signatures must be valid.

The initiative from Advance Colorado establishes consumers’ right to purchase natural gas for cooking and heating their homes and businesses, and the right of distributors and utilities to sell natural gas to homes and businesses.

“Natural gas is a clean, reliable and affordable form of energy that more than 70% of Colorado homes use today,” said Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado. “That right should be protected.”

The environmental organization Conservation Colorado has introduced four ballot initiatives to counter Initiative 177. Those measures, which have yet to reach the required signature threshold, would:

• Establish statutory liability for oil and gas companies operating in Colorado found to have damaged the state’s air, water, land or communities
• Establish joint and severance liability for current and past oil and gas operators and producers if found responsible for damage to the environment or a community
• Prohibit oil and gas distributors from requiring customers to pay for pipeline extensions or decommissioning costs
• Require oil and gas operators to pay for repairs to aquifers damaged by wastewater generated from drilling operations

“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 Conservation Colorado’s CEO Kelly Nordini. “If the Advanced Colorado initiative moves forward, we’ll work to inform Coloradans of the risks and ensure industry is fully accountable for the impacts of drilling.”

In May, Democratic lawmakers abandoned plans for a last-minute bill that would have addressed the potential impact Initiative 177 could have on the state’s air quality.

House Speaker Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon, argued the initiative was “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 proposal would not “meaningfully change” the impacts of Initiative No. 177.

Republicans celebrated the bill’s withdrawal, with Rep. Dan Woog of Erie, who sits on the House Energy and Environment Committee, stating it would have undermined Initiative 177 and “circumvented the proper legislative process.”

“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.”

Colorado’s state and local governments have adopted a series of policies to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels. Supporters say the shift — even if disruptive in the short term — will leave the state with a more sustainable, energy-efficient system, reduce reliance on foreign oil and deliver long-term environmental and public-health benefits.

Critics argue the transition is moving too quickly and lacks sufficient consideration of whether businesses and consumers can realistically meet the new requirements. They contend that the policies often overlook the financial strain on households, especially low-income residents and that they reflect ideological goals more than practical planning.