Colorado voter should say “yes” this November on Amendment 82. The measure amends the state Constitution to give Coloradans a “right to natural gas.”
Isn’t it absurd to even imagine that energy consumers need to vote on whether they should have this right?
Ultimately banning natural gas, which is the real intent of opponents, would drive up the price of energy for Coloradans and harm the Colorado economy. And for what purpose, and why now when “affordability” has become a major concern for consumers and is a hot topic in political circles?
A recent study by Lucas Davis of the Haas School of Business at the University of California concluded:
Advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling caused U.S. natural gas production to increase significantly, and the U.S. went from being a net importer of natural gas to being the world’s largest exporter…[shale] gas has saved U.S. natural gas consumers. Using price differences between the United States, Europe and Japan, we calculate that U.S. natural gas consumers have saved $4.5-$5.3 trillion between 2007 and 2025, equivalent to $237-$276 billion annually. Access to low-price U.S. natural gas has been particularly valuable during major supply shocks such as the war in Ukraine, and the benefits of shale gas have been experienced broadly across sectors and states.
Fortunately, political efforts throughout the country to curtail gas supply and demand have met with limited success. Methane rules, drilling restrictions on public land, and opposition to new pipelines have only incrementally slowed the growth of natural gas in the United States. But the obstinate anti-fossil-fuel lobby and their government allies want much more: moratoriums on new gas service and bans on natural gas usage and appliances.
The rush to ban natural gas
Bans by municipal jurisdictions and states have been in the news for some time. The City of Berkeley initiated municipal efforts back in July 2019 to electrify (for example, via electric heat pumps and electric stoves) by prohibiting natural gas in their new buildings. Since then, cities and towns in several states, including Colorado, have implemented or are considering restrictions on the use of gas in new buildings.
The primary purpose of these efforts, like those in Colorado, is to mitigate climate change, however infinitesimal in the whole, by making buildings zero carbon (which is an impossibility). A ban is much more extreme than just creating a tax to discourage consumption of a product or service. With a tax, the decision is still left to consumers on how much of a product or service to purchase. A gas ban, on the other hand, obliterates consumer choice for meeting space and water heating needs, not to mention a flame for superior cooking and taste.
Such prohibition violates consumer freedom to purchase a preferred source of energy like natural gas in place of an inferior one, namely electricity. Cheapness and quality are sacrificed on the altar of an environmental fixation that is itself debatable.
Climate change claims fall short
In technical economic terms, a gas ban for Colorado fails miserably with the benefits virtually zero and the costs potentially high. As a public policy, a ban is off the charts as being a socially damaging public policy
Here is why: Less than 9% of carbon-dioxide emissions in the U.S. come from direct use of natural gas in homes and buildings. The U.S. emits about 15% of world CO2 emissions. Thus, converting all buildings to all-electric, and assuming that all electricity is produced from “clean” sources (it is not), reduces world-wide emissions less than 1.5%, which according to climate models, would have a indiscernible effect on global climate, temperature, sea level, or otherwise. Scaling down to Colorado, eliminating all use of natural gas in the state would have virtually no effect on climate change.
Is it only because of special interests that local and state governments would even consider prohibiting consumers to choose natural gas as an energy source to meet their space, water heating, and cooking needs. After all, in most parts of the country where gas is available, it is the most economic and desired source of energy for these end uses.
Good public policy balances the economic and environmental consequences in enhancing the public interest. Because a gas ban in Colorado – command-and-control policy at its worst – has no real effect on global climate and will inevitably increase cost for consumers and their well-being. One would have to look hard to find a governmental action that is so intrusive, imbalanced and detrimental to Colorado’s welfare.
One cannot avoid believing the craziness of banning or even restricting an energy source like natural gas that has greatly benefited, and will continue to do so, both Colorado’s energy consumers and economy. A ban on natural gas, which obviously is the intent of Amendment 82’s opponents, is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Kenneth W. Costello is a regulatory economist and independent consultant, who resides in Santa Fe, NM.
