Boulder’s climate lawsuit returned to the campaign trail at Tuesday evening’s Colorado Sun forum, where Rep. Gabe Evans warned that suing energy companies could raise fuel prices. For Democratic challenger Manny Rutinel, the exchange raises questions about his current support for “all of the above” energy, and whether he still backs the climate litigation campaign he once championed. Surprisingly, with just days before the election, Rutinel has been able to avoid taking a stance – even though the Boulder lawsuit targets one of the oil and gas companies operating in the district.

His answer to this question has significant importance given Rutinel’s evolving position on oil and gas. As the Colorado Sun reported earlier this year, Rutinel backed a total fracking ban six months into his congressional campaign before changing his position. His more recent embrace of “all of the above” energy production marks a shift, but his record gives voters reason to ask how far it goes.

As a Yale law student, Rutinel was arrested protesting fossil fuels, advocated using the courts to make fossil fuel companies “pay their reparations to those who have been affected,” and encouraged future lawyers to help state and local governments pursue those companies.

Now, with Boulder’s lawsuit before the Supreme Court and its potential costs becoming a campaign issue, Rutinel has several questions to answer:

• Does he support Boulder’s climate lawsuit against oil and gas companies operating in Colorado, including the Commerce City refinery in the district he seeks to represent?
• Does he still support the climate litigation campaign he encouraged at Yale, or is that another stance that has shifted?
• Would he have joined the congressional amicus brief supporting Boulder’s case?
• How does he reconcile his prior activism with Evans’s warning that expanding climate liability could increase costs for consumers and businesses?

At Tuesday evening’s Colorado Sun forum, Rep. Gabe Evans connected climate litigation to the fuel prices voters pay and the energy industry that helps support the district’s economy:

“You want prices to go down, you got to support the people who want to support oil and gas in American energy production, rather than sue it into oblivion.”

Evans warned that the implications of Boulder’s legal theory could reach beyond major producers to other businesses throughout the energy supply chain. At the October 5 oral arguments, Boulder’s attorney acknowledged that the lawsuit’s legal theory could extend to large retailers of fossil fuel products, telling the justices: “Nothing in our theory prevents that.”

Evans’s remarks at this week’s forum follow a similar exchange earlier this month, when Evans raised climate litigation during his debate with Rutinel.

“You know what [climate lawsuits] does to gas prices? That raises them and they never come back down.” https://t.co/w8uQiby95M

— Energy In Depth (@EnergyInDepth) October 8, 2026

While Evans has repeatedly stated his opposition to the lawsuit, Rutinel has yet to public address the case and state his position.

Other Colorado Democrats Are on the Record

Attorney General Phil Weiser has formally supported allowing Boulder’s lawsuit to proceed, co-leading a multistate Supreme Court brief. That position, however, stopped short of endorsing the merits of Boulder’s allegations, which Weiser further refused to back in an interview with NBC News.

Democratic attorney general nominee Jena Griswold has also addressed the issue publicly. After previously signaling support for bringing statewide climate litigation, she stated at the Colorado Sun’s attorney general debate that she supported Weiser’s approach,

Support is hardly universal within Colorado’s Democratic delegation. Neither Sen. John Hickenlooper nor Sen. Michael Bennet joined the 90-member congressional amicus brief supporting Boulder.

And it’s really no wonder why Democrats aren’t running on this issue, given the overwhelming opposition in the state to Boulder’s lawsuit. Recall that the Denver Post editorialized against the case when it was first filed in 2018, and the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC) joined eight Colorado counties in an amicus brief opposing it. No other Colorado municipality filed a brief supporting Boulder.

Which leaves us with this basic question: does Rutinel stand with Boulder or with the rest of the state?

BOTTOM LINE: Rutinel has previously advocated using the courts to make energy companies pay for climate-related damages. Now, as Boulder’s lawsuit sits before the Supreme Court and climate litigation becomes a campaign issue in one of Colorado’s most important energy-producing districts, voters still lack a clear any about whether he supports the case. With Evans taking a firm stand against Boulder and other prominent Democrats explaining their positions, Rutinel needs to clarify where he stands.