Proponents say new Colorado initiative would prohibit bans on natural gas and bar cross‑subsidized electric‑heating incentives

Proponents of a proposed Colorado constitutional amendment aimed at protecting the use of natural gas and limiting government‑sponsored incentives for electric heating discussed the measure’s purpose and several drafting points during a March 19, 2025 technical review with Office of Legislative Legal Services and Colorado Legislative Council staff.

Meeting materials identify the measure as a proposed initiative concerning prohibiting electric heating incentives and government bans on natural gas. Proponents described two principal purposes: 1) to prohibit state and local governments from banning the use of natural gas as an energy source for cooking or heating any residence or business and 2) to prohibit state or local governmental entities from requiring that one utility customer subsidize another customer’s purchase or use of an electric heat pump or other electric heating device.

Office of Legislative Legal Services staff again asked whether the initiative meets the constitutional single‑subject requirement (Article V, section 1, subsection 5.5). The designated representative answered that the single subject is “consumer choice of affordable natural [gas],” and accepted the default effective date under the Colorado Constitution when staff read Article V, section 1(4)(a).

Staff posed questions about whether discounts or incentives tied to purchasing electric heat pumps or other electric heating devices would violate the initiative if those incentives increased other customers’ utility rates. The designated representative said such incentives could violate the provision “potentially, if it causes other people's rates to go up.” On tax credits, the proponent said a state tax credit that does not raise other customers’ utility bills would not necessarily violate subsection 2 of the draft.

Staff also suggested removing a redundant phrase in subsection 1 — the second instance of “any residence or business” — to improve clarity; proponents said they would consider that edit. No formal vote or final drafting decision was recorded at the meeting; staff framed the discussion as technical comments and requested incorporation of clarifications into a revised draft.