Julia Jackson, legislative council staff, opened a review-and-comment hearing on April 2 for proposed initiatives 56 and 57 and said the council and legal services had submitted a memorandum of comments dated April 2 that they would discuss on the record.

The proposed measures, described by the proponents as protecting "energy choice," would prohibit state and local governments from banning (initiative 56) or restricting (initiative 57) a product or service connection in common use on the basis of the energy source that powers it. Michael Fields, a designated proponent, summarized the proposals as a single-subject effort to "implement[] that by prohibiting bans on, common source energy." Steven Ward was also present as a proponent.

The Office of Legislative Legal Services and Legislative Council staff raised multiple technical and drafting questions, focusing on constitutional single-subject requirements, effective dates, and the scope of enumerated exemptions. Julia Jackson cited the statutory review duty in Section 1-41-105.1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and noted that prior memoranda and meetings from February and March remain part of the record. Jennifer Berman, with the Office of Legislative Legal Services, noted that the Colorado Constitution's Article V, Section 1 contains single-subject and effective-date rules that affect how initiatives must be written and when they would take effect if adopted.

Staff asked whether the proponents intended a single subject for each measure; Michael Fields answered that the single subject is "energy choice." Staff also asked whether the measures' exemption for "health and safety restrictions of the International Building Code or its successor code" was intended to reach other commonly adopted codes (such as the International Residential Code or the International Fuel Gas Code) or state-adopted fire or electrical safety codes. Suzanne Taheri, counsel to the proponents, said that where jurisdictions have incorporated those other codes, "to the extent they're incorporated, they would fit." Proponents indicated they would consider clarifying language.

Staff questioned whether the public-safety emergency exemption (phrased as "such as a fire or the imminent risk of a fire") was intended to permit temporary moratoria as well as permanent bans; the proponents confirmed that they intend the exemption to allow temporary measures during an emergency. Staff asked how an "imminent risk of fire" should be determined; proponents replied that the state or local officials should "use their expertise" to make that determination. Staff also discussed the National Weather Service terminology (fire weather watch vs. red flag warning) and noted that whether a watch or warning would trigger an emergency determination would be left to local authorities.

Staff raised a question about whether statutes that incentivize one energy source over another (for example, a tax credit for electric lawn equipment) would be treated as an impermissible restriction under initiative 57. Jennifer Berman indicated that such distinctions are a legal issue staff would analyze in drafting comments. Staff also asked whether the measures would apply to the conduct of municipally owned utilities, special districts, or school districts; the proponents said the measures would apply to those entities only to the extent the entities possess authority to ban or restrict a product or service.

No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing. Julia Jackson closed the record and adjourned the meeting; proponents said they would review the memorandum and consider clarifications to the draft language.

Ending: The record for initiatives 56 and 57 will include the April 2 memorandum and prior memoranda and meeting comments from February 28 and March 21; proponents indicated they will review staff questions and may revise wording before further filings or hearings.