Beyond that, let the markets do their work. If induction cooktops are actually better or win the cost/benefit tradeoff, customers will want them and builders will want to install them. There's very little to gain by forcing them on people.
As noted by the article, there are much also bigger & more impactful targets if your goal is actually to reduce carbon emissions: most notably industrial usage, but also furnaces and water heaters.
For example, between 6 and 19% of current childhood asthma in the US is attributable to gas stove use.[1] What parent would choose a gas stove if they knew there was a 1 in 20 to 1 in 5 chance that they would cause their child to have asthma?
The cost of the heat exchanger alone is likely to exceed the cost of entry level portable induction cookers. Now add in costs to run ducting, cut through walls, seal the penetrations etc.
Of course, things are different at scale, and there's no reason we can't have a world where quality household ventilation, and less-harmful cooking stoves are both mandated.
An induction stove, on the other hand, would require me to rip open a bunch of walls to run a new 220V line from my outdoor electrical panel (the garage subpanel doesn't have sufficient 220V running to it), remove or shut off the existing gas line, and install a many-thousand dollar cooktop to come close to the cooking quality I get from my modern gas range.
Those odds only make sense if 100% of children have asthma. I believe the probability would actually be 0.4% to 1.8% given CDC child asthma prevalence figures[1]. I'm terrible at math though.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/asthmadata/Child_prevalence_state...