SB25-202 is a housekeeping bill that repeals an obsolete statutory provision in Title 25 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The bill removes Part 13 of Article 1 of Title 25, which had required the Department of Public Health and Environment to award grants by July 2007. Because that deadline passed many years ago, the measure does not create a new program or change current grant policy; it simply deletes a dormant section of law that no longer has operative effect.
The bill’s caption in the legislative context identifies it as the repeal of the Climate Change Markets Grant Program, indicating that the repealed provisions relate to an outdated grant authority tied to climate-related market initiatives. The act takes effect after the standard post-adjournment period unless a referendum petition is filed. In practical terms, the bill cleans up the statutes by removing obsolete language from the public health and environment code and leaving current state law more streamlined and accurate.
Impact
The bill amends Colorado law by repealing Part 13 of Article 1 of Title 25, eliminating an obsolete statutory grant requirement previously assigned to the Department of Public Health and Environment. It does not establish new duties, funding, or enforcement mechanisms, and it should have little to no ongoing operational impact on state agencies, regulated parties, or the public beyond statutory cleanup and removal of outdated references.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad bipartisan support and little controversy. The bill advanced 9-0 in the Senate Health & Human Services Committee, passed Senate third reading 32-0, moved through the House State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs Committee 10-1, and passed House third reading 63-2. The near-unanimous votes indicate that most legislators viewed the measure as a routine technical repeal rather than a substantive policy change.
Contention
There is no committee transcript available, and the bill text itself is narrowly focused on repealing an obsolete provision, so there is little evidence of substantive disagreement. The only notable point of contention is the single no vote in the House committee and the two no votes on House third reading, which may reflect general opposition to the underlying climate-related program or a preference against repealing statutory language, but the record provided does not identify specific objections or sponsors of the dissent.