Should Polluters Pay for Climate Disasters?
Assemblymember Dawn Addis discussed the return of a bill that would require oil and gas producers to pay for California's climate disasters.
Welcome to issue number seven of State of Change, a project of Climate Equity Reporting Project at Berkeley Journalism.
Climate News
Trump’s War on Climate Action Heats up
A great deal is happening at the federal level that will have an impact—or is already impacting—the ability of state agencies and nonprofit groups to take climate action in California.
On Thursday EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency would review dozens of agency rules, calling it the “biggest deregulation action in U.S. history.” Among the dozen or so rules on the chopping block are emissions limits on power plants, tailpipe pollution standards for cars and trucks, mandatory greenhouse gas reporting for large oil and gas operations, and Methane regulations for oil and gas operations. The agency also seeks to dismantle the “endangerment finding,” which established in 2009 that greenhouse gases endanger public health. Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, said in a statement, “the EPA has officially abandoned its mission to protect health and the environment.”
In an internal memo shared with the New York Times last week, Zeldin also announced that the agency is closing its environmental justice offices. In addition to the main office in Washington, which was established in 1992, all 10 regional offices will be closed, including the one in San Francisco.
Zeldin also announced that he had terminated 20 billion in grants for the National Clean Investment Fund and Clean Communities Investment Accelerator funds. Climate United, a coalition made up of three large environmental organizations, filed a lawsuit in response. One key piece of the Climate United work was a $250 million programthat would have offered affordable leasing options to small fleets and independent operators interested in switching to electric vehicles to lower operational costs and reduce air pollution in the port communities of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
So far, the one program that has been unfrozen is Solar for All, which is designed to help millions of low-income and disadvantaged households, including residents of tribal communities to access solar energy.
The Trump Administration is also reportedly “going after established climate science” and plans to produce a report on the so-called benefits of climate change. At the heart of the effort is a former BP scientist who pushed for such a report during the president’s first term.
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has paused its Green and Resilient Retrofit Program, which would have provided about $1 billion in grants and up to $4 billion in loans, to help building owners upgrade aging properties with energy efficiency and climate resilience in mind.
The Supreme Court rejected a bid by a group of Republican states to kill lawsuits—in California and elsewhere—seeking to hold the oil and gas industry accountable for climate damages.
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has cut the staff in charge of California’s complex water infrastructure at the Bureau of Reclamation by about 10 percent. This loss of personnel could hamper the agencies’ ability to manage the dams and water deliveries needed to serve the same farmers Trump was trying to appease when he demanded that the Army Corps of Engineers dump over 2 billion gallons of water in February.
Other Climate News from Around California
Building Electrification
The South Coast Air Quality Management District, may follow the lead of the Bay Area Air District and begin requiring the replacement of broken gas furnaces and water heaters electric heat pumps. But the district, which covers more than 17 million people across four counties, has faced ongoing pressure from the fossil fuel industry to weaken the rules. As Heat Pumped reports, the toned-down rules “sets manufacturer-level zero-emission sales targets that ramp up from just 30% in 2027 to 90% in 2036 never reaching 100%.” This very gradual approach is likely to lead to a much slower phaseout of both greenhouse gases and air pollution. The vote on the new rules is set for May 2.
In the Energy Institute Blog, Severin Borenstein wrote that it may be time to explore the idea of charging different rates for different uses of electricity within homes. “In particular, maintain the very high rates for current uses, but offer substantial discounts for the [kilowatt hours] going into new devices that would help decarbonize the grid, most notably electric vehicles and heat pumps for space heating and water heating.”
The Energy Transition
Battery storage for solar energy is projected to grow in 2025, despite spending cuts for policies and incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act by the Trump Administration. “Developers expect to build 18.1 [gigawatts] of new capacity— nearly double what was built in 2024,” said Michael Thomas in Cleanview Newsletter. California and Texas continue to lead in battery storage deployment, accounting for 60% of all new storage capacity built last year.
Wind and solar surpassed coal for power generation in the U.S. in 2024 for the first time, even as electricity demand rose. According to a report on U.S. electricity, wind and solar farms generated more electricity than coal-powered sources for the first time in 2024, even as electricity demand rose. The report found that the two sources of energy combined accounted for 17% of total electricity generation, while coal dropped to a historic low of 15%. Fossil gas still accounts for the majority, however, and has grown in recent years.
The U.S. installed enough new solar capacity in 2024 to power 8.5 million households, which was more than any energy source in 20 years. According to a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association and Wood Mackenzie, “solar and storage account for 84% of all new electric generating capacity added to the grid last year.”
Housing
Urban infill housing—or housing that fills in existing space within a city’s footprint rather than adding sprawl—is an increasingly popular strategy to revitalize neighborhoods and increase affordable housing options. The city of Emeryville provides an instructional example. It is implementing plans to construct 3,687 new housing units and hopes to reduce 80% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. By developing housing in underutilized and vacant spaces near city centers, infill housing significantly reduces transportation distances, which makes walking and biking more accessible and convenient.
Transportation
When the state withdrew its Advanced Clean Cars Rule—which requires that all new passenger cars, trucks and SUVs sold in California be zero emissions by 2035—from review by Trump’s EPA earlier this year, things were looking bad for the rule’s odds of coming to fruition. Then last week, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled that the rules are not subject to review or repeal. Meanwhile, car dealerships are running ad campaigns against the Advanced Clean Cars Rule, claiming they need more time to research consumer demand and charging infrastructure. CARB Chair Liane Randolph told Politico she finds their concerns to be a “false narrative,” stating that dealerships have flexibility through credits and a three-year window to meet sales.
According to new state data from 2024, Santa Clara County (the wealthiest county, and home to Silicon Valley) leads in the zero-emission car sales in California. It was followed by Marin county in second place. Nearly 43% of Santa Clara County residents now own electric cars, while 40% of Marin County residents do. However, it’s unclear whether even the wealthiest counties will continue to adopt EVs at anywhere near the same rate moving forward. According to Carleen Cullen, the executive director of Ride and Drive Clean, tariffs under the Trump Administration and the cancellation of EV tax credits could impact the ability of drivers to make the switch to cleaner vehicles.
People are driving more, despite clear evidence that we need to drive less if we want to avoid the worst case climate change scenario. In 2024, U.S. drivers and vehicle owners spent a total of 3.28 trillion miles on the road, which was an increase from the previous year and set a new annual record for the country. There was an increase by about 32.3 billion miles in 2024 compared to 2023. Californians drove an estimated 33 billion miles.
Waste
Gavin Newsom has restarted the process around California’s new plastic recycling rules, citing a need to minimize costs for small businesses and families. The policy as it was written would have required businesses to replace 25% single-use plastic packaging with 100% recyclable packaging by 2032. Newsom has been hit with backlash from environmental groups who say the decision undermines efforts to attack plastic pollution. As a result, the Plastic Pollution Coalition told Politico they may decide to push for a ballot initiative that would require a shift to single-use plastic packaging and foodware, after backing off a similar effort in 2022.
Climate Impacts and adaptation
The Bay Area city of Fremont is now the first in the country to buy its own flood insurance policy. The citywide insurance policy provides Fremont with the flexibility to use funds for recovery efforts and represents a significant step forward in community-based catastrophe insurance, at a time when private insurance companies are fleeing high-risk areas for climate disasters.
In response to the Pasadena and Palisades fires, L.A. schools are faced with the task of preparing their buildings for future climate disasters. In a recent op-ed in EdSource, two experts who run education nonprofits argue that Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) should prepare for wildfire smoke and heat waves by investing into fire-resistant building materials and new HVAC systems, along with other climate resilient infrastructure.
According to a recent survey from the Associated Press’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC), 80% of Americans said that they have experienced extreme weather—from heat waves to severe winter storms. Nine out of ten Democrats link this weather to climate change compared to roughly 40% of Republicans. Nonetheless, one thing agreed upon by 60% of Americans is that the federal government should provide funds to help the victims of extreme weather.
The Q&A: Assemblymember Dawn Addis on the Make Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act
In 2023, Senator Caroline Menjivar proposed a bill that would calculate the costs of climate disasters around the state, charge fossil fuel producers or refiners a set of fees based on those costs, and put them in a fund that would be used to remedy the damages. It was called the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act. Then, thanks in part to record spending on lobbying by Chevron and the Western States Petroleum Association, the state’s largest fossil-fuel trade group, the bill died shortly after it was introduced.
Then the LA wildfires burned more than 16,000 structures, caused upwards of $164 billion in damages, and threw a massive wrench in the insurance industry’s capacity to pay for those damages. Overnight, the conversation changed. And the fact that two-thirds of man-made carbon dioxide and methane emissions were caused by just 90 of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers became much harder to ignore.
In late February, just weeks after the first fire erupted, Menjivar revived the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act in the Senate (SB 684). “We must be relentless and creative in pursuing all avenues to redirect the financial burden away from the consumer as we mitigate the consequences of human-made disasters,” she said at the time.
At the same time, Assemblymember Dawn Addis, whose home district of Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo counties had seen its own share of climate-fueled disasters in the form of flooding and mudslides, proposed a version of bill (AB 1243) in the California State Assembly.
We spoke with assembly member Addis about the bill, the moment, and the potential to hold oil and gas companies to account for the growing number of climate disasters. Shortly after we spoke with her over 100 wildfire victims turned out to endorse the bill in front of the Chevron offices in Richmond, California
Why did you want to bring this piece of legislation back?
For one, we're seeing a full-frontal attack on California's climate goals and climate work, and so it's very important that we continue to act, and we continue to lead. It's also important that fossil fuel polluters have accountability. We just went through the LA wildfires, and it’s looking like the taxpayers—as well as the insurance ratepayers—are going to end up paying for those damages. Time and time again, we have seen the fossil fuel polluters get let off the hook, and we need to act. They need to have some skin in the game. So, it's time that they take part in solutions, and this bill will create authority under the EPA to help fund those solutions, with 40% of the funds going to the most impacted communities.
The oil and gas industry pushed back hard the last time this bill was on the table. According to The Guardian, “Fossil-fuel industry lobbying in California spiked to record levels during the 2023-24 legislative session, and the polluter pay bill was among the most targeted pieces of legislation, a Guardian review of state lobby filings found.”Do you think the political climate has shifted in such a way that they now have less ground to stand on?
It's no secret that the oil industry is well funded, and instead of spending their money on solutions, they spend it on fighting those of us who are currently trying to create solutions. I was very successful last year in passing a bill—AB 3233— that put us in direct conflict with the oil industry, and gave local communities the ability to ban oil and gas productions in their counties. It was a fight, but we were able to face the opposition, and I'm very optimistic that this year, this bill will continue to move forward. I think you know the kinds of extreme weather that we're experiencing, and we know it is closely linked to the climate crisis—which was caused by the oil and gas industry. We need them to be constructive partners in this, and a way for them to do that would be to engage with this super fund bill and make sure that the financing is there so we can do some of the infrastructure improvements, and address sea level rise, as well as other kinds of climate issues that communities are facing.
Are your constituents responding positively to this potential shift in who pays for these disasters?
Absolutely. People I hear from absolutely want something different moving into the future.
You referred to the part of the bill based on the Justice40 initiative, which will direct the 40% of the money to frontline environmental justice communities. Say more about why you're prioritizing those folks?
The communities that have been hit hardest by fossil fuel pollution really do need help. They need to have investments in a clean energy transition that will help with air quality, they need help with energy efficiency, infrastructure, community resilience, and so these funds can be used for those kinds of projects. I'll also say that they'll prioritize labor and job standards, which is important as part of the just transition. We need to keep people working, and so this bill is part of that larger effort. Other things the money could be used for include: upgrading water systems, decarbonizing buildings, and helping schools and businesses save on their utility bills.
Prop 4 passed last fall, and it promised to create a bond that will help fund climate resilience work. Do you see these two pieces of legislation working together?
Yes, absolutely. I was part of the Prop 4 working group, and a big focus of mine in that group was making sure that monies could be applied with geographic equity across our state. So I’m very optimistic that Prop 4 is a start and that the Superfund Act would keep us moving in the right direction. This bill is backward looking, so to speak, so it would give Cal EPA the authority to assess compensatory fees proportional to fossil fuel emissions from 1990 through 2024. It looks at damage that has already been done, and creates a fee that's proportional to that damage, so that as we move forward we have those funds to be able to correct some of the wrongs from the past.
Lawmakers in New York just signed the Climate Change Superfund Act, and another similar bill passed in Vermont last April. New Jersey and Massachusetts both also have bills on the table. How much have you been looking at what is working in other states?
We certainly have partners in a couple other states that have done this, and we have conversations going there. We're always looking to learn from the strengths and the successes of others, and we’re focused on how to do this in the right way here. California has such a huge coastline—I represent 20% of California's coastline—and it really brings its own unique challenges when it comes to coastal erosion, sea level rise, mudslides, and infrastructure challenges. So with such a large coastal community and also really important inland agricultural communities, we have our own lens on this as well.
Is it fair to say that there are Californians who have faced actual disasters and they’re also paying with their taxes to remedy other disasters right now.
Well, they've faced actual disasters, they're paying tax dollars for disasters, and they are also going to pay higher insurance premiums, so it's a triple whammy! And meanwhile, polluters are totally off the hook.
[A senate hearing is scheduled for The Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Bill SB 684 on April 2. As of this writing, AB1243 had yet to be referred to committee in the assembly.]
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
