Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Climate Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond council backs state ‘Polluters Pay’ Climate Superfund resolution
Summary
The Richmond City Council voted unanimously to support state bills SB 684 and AB 1243, known as the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025. The measure asks CalEPA to study historic climate damages and establish assessments on large historical emitters to fund climate resilience, with 40% directed to disadvantaged communities. The vote passed
The Richmond City Council on Oct. 28 adopted a resolution urging state lawmakers to pass the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act (Senate Bill 684 and Assembly Bill 1243), a proposal that would direct CalEPA to quantify climate damages dating to 1990 and require large historical emitters to pay into a state fund for mitigation, adaptation and disaster response.
Council member Jimenez introduced the resolution and said Richmond — long impacted by refinery pollution — should “stand on the right side of history” and press for corporate accountability. “By supporting this bill, Richmond stands on the right side of history, demanding accountability, justice, and a reliable future for our children,” Jimenez told the council.
Two UC Berkeley students, Jackson Golding and Maya Williams, summarized the bill’s main components to the council: (1) authorize CalEPA to complete a cost study of climate damages, (2) use attribution science to quantify each large emitter’s share of responsibility, (3) create a climate superfund with proportional fees assessed on those emitters and (4) set spending guidelines, with at least 40% of revenues directed to disadvantaged communities.
Supporters at the meeting included health professionals, environmental justice groups, academics and youth climate activists. Testimony in favor argued the fund would shift costs for climate impacts from taxpayers to historic emitters, and that the assessments would be too small and upstream to affect retail fuel prices. Dr. Wendy Bernstein, a psychiatrist and volunteer with Climate Health Now, said targeted funding could pay for measures such as air filtration for residents living near polluting facilities.
Opponents — including industrial and business groups and some labor representatives — warned of legal challenges and potential economic impacts. A Bay Area Council policy director said independent analyses show possible affordability impacts and job risks; industry speakers urged additional study and legal clarity before endorsement.
Council action: Council member Jimenez moved to adopt the resolution; a second was received. The clerk recorded affirmative votes from Council member Brown; Council member Obama; Council member Jimenez; Council member Wilson; Council member Robinson; and Vice Mayor Zapata. The motion passed unanimously among members present. Mayor Martinez was absent.
What happens next: The resolution asks state lawmakers to act; it does not change city law or levy fees. The council’s endorsement adds Richmond to a growing list of cities urging Sacramento to pass the legislation.
