Lafayette — The City Council voted to accept its legislative committee’s recommendation of no action on a proposed state ‘polluters pay’ climate super fund bill after lengthy discussion about the measure’s fiscal implications and uncertain consumer impacts.

Councilmember (Speaker 8), who summarized the committee review, said the bill is complex and lacks a clear statewide cost estimate. He compared the measure’s potential size to programs in other states and warned the fiscal numbers could be very large: “there’s just no way of knowing,” he said, describing back‑of‑the‑envelope concerns that California’s obligation could dwarf New York’s example.

The council’s discussion focused on two central questions: how large the fund might be if adopted in California, and whether costs might be passed to consumers. Councilmember (Speaker 11) said she supported seeing the numbers before taking a position: “I would just need to understand kind of what it’s gonna mean to the average person’s gas tank fill up,” she said.

The council voted to endorse the legislative committee’s recommendation of no action (motion moved by Councilmember (Speaker 8); seconded by Councilmember (Speaker 11)). One councilmember registered a recorded dissent in the meeting’s discussion, and one abstained during the vote. Councilmembers said they will continue to follow the bill as it returns to committee in January and may revisit a position if proponents provide more concrete fiscal analysis.

Background: According to the legislative committee materials discussed at the meeting, the measure would require a study and create a mechanism to require payments from historic fossil‑fuel interests; materials provided to the committee compared other states’ programs but did not provide an explicit California estimate. The staff memo and lobbyist summary were reviewed by the council, which requested additional economic modeling before weighing in formally.

Next steps: Council members said they will monitor the measure’s progress through senate judiciary and appropriations committees early next year and expect additional information from their lobbyist in Sacramento before deciding whether to adopt a formal position.