February 19, 2025 – Informational Hearing
The subject of the hearing appears to be an examination of how the Governor’s Administration proposes to spend climate funding from Proposition 4, and how the proposal differs from the original proposal crafted by the Legislature.
The hearing can be viewed via live stream on the Assembly’s website at https://www.assembly.ca.gov/schedules-publications/todays-events
California Environmental Voters (formerly California League of Conservation Voters) has been preparing an environmental score card to rate state legislatures since 1977 and just awarded California a B this year for its 2024 environmental and climate action, noting that many opportunities to reduce emissions were left on the table despite record disasters from fires. They note in a recent OpEd to CalMatters that based on their 50 years of observation: “The main obstacle to government action at the scale this crisis demands are corporate polluters as one of the biggest financial spenders on elections and lobbying in California. The California Environmental Scorecard started tracking legislators that accept money from Big Oil at the turn of the decade.”
Oil money continues to play a potent force in California politics. Based on data from the Secretary of State, CalMatters reports that big oil and big tech spent nearly $168 million to influence California lawmakers in in the fall quarter of 2024 alone. California Environmental Voters notes that legislators who accept oil money are more likely to vote against environmental initiatives than those who refuse such contributions. Just looking at Democratic lawmakers, those who took oil money had an average voting record on environmental legislation that was 25% lower than their peers who did not. To be fair, their scores were penalized just for receiving oil money, but the penalty accounts for only a small difference in the score. The bulk of the discrepancy stems from their voting history on environmental issues.
On a more hopeful note, the trend of accepting oil money is on the decline. In 2021, 65% of legislators took oil money, while in 2024 that was down to 51%. Only 30% of Democrats in the Senate and 35% in the Assembly took oil money in 2024.
The first meeting of the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC) for 2025 is scheduled for February 13, 2025. The public can attend in person or remotely. Details below.
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2025
Time: 1:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Location: The meeting is being held in-person in Sacramento and remote via Zoom.
CalEPA HQ Building | Sierra Hearing Room, Second Floor | 1001 ” I ” Street, Sacramento, California
Join Virtually: Zoom (please register ahead of the meeting)
Passcode: 876719
By Telephone: 888 363 4734 (US Toll Free)
Conference code: 176024
Climate change is no longer a future problem—it’s here, and Californians are feeling its effects more than ever. From devastating wildfires to catastrophic flooding, the state has been on the front lines of extreme weather events, and these disasters are taking a huge toll on the state’s and individuals’ lives and wallets. But now, a new bill in the California State Legislature aims to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in fueling the climate crisis—and it could provide much-needed relief for both victims of climate disasters and insurers.
What is SB 222?
Senate Bill 222 (SB 222), introduced by State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Senator Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), would create a legal pathway for individuals and insurers to sue fossil fuel companies for damages caused by climate disasters. The bill claims that oil and gas companies have misled the public about the impact of their products on climate change, and this misinformation has contributed to increasingly severe weather events in California.
If the bill passes, Californians who experience property damage or bodily harm from these disasters would be able to sue the responsible fossil fuel companies for compensation. The bill also provides a route for insurers, including the California FAIR Plan (the state’s insurer of last resort), to recover the costs of claims related to climate change-related damages.
How Does the Bill Work?
Under SB 222, people who have suffered damages of $10,000 or more due to a climate disaster can file a lawsuit against the companies they believe are responsible. The key here is that the companies would be held liable for their role in spreading misleading or deceptive information about the link between fossil fuel products and climate change.
The bill makes it clear that fossil fuel companies would be jointly, severally, and strictly liable for the damages caused, meaning they could be held fully accountable for the harm they’ve caused. And if plaintiffs win their cases, they would be entitled to full compensation, including noneconomic and punitive damages, to ensure that they are made whole.
This would also apply to all Californians who are impacted by climate disasters, such as wildfires and floods, as the bill defines these events as “injuries in fact” for residents harmed by them. Essentially, the bill gives any California resident who’s affected by a climate disaster the right to pursue legal action against fossil fuel companies.
What About Insurance?
The bill isn’t just about helping individuals—it also gives a boost to the insurance industry. In recent years, insurance companies in California have struggled with rising costs due to climate disasters. To address this, SB 222 would allow insurers to seek damages from fossil fuel companies for the costs they pay out on climate-related claims.
The California FAIR Plan, a state-backed insurance program for people who can’t find coverage through private insurers, would be able to sue these companies on behalf of policyholders affected by large-scale wildfires or other climate-related disasters. This could help reduce the burden on both insurers and homeowners who have seen their premiums skyrocket.
The bill also includes provisions for an independent advisory body that will assess the financial impact of climate disasters on the FAIR Plan and guide insurers on whether they should pursue subrogation (seeking reimbursement from the responsible party). This could ultimately help stabilize California’s insurance market, which has been facing huge challenges as insurers pull out of the state due to the increasing risk of climate-related events.
Why Does This Matter?
SB 222 is about more than just lawsuits—it’s about holding the fossil fuel industry accountable for the climate crisis they’ve helped create. California is already experiencing the harsh realities of climate change, and these disasters are only going to get worse. By passing this bill, lawmakers are saying that the companies that have contributed the most to the problem should help pay for the damage they’ve caused.
Senator Wiener, who introduced the bill, put it simply: “Californians are paying a devastating price for the climate crisis, as escalating disasters destroy entire communities and drive insurance costs through the roof. By forcing the fossil fuel companies driving the climate crisis to pay their fair share, we can help stabilize our insurance market and make the victims of climate disasters whole.”
Supporters of SB 222 argue that this is an important step in addressing California’s home insurance crisis and ensuring that people who are impacted by climate disasters don’t have to bear the financial burden alone.
The Road Ahead
While SB 222 has garnered support from environmental groups, it’s not without controversy. Many U.S. insurers have significant investments in fossil fuel companies, and there could be potential conflicts of interest when it comes to pursuing legal action against those companies.
Still, experts argue that this bill could create a clearer pathway for insurers to recover costs from fossil fuel companies—especially if states make it a requirement for insurers to take action as a condition for rate increases. Given the mounting financial pressure on both individuals and insurance companies, SB 222 could be a crucial tool for addressing the escalating costs of climate change.
Conclusion
SB 222 represents a bold move to tackle the dual challenges of rising insurance costs and the increasing frequency of climate disasters in California. By holding fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in climate change, the bill provides a legal avenue for both residents and insurers to recover damages and reduce the financial strain caused by wildfires, floods, and other extreme weather events. As the bill moves through the legislative process, it will undoubtedly spark debates on the role of the insurance industry, the fossil fuel sector, and the responsibility they share in addressing the climate crisis.
For Californians who are bearing the brunt of climate change, SB 222 may offer some much-needed relief—and a chance to push back against the companies that have fueled the crisis for far too long.
In its latest Assessment Report 2024 titled Towards EU Climate Neutrality: Progress, Policy Gaps, and Opportunities, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) underscores the urgent need for climate policies to go beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The report suggests that to achieve true societal transformation, policies must be supported by compelling, evidence-driven narratives that connect with local communities and reflect the full spectrum of benefits, including well-being, job creation, and economic resilience.
A central theme in the ESABCC’s report is the power of storytelling in climate action. Too often, climate policies are framed narrowly and technically around emissions reductions and cost-effectiveness. However, the Advisory Board argues that successful climate strategies must integrate a “whole-of-society” approach—one that highlights both the tangible and intangible benefits of climate action. These include not just environmental sustainability, but also improved health, economic opportunities, and greater energy security. In telling these narratives, the link must be made between these benefits and climate policy.
Localized narratives tailored to specific community contexts can ignite societal and behavioral changes. For example, demand-side mitigation strategies—those that focus on changing consumption patterns and reducing energy use—are crucial, yet largely untapped. By promoting awareness, professional advice, and community-driven solutions, policymakers can tap into people’s inherent willingness to adopt sustainable practices when they see direct benefits for their families, neighborhoods, and society at large.
The Assessment Report 2024 highlights the transformative potential of small behavioral changes, particularly in energy consumption. Behavioral interventions such as energy labeling, goal-setting, and social comparison have already shown promising results in reducing private household energy use. The report notes that between 2019 and 2022, these shifts contributed to a 12% reduction in fossil gas consumption in EU buildings, with behavior changes accounting for half of that decrease.
Further policies, the report suggests, could harness this momentum by encouraging better use of existing buildings and addressing rebound effects in renovation projects—where energy use increases post-renovation due to lifestyle changes. Policies need to be more attuned to the nuances of behavioral change to ensure long-term reductions in energy consumption.
The ESABCC’s report also turns the spotlight on the agricultural sector, urging policymakers to focus on educating consumers about sustainable diets and food waste reduction. While there may be cultural and social challenges in shifting dietary habits, the report suggests that policies can build on deeply held values—such as health—by emphasizing the myriad benefits of sustainable eating.
Yet, the Advisory Board notes that EU climate policies have been slow to capitalize on the potential of societal and behavioral shifts in consumption patterns. Current narratives, focused mainly on emissions reduction, often overlook the broader advantages of climate action. This gap is particularly evident in the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), where building renovations have not been sufficiently framed in terms of their multiple societal benefits—such as job creation, reduced energy poverty, and improved public health.
The Assessment Report 2024 calls for greater integration of multiple benefits in EU climate policies. Recent initiatives like the European Commission’s Renovation Wave Strategy and the New European Bauhaus are steps in the right direction, aiming to connect climate action with values of sustainability, aesthetics, and inclusion. The New European Bauhaus, in particular, seeks to transform society by encouraging new lifestyles and fostering energy-efficient buildings that also improve quality of life.
The EPBD’s recast version supports this vision by recognizing the broad benefits of energy efficiency, such as job creation and energy security. New provisions, such as the proposed building renovation passport and smart readiness indicators, aim to promote behavior changes by improving access to data and encouraging smarter energy use.
One of the most urgent calls from the Assessment Report 2024 is for climate policies to connect more directly to people’s everyday concerns. In light of the energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Commission’s focus on energy security—tied to renewable energy and energy-saving measures—has resonated strongly with the public. By framing climate action in terms of local issues like air pollution and energy dependence, the EU can make climate policies more relatable and compelling.
This shift in narrative helps engage citizens in transformative changes that benefit both the environment and their immediate well-being. The report stresses that EU climate policies could achieve even greater success if they further integrate these multiple benefits and communicate them in ways that are relevant to local contexts.
In sum, the Assessment Report 2024 urges EU policymakers to refine and expand their narratives around climate action. These stories must be grounded in data and tailored to local realities, focusing on the full range of benefits that climate policies can offer—from improved public health to greater energy independence. Only by shifting from a narrow focus on emissions reductions to a more comprehensive approach can the EU truly mobilize societal and behavioral change at the scale necessary to reach climate neutrality.
By weaving compelling, evidence-based narratives into climate strategies, the EU can inspire the widespread engagement and action needed to create a sustainable, equitable future for all.
This isn’t a California focused report, but California likewise suffers from this issue. As it moves toward more transparency, California ought to bring greater focus on compelling, benefits-focused, evidence-based narratives into climate strategies to both achieve the greatest success in climate policy and to avoid policy pushback from those focused sonly on cost.
The Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act Senate Bill (SB) 253 (Wiener, Statutes of 2023, Chapter 382) requires entities formed under the laws of California, the laws of any other state or the District of Columbia with total annual revenues over ($1,000,000,000) that do business in California to annually report all of their Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. This legislation aims to promote transparency. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to promulgate regulations implementing SB 253, including establishing a date in 2026 when the first emission reports will be due.
In the meantime, however, CARB has announced it will not penalize entities for incomplete Scope 1 and 2 emissions disclosures under SB 253 during the first reporting period. Specifically, on December 5, 2024, CARB issued an Enforcement Notice, stating it would not impose penalties for incomplete reports when the first disclosures are due in 2026, provided entities make “good faith” efforts. This policy applies to Scope 1 and 2 emissions from the previous fiscal year. CARB’s discretion has raised concerns from environmental groups, who may challenge the decision, and angered lawmakers. The law’s authors, Senators Scott Wiener and Henry Stern, expressed frustration with CARB’s slow progress in implementing SB 253, warning of oversight hearings in 2025 unless progress is made.
This notice only affects SB 253, and not other climate disclosure laws like SB 261 or AB 1305.
CARB also opened a 60-day public comment period on the implementation of SB 253 and SB 261, ending February 14, 2025, allowing stakeholders to provide input.
The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies has a new chair. Assembly Member Jacqui Irwin will be leading the Committee moving forward in 2025. This is a great opportunity for the Legislature to resume its role in pushing the state forward to meet its climate commitments.
The committee is supposed to oversee a lot of the climate activities of state agencies in California, and appears to have lost its momentum. It met 5 times its first year, 5 times its second year, once in 2020, once in 2021, 3 times in 2022, and 2 times in 2023. In 2023, it heard testimony from several independent oversight analysts, including the IEMAC and the LAO, indicating that the State’s Scoping Plan was flawed and ought to be bolstered. The staff report prepared for that meeting stated: “Put simply, the LAO and IEMAC were directed to let the JLCCCP and Legislature know if there was reason for concern, and since the Scoping Plan Update was released, they have both sounded alarms. This hearing is intended to heed those warnings.” Recommendations included:
The Committee took no action at the end of that hearing, a missed opportunity that can be seized with new leadership.
Proposition 4, a $10 billion dollar bond measure to fund environmental and climate projects, passed by a clear margin according to the Secretary of State. The election will not be formally certified until December 13, 2024, but the results for this proposition are not expected to change.
Funding would be directed at climate adaptation activities as follows, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office:
(Source: LAO, Proposition 4 Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands From Climate Risks. Legislative Statute (November 5, 2024).)
CARB recently released a preliminary greenhouse gas inventory reporting that the state’s emissions decreased in 2022 and 2023 as compared with 2021. The bad news is that overall emissions remain up as compared to the 369 MMTCO2e that was previously reported for 2020.
Reporting by Scoping Plan sector in units of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e), CARB revealed that emissions are on an upward trend:
| Sector | 2021 GHG Inventory (MMTCO2e) | Ratio of MRR Emissions (2022/2021) | Estimated 2022 Emissions (MMTCO2e) | Estimated 2023Emissions (MMTCO2e) |
| Transportation | 146 | 0.9889 | 144 | 141.7±5.4 |
| Electric Power | 62 | 0.9527 | 59 | 60.4 ±1.7 |
| Industrial | 74 | 0.9911 | 73 | 73.5 ±0.4 |
| Residential & Commercial | 39 | 0.9841 | 38 | 38.6 ±0.4 |
| Agriculture | 31 | N/A | 31 | 31.2±0.2 |
| High GWP | 21 | N/A | 21 | 21.2±0.1 |
| Recycling & Waste | 8 | N/A | 8 | 8.5 ±0.0 |
| Total | 381 | 376 | 375.1 ±8.2 |
The IEMAC Meeting will be held in the CalEPA building on August 7, 2024 at 2:30 to 5:00 located at 1001 I Street, Sierra Hearing Room, 2nd Floor. Zoom and phone participation are also available. Register in advance using this Zoom link. The public may also participate by phone: Dial +1 (877) 853-5247 (US Toll Free); the meeting ID is: 978 1483 2023, the passcode is: 661610.
The agenda is published. The committee will apparently hear a presentations on carbon removals and carbon management, featuring guest speakers, discuss the July 10, 2024 CARB cap-and-trade workshop materials, and plan for the 2024 IEMAC Annual Report. If you are interested, plan to attend because the meetings are not recorded and the meeting minutes are spare.