Climate Action - California Climate and Energy Collaborative

Priority Area: Climate Action

Climate action refers to efforts and initiatives taken to address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the changing climate. It encompasses a broad range of activities at individual, community, corporate, and governmental levels.

California continues to lead global efforts to combat climate change by setting some of the world’s most ambitious policies and targets aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and promoting clean energy. Local governments play a vital role in meeting State and local climate goals, however achieving substantial emission reductions within communities is challenging work. A third of California’s GHG reduction potential can be achieved through local action.

Desired Future

State and local participants envision a carbon neutral and regenerative future that offers climate stability and safety as well as new economic opportunities. Related priorities expressed during engagements can be viewed in the database.

Relevant State Agencies

This priority area is relevant to the function of:

California Energy Commission
California Public Utilities Commission
California Air Resources Board
Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development
California Environmental Protection Agency
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Strategic Growth Council
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation.

What’s Working

California is leading the nation with the world’s most ambitious climate goals, targeting carbon neutrality by 2045. California’s climate strategy is anchored by several key frameworks including the 2022 Scoping Plan, a strategy that serves as a roadmap for other states and countries, including measures to slash greenhouse gases and clean up air pollution.

The state has a comprehensive framework involving both state-level mandates and extensive local government action, with approximately 73% of California’s population living in a jurisdiction covered by a local Climate Action Plan covering a range of emission reduction strategies including transportation, land Use, and energy & buildings. While implementation is a challenge, models of regional coordination have been helpful to provide local support for climate action.

Barriers & Solutions

To achieve the desired future outlined above, California will need to accelerate climate action across CA. Participants share that several key barriers impede progress and require further attention, as detailed below: Planning Capacity, Source Data, Transitioning to Equitable Action, Legal Hurdles, and Load Capacity. On the left, toggle through these barriers to view details about challenges experienced across the state and solution opportunities at the state and local level.

Filterable Database

Help us strengthen our knowledge base!

Help us to expand our database. Either share new ideas, best practices or general feedback via this form, or click on a particular item to share additional feedback, information, examples of progress on that particular item.

Feedback Form

Additional Resources

CARB’s Local Actions for Climate Change webpage
UC Berkeley: The Status of Local Climate Action in California
City Scale et al: State of Local Climate Planning
UCLA paper describes problems with 15/15 rule and data masking
Governor’s Office of Landuse and Climate Innovation’s Annual Planning Survey

Please share any additional resources you would like to include by emailing eecoordinator@civicwell.org.

Too much local capacity (staff time/resources) and technical expertise is needed to develop/ track/ update greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories and climate action plans (CAPs), which takes away from implementation.

Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation – 2023 Annual Planning Survey Report

There are many reasons a local government may engage in a climate action plan (CAP). CAPs serve as a roadmap that informs funding plans and budgets, and sets priorities for constrained resources. They can be used as a mitigation measure for a jurisdiction’s General Plan EIR. The process to develop CAPs can engage communities and build public support for climate action and climate investments. Participants noted that they desire to make CAP processes community-driven and more equitable, but lack of capacity and funding limits community engagement.

In the last two decades, roughly half of the local governments in California have conducted and are working to implement climate action plans, including an analysis of local GHG sources and a plan for feasible emission reduction strategies to meet local targets. The process of developing a CAP is often cumbersome, resource intensive, and time-consuming, many CAPs are currently out of date and do not represent the immediate needs of local jurisdictions.

Most local governments conducting GHG inventories are doing so in-house, many with consultants or with help from regional agencies. Most would prefer not to have to conduct an inventory or prepare CAPs, but repeatedly shared that it is an important step in the political process to pave the way for substantive local action and investments.

Participants shared that completing GHG inventories represent a particularly challenging part of the CAP process.

Planning Capacity Challenges

View related challenges SLECC stakeholders have experienced across the state.

Filtered Database

Local Solution Opportunities

SLECC stakeholders have brainstormed the following solution opportunities that can be taken by local leaders. Existing examples of progress or pathways to make further progress are highlighted if known.

Solution

Regional climate hubs, shared staffing models, and COG/REN-led technical assistance networks that pool expertise, standardize methods, align state–local requirements, and provide sustained planning and implementation support for under-resourced jurisdictions.

Existing Examples of Progress: 1. Past support from SANDAG in preparing GHG inventories was cited as reducing burdens on local staff. Loss of this support has worsened planning capacity issues. 2. AMBAG provided an example wherein regional staff can provide technical expertise to cities. 3. San Mateo County’s RICAPS (Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Support) is an effective example of regionalized CAP alignment and technical assistance. RICAPs provides regional CAP templates, standardized methodologies, shared communication materials and collaborative structures for cities. 4. Regional Climate Action Plan (funded by the EPA) in Santa Clara and San Benito Counties demonstrates an emerging model of cross-county CAP alignment that local governments can plug into. 5. Plan Bay Area 2050+ is an integrated regional plan under SB 375 that includes unified strategies for housing, transportation, the economy, and the environment. Aligning local CAPs with these cross-sector strategies can ensure consistency across local jurisdictions. 6. Regional collaborations: Some areas have created joint climate staff or shared services models so that small jurisdictions can pool resources to support CAP development and grant writing. 7. Regional technical assist model you can piggyback on: The REN-led “Energized Communities” program is built precisely because cities “don’t have staff bandwidth to do any of the work.” Use its scaffolding for CAP/inventory tasks (not just project delivery).

Solution discussed in: San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles, Inland Deserts, San Diego, Statewide

Solution

Standardized templates, shared data/modeling tools, streamlined CEQA/CAP requirements, and common dashboards and grant repositories to reduce duplication, shorten timelines, and lower staff burden.

Existing Examples of Progress: ClimatePlans.org provides standardized GHG inventories, indicators, carbon calculators, policy tools and other resources for California local governments. https://climateplans.org/

Solution discussed in: Los Angeles, Inland Deserts, San Diego, Statewide

Solution

Embedding Climate Work Across Departments. Jurisdictions can distribute climate planning and implementation responsibilities across departments by establishing cross-sector teams (e.g., planning, public works, transportation, housing), integrating CAP measures into routine operations and general plan elements rather than relying on a single sustainability role.

Further Progress Pathways: LCI's upcoming 2027 General Plan Guidelines Update: This update will embed climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience across all elements, replacing standalone CAP sections. It includes new optional elements on urban design, water, and natural and working lands, each linked to climate policy outcomes.

Solution discussed in: Inland Deserts, Statewide

Solution

Standardized GHG reduction values for specific equipment or measure types, and/or calculators available through State websites.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Prioritizing Implementation-Ready Subplans Over Full CAP Updates. Some jurisdictions reduce planning burden by developing narrow, implementation-ready plans (e.g., EV charging, building electrification, or VMT reduction plans) that can move directly into procurement and construction without waiting for a full CAP update. This approach allows limited staff capacity to focus on projects that can be bid, installed, or funded immediately.

Further Progress Pathways: The 2027 Scoping Plan update: The Local Actions Appendix of the Scoping Plan provides recommendations and guidance for developing Climate Action Plans (CAPs), including methods for setting local GHG reduction targets. It outlines 13 recommended strategies within three priority areas—transportation electrification, VMT reduction, and building decarbonization—that have been validated through academic research to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Appendix also offers guidance on determining consistency with the Scoping Plan qualitatively by incorporating project attributes associated with low per capita GHG impacts, and provides direction for preparing CEQA-Qualified CAPs.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

There should be funded staff positions for sustainability in underserved jurisdictions.

Solution discussed in: San Diego

State Solution Opportunities

SLECC stakeholders have brainstormed the following solution opportunities that can be taken by state leaders. Existing examples of progress or pathways to make further progress are highlighted if known.

Solution

The state should fund trusted regional entities such as health departments, COGs, and RENs to provide sustained technical assistance and convening support to small CBOs and under-resourced jurisdictions, reducing the burden of climate planning through shared staffing, standardized tools, and training.

Existing Examples of Progress: 1. UC Berkeley's CoolClimate Network has developed a live GHG inventory and climate action data platform for California cities and counties, featuring inventories from 2010-2022 alongside actionable metrics like EV registrations and heat pumps installed that help local governments set concrete targets and communicate community benefits. 2. CARB has initiated research contracts, including one with Cal Poly, to identify challenges in GHG inventory development, evaluate existing tools, and develop best practices and capacity building resources for local jurisdictions. 3. In December 2025, CARB released new Planning and Capacity Building Grants for sustainable transportation designed to set the stage for future implementation grants. 4. The Grasslands Climate Stewards Program at UC Merced demonstrates a model for building locally rooted technical capacity through hands-on training, with goals to expand and offer continuing education credit by 2027.

Further Progress Pathways: 1. CARB and LCI have formed a Climate Action Planning Technical Advisory Group to review CAP literature, inventory development, and integration with General Plans, with the goal of providing clearer state guidance on CAP creation and updates to help cities take more effective action. 2. CARB's Cap-and-Trade Investment Plan, which previously guided three-year allocation of auction proceeds, is not moving forward for 2025-2028 due to changes in the underlying statutory requirement, leaving stakeholders without a clear pathway to influence how Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund proceeds will be allocated under the reauthorized Cap-and-Invest program.

Solution discussed in: San Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles, Inland Deserts, San Diego, Statewide

Solution

Formal cross-agency alignment to standardize CAP, CEQA, and climate-planning requirements; synchronize timelines; engage locals earlier in regulatory processes; and reduce duplicative mandates that overburden limited planning staff.

Existing Examples of Progress: California's Climate Action Planning Framework includes several key components to support local governments. The Local Actions Appendix of the Scoping Plan provides recommendations and guidance for developing Climate Action Plans (CAPs), including methods for setting local GHG reduction targets. It outlines 13 recommended strategies within three priority areas—transportation electrification, VMT reduction, and building decarbonization—that have been validated through academic research to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Appendix also offers guidance on determining consistency with the Scoping Plan qualitatively by incorporating project attributes associated with low per capita GHG impacts, and provides direction for preparing CEQA-Qualified CAPs.

Solution discussed in: San Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley, Los Angeles, San Diego, Statewide

Solution

The state should allow jurisdictions to move forward with implementation of well-supported climate actions without requiring complete or updated GHG inventories, and should recognize alternative planning approaches such as sector-specific plans or partial inventories as valid pathways — reducing the planning overhead that currently consumes local capacity and delays action.

Solution discussed in: San Joaquin Valley, Statewide

Solution

Strengthen and standardize state CAP guidance with regionally tailored default options. The state should update CAP guidance to include pre-approved, region-specific default policies and measures that meet state and CEQA standards. Clear defaults would reduce local planning burden, improve consistency, and enable under-resourced jurisdictions to advance compliant CAPs without reinventing methodologies.

Solution discussed in: San Diego, Statewide

Solution

Create a statewide CAP tracking and monitoring system, paired with long-term funding for evaluation of mitigation and adaptation outcomes.

Solution discussed in: San Diego, Statewide

Solution

Expand equity-focused policies beyond Disadvantaged Communities (DACs).

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Promote top-down policy and incentives to align state-level frameworks with local project needs.

Existing Examples of Progress: State planning tools & guidance: A new LCI Vulnerable Communities platform (one-stop hazard + social snapshot) and General Plan “climate-ready communities” guidance are in motion.

Further Progress Pathways: LCI General Plan Guidelines – live survey input. Submit planning-capacity needs (templates, objective metrics, realistic timelines) through OPR’s GP Guidelines survey that’s for the upcoming “climate-ready communities” guidance. (note that the opportunity for this survey was summer 2025)

Solution discussed in: Los Angeles

Solution Spotlight

Monterey Bay Maximizes Regional Capacity in Award Winning Natural and Working Lands Climate Mitigation and Resiliency Study

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) and Ascent for winning this year’s Resilience and Sustainability Merit Award for the Monterey Bay Natural and Working Lands Climate Mitigation and Resiliency Study.

The Monterey Bay Natural and Working Lands Climate Mitigation and Resiliency Study is the first comprehensive carbon sequestration analysis at a regional scale. Its innovative approach combines GIS modeling with extensive stakeholder engagement, creating a uniquely collaborative and data-driven framework. A comprehensive list of strategies and actions were identified to support carbon sequestration efforts that are scientifically sound and practically viable, making them implementable within the context of the Monterey Bay Area and its local agencies.

The Monterey Bay Natural and Working Lands Climate Mitigation and Resiliency Study analyzes carbon sequestration potential across Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties, offering strategies to enhance carbon storage, climate resilience, and sustainable land management in urban, forest, and agricultural areas through stakeholder collaboration and innovative GIS modeling.

“A key takeaway of this study is that we need to foster regional collaboration in order to implement innovative solutions at the scale needed to protect and enhance the carbon sequestration potential of our natural and working lands.”

Community-Based Organization Partnerships to Bolster Local Climate Action Planning

The Cities of Alameda and Petaluma utilized community partners in the development and ongoing implementation of their climate action plans. In 2025, Alameda updated their Climate Action & Resilience Plan partnering with Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda. In 2024, Petaluma adopted their Blueprint for Climate Action organizing community leadership through the Climate Action Commission’s two different types of local leadership, city government and community members, and how they work together to achieve climate goals. Alameda and Petaluma partnered with community organizations to tap into diverse networks and experiences within their cities. The partners each city worked with include members representing other local and regional organizations, which allowed them to share a broad cross-section of the community and raise traditionally marginalized perspectives and experiences. Including these partners in implementation creates a framework to realize climate planning objectives equitably across the community.

This model showcases how city climate goals are achieved through community-focused implementation. It highlights how local community partnerships can guide city planning and implementation processes and how cities incorporate existing community efforts and frameworks. Partnering with community leaders allowed these cities to commit to bold climate action despite capacity constraints and competing priorities. This model demonstrates how to adopt a community partnership model that expands a city’s reach, leverages community knowledge, and aligns community efforts with city structures and climate goals.

Continued Efforts to Advance Greater State-Local Coordination

In 2022, CARB’s Sustainable Transportation and Communities Division approached CCEC to support engagement on its Local Actions Appendix of the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, which sets measures and targets for the State’s emission reduction goals. Following those discussions, CARB was interested in working with CCEC to conduct listening sessions designed to deepen the valuable collaboration between CARB and local government practitioners responsible for developing and implementing local climate action plans and strategies. The objective was to help inform CARB’s plans for potential future programs and services that can help local governments more successfully advance substantial emission reduction strategies within communities. Across three additional meetings, approximately 150 participants identified the most pressing barriers and needs facing local governments in implementing emission reduction measures and explored possible State-led support and solutions. The majority of attendees represented local government, many of which are primarily responsible for or actively working on local planning efforts within California communities.

Potential “fundamental principles” around State-local climate action coordination
At a SLECC meeting in 2024, Cory Downs from Chula Vista proposed the following principles to help advance state and local coordination on climate action.
– Local government actions are essential to meeting the State’s emission reduction targets and to protecting communities from the worst impacts of climate change.
– CA should not expect or require each local government to do a climate action plan, but we should support those that wish to do one.
– Local climate action plans are a way to conduct analysis that can garner equitable engagement, public and political support, and justify local funding and staff capacity to implement a custom set of beneficial emission reduction strategies to meet targets, which can serve as state pilots. Those that wish to adopt a CEQA-qualified CAP may need guidance.
– A key barrier local communities face is access to data for GHG inventories. Local governments cannot solve this problem individually, we need state leadership.

While resources like CARB’s Local Actions Appendix can be useful to guide the development of broader GHG mitigation efforts, participants would appreciate sustained, coordinated State leadership towards providing reliable, transparent, and affordable data and other assistance to accelerate implementation of local emission reduction actions. The Climate Action Planning Technical Advisory Group, formed during the update of the General Plan Guidelines for LCI, has reviewed CAP literature, inventory development, and integration with general plans. They aim to provide guidance on CAP creation vs. updates, clarify their mission, and outline state priorities to help cities take effective action.

Problems accessing GHG source data (e.g., utility or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data) cause long delays in developing, updating, and monitoring GHG inventories.

Developing greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories present significant administrative, financial, and technical burdens for many jurisdictions. There are typically roughly 23 data sources that go into a greenhouse gas inventory. The number crunching required is extremely time consuming, especially on a one-off basis. Any GHG emissions inventory developed for CEQA purposes needs to be legally-defensible.

Participants note burdensome procedures for accessing the data as a major issue, as well as data cleaning. Of the needed data sources (see Figure 1), participants indicate that the most challenging data sets are utility data and VMT data.

According to the ICLEI US Community Protocol & the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories, GHG sources and methods should be: 1) relevant, 2) accurate, 3) complete, 4) transparent, 5) consistent (over time), and also 6) accessible (this has implications for cost and availability). However, participants relayed that the sources and methodologies change all the time and are difficult to reconcile and keep up to date with; also, the wide range of methods in use means one cannot compare across neighboring regional jurisdictions

Local governments have called for transparent, consistent, and affordable data. Various tools exist but there are challenges. None share a consistent methodology that ensures inventories are comparable across jurisdictions and across communities. Some of the tools are not freely accessible. Some rely on data sets that are not relevant to local jurisdictions and are thus not useful in the CAP development process. Private tool providers may want to keep some data private and proprietary, which limits transparency and utility. Attendees suggest preferred tool providers should offer up-to-date and regular maintenance; follow accepted protocols; no black-box calculations; use local datasets and emission factors; demonstrate subject matter expertise, and be consistent across methodologies and jurisdictional boundaries.

Source Data Challenges

View related challenges SLECC stakeholders have experienced across the state.

Filtered Database

Local Solution Opportunities

Solution

CAPs as Flexible, Living Frameworks. Jurisdictions can treat CAPs as adaptable frameworks, using iterative updates or living appendices to incorporate new data and science between major revisions, enabling policy adoption and implementation to proceed without waiting for perfect or complete inventories.

Solution discussed in: Inland Deserts, Statewide

Solution

Regional Collaboration on Inventory-Grade Data. Local governments can work through counties, COGs, MPOs, regional climate authorities, and university partners to jointly generate or validate GHG and transportation emissions data. These partnerships reduce duplication, shorten timelines, and help translate complex datasets so smaller jurisdictions can apply inventory-grade data in practice.

Solution discussed in: Inland Deserts, Statewide

Solution

A shared, centralized approach to GHG inventory production and data access should be established so that cities no longer need to recreate their own inventories. Inventory datasets should be compiled and transparently shared—whether by the state, counties, regional agencies, academic institutions, nonprofits, or consultants—using standardized methods and timelines to ensure consistency and reduce duplication.

Existing Examples of Progress: 1. A partnership between UC Berkeley (led by Chris Jones) and StopWaste is developing a simplified tool to prepare inventories to local jurisdictions at little to no cost. It includes equity indicators and will soon feature policy recommendation tools. Beta testing begins in February 2025, with walkthroughs and focus groups in March. 2. County-produced inventories are happening informally in some places, demonstrating a model to scale statewide. 3. UC Irvine is funded to inventory climate action plans and GHG inventories.

Solution discussed in: San Francisco Bay Area, Statewide

Solution

Developing locally supplemented inventories when official data is delayed. Cities and counties generate or supplement GHG inventories using consultants, volunteers, or regional estimates when state or utility data is slow to arrive. These inventories are used as interim planning tools and updated as improved data becomes available.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Narrowing inventory scope to priority sectors. Some jurisdictions limit inventory efforts to major emissions sectors, such as buildings or transportation, to reduce technical burden and speed updates. This allows planning work to continue despite incomplete data in other sectors.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Develop a consistent, scalable approach for local transportation emissions accounting by leveraging existing regional and state data sources.

Existing Examples of Progress: "Metropolitan Planning Organization regional travel demand models" (gold standard, origin/destination, but not always available), other proxies: EMFAC in regions, use population to parse down to cities. Chris Jones at UC Berkeley uses fleet data allocated to tract level, rolled up to cities, can be done consistently Statewide. Highway Performance Monitoring System data through Caltrans, a consistently provided measurements in a systemic way each year, but it's a small snippet of what’s available in the VMT models

Solution discussed in: Statewide

State Solution Opportunities

Solution

The state should build a unified, easy-to-navigate system for producing, standardizing, and sharing local GHG and energy data. This would include: A centralized statewide energy and GHG data portal—potentially by expanding existing platforms like the UCLA Energy Atlas to serve all regions and remain up to date, and by restoring free access to key tools such as ICLEI ClearPath for local jurisdictions. Standardized GHG inventory methods, timelines, and indicators statewide, ensuring that all jurisdictions work from consistent, comparable (“apples-to-apples”) data. Regularly produced and published local GHG inventories for every city and county, updated on a predictable statewide cycle to reduce duplication, support regional planning, and inform state policy.

Existing Examples of Progress: 1. Given the very high interest in a state-led process to conduct local GHG inventories , an effort was made in 2023 to propose State legislation that would allocate budget to CARB to produce local GHG inventories for local governments (SB-511), which was suspended after receiving an estimated total cost of $18 million from the Department of Finance. 2. Local government participants expressed that they are aware of many other data portals led by the State designed to provide data to local governments

Solution discussed in: San Francisco Bay Area, Statewide

Solution

Enhance public access and coordination of climate data resources. Integrate and streamline climate data tools across universities and agencies, ensuring key datasets are updated frequently and made easily accessible to support local planning and decision-making.

Existing Examples of Progress: Cal-Adapt follows the global climate data cycle—updated roughly every 5–6 years—and that the state is developing evolving tools like the Vulnerable Communities Platform to “add new information as it’s available” and help planners align to the latest assessment data

Solution discussed in: Inland Deserts, Statewide

Solution

Targeted technical assistance and training on GHG data and inventories. State agencies described providing technical assistance, training, and hands-on support to help local governments understand methodologies, process raw data, and complete inventories. This assistance is positioned as ongoing support rather than one-time guidance.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

More regular and available alternatives to VMT data that works well for both baseline calculations and projections. And backing from the state that those data sources are best available to help protect from any legal action that agencies could face when they shift away from using VMT data.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Conduct Analysis on Available Tools and Resources: A comparative analysis on existing GHG inventories, as proposed by CARB, could be valuable. It should assess all available and pending tools and evaluate factors that will make a tool valuable to local governments such as: transparency, consistency across jurisdictions and with leading GHG protocols, defensibility, and likelihood that a government entity will consider the tool provider and its data as credible and unbiased.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Improve upon the Local Climate Action Plan Protocols: This adjustment would make the process of GHG inventory development easier, more standardized, more replicable. Ideas include establishing a best practice guide or manual for developing inventories, targets, and/or reduction strategies

Existing Examples of Progress: Adding CAP resources to updated CARB Local Climate Action website

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Revise the CPUC Privacy Rules and/or advance legislation to remove data control from under the purview of the IOUs

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Provide funding for one or more of the following: An agency (like CARB or OPR) or academic institution (UCLA, UC Berkeley) to conduct local inventories statewide. The ICLEI ClearPath Tool freely to local jurisdictions. Regional inventories conducted by consultants, academia, agency. Local jurisdictions or regional collaboratives to prepare or update their own local/regional GHG inventories

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Develop a Statewide VMT Query Tool or Portal: This tool could expand upon existing tools such as Streetlight, Google EIE, Replica, or other tools utilizing VMT data. If these tools are unavailable, staff of a state agency / academic institution would be able to pull origin-destination VMT from regional MPO models for a jurisdiction free of charge or at a small fee.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Ensure easy access to reliable and up-to-date data: Assign one or more State agencies, or regional agencies, to play a role in coordinating, acquiring, and ensuring access to the necessary data. Set standards for accessing data from CCAs.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Develop system to improve data access for key source data, including energy data from IOUs (CPUC) and VMT data from MPOs

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Increase coordination between utilities and local governments for better distribution planning.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Establish clear data-sharing protocols for DER adoption while ensuring privacy protections.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

State analysis and guidance on available inventory tools

Existing Examples of Progress: Coordinating with the Governor’s Office for Land Use and Climate Innovation on developing a technical advisory document to support local CAPs

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

There is a need for the State to help coordinate data, require IOU energy data or MPO travel demand model data to be shared publicly

Existing Examples of Progress: The CPUC Data Working Group, led by UCLA's CCSC and LARC, is analyzing data access rules for DER adoption and evaluation. They are assessing use cases and stakeholders and will report their findings to the CPUC.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution Spotlight

UCLA’s Energy Atlas partners with Regional Energy Networks to Provide Access to Energy Data

The Bay Area Energy Atlas—one of the nation’s most comprehensive energy tools—has been revamped with new features, expanded data, and a more user-friendly interface. Developed by UCLA in partnership with BayREN, the Atlas helps users explore regional energy use through interactive maps and detailed building data. From policymakers to curious residents, anyone can now dive deeper into energy trends by city, building type, or time period. New tools make it easier to compare communities and visualize consumption with monthly data through 2021.

https://lnkd.in/gYtNyeAg

State support for UC Berkeley’s GHG Inventory Tool

The CoolClimate Network at UC Berkeley is developing a data platform for GHG inventories and climate action metrics for local governments across California. The project was presented at CCEC 2024 and 2025 to gather input from participants. The outputs available to cities and counties (unincorporated counties are in the works) include traditional and consumption based inventories from 2010-2022. They also feature tangible metrics such as EV registrations with the DMV and heat pumps installed through TECH incentives. These detailed metrics are more informative and actionable for implementation than overall GHG emissions. They enable local governments to set concrete targets and tell compelling stories about climate action, benefits, and potential impacts in their communities. The emphasis on these metrics reflects the emerging trends of climate action practice, which seeks to be more relatable to people and integrated with equitable community benefits.

The climate action data tool allows local governments to more efficiently conduct GHG inventories and evolve their climate action efforts and communications to focus on community benefits. The practice of local government climate action was originally established in the mid 2000’s in response to a lack of federal leadership. The current context calls us not only to continue but become more effective while delivering quantifiable social benefits and having the metrics to tell compelling stories.

CARB staff and contractors participate in the project’s advisory group and are evaluating whether this tool will meet the needs of local governments.

Implementing emission reduction measures is difficult due to budgetary and structural constraints limiting individual action and regional collaboration. Sufficient funding for key local mitigation measures is often not regularly accessible

Local governments and their partners face significant barriers when transitioning from planning to implementing climate action measures, primarily due to inadequate and unpredictable funding, with competitive grant processes creating additional burdens for already-stretched staff. While many jurisdictions have developed emission reduction plans with strong community support, frontline communities disproportionately affected by environmental injustice are not being adequately prioritized in implementation. There is insufficient collaboration and alignment between regional, state, and local entities on climate action strategies, leading to fragmented efforts. Additionally, communities struggle to integrate climate considerations across all aspects of urban planning, land use, and infrastructure development, rather than treating it as a standalone issue.

Transitioning to Equitable Action Challenges

View related challenges SLECC stakeholders have experienced across the state.

Filtered Database

Local Solution Opportunities

Solution

Local governments should work through counties, COGs, and regional climate authorities to jointly implement programs, aggregate projects, and coordinate procurement and delivery, enabling shared staffing and systematically documenting successful practices as replicable toolkits so jurisdictions are not solving the same problems independently.

Existing Examples of Progress: 1. San Mateo County’s Regional Integrated Climate Action Planning Support (RICAPS) model 2. Sonoma County RCPA coordinating implementation and grant applications across multiple jurisdictions. 3. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments won a Sustainability Merit Award for their Natural and Working Lands Climate Mitigation and Resilience Study. 4. The California Water Institute's FloodMAR initiative demonstrates this in practice, bringing together GSAs, irrigation districts, and flood control agencies across four counties around a shared response strategy rather than siloed agency action.

Solution discussed in: San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, San Joaquin Valley, Statewide

Solution

Cross-Departmental Implementation and Delivery Structures. Jurisdictions can form cross-departmental implementation teams or alternative delivery mechanisms to distribute workload and align departments around shared sustainability goals, particularly where no standalone sustainability department exists. These flexible structures help streamline execution across programs and improve follow-through.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Advancing smaller, discrete projects that are implementation-ready. Local governments described breaking large CAPs into smaller, stand-alone projects (e.g., EV charging, fleet electrification, reforestation) that can move forward when limited funding becomes available. This allows some construction and installation activity to proceed despite broader resource constraints.

Existing Examples of Progress: The Allensworth Progressive Association used a 2022 TCC Planning Grant to sequence seven discrete priority projects from their Community Plan, including a Community Resilience Center, agrivoltaics, and a regional trail, into implementation-ready packages, allowing individual projects to move forward as funding became available rather than waiting for all pieces to align simultaneously.

Solution discussed in: San Joaquin Valley, Statewide

Solution

Develop case studies or guides for retrofits that can be done as mechanical upgrades (i.e. Facilities Management Programs) vs engineered novel solutions (i.e. Capital Improvement Programs)

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Using CAPs as guiding frameworks rather than prerequisites for action. Local governments described advancing “obvious” or widely supported climate actions even when CAP implementation is incomplete or unfunded. This reframes CAPs as directional tools rather than gating documents.

Existing Examples of Progress: The Cities of San Diego and Sunnyvale include an adoptable implementation workplan and budget along with their CAP to gain internal buy-in and investment.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

State Solution Opportunities

Solution

State Support for CAP Implementation. The state can provide ongoing, hands-on technical assistance paired with seed funding and multiyear operational support to help jurisdictions move from planning to implementation. This approach supports staff time, bridges grant cycles, reduces reliance on one-off grants, and improves continuity and consistency in CAP delivery.

Existing Examples of Progress: The recently reauthorized Cap-and-Invest provides approximately $4B/year the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which funds multiple programs through CARB's CA Climate Investments that can help a local community reduce emissions including over a billion dollars in investments in housing, transit and infill emission reduction projects through SGC's Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities and Transformative Climate Communities Grants.

Further Progress Pathways: CARB's CA Climate Investment Initiative Investment Plan: This three year plan serves to guide investment of Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds. The Fifth Investment Plan for 25-26 through 27-28 will not be moving forward due to change in the underlying statutory requirement. It is unclear how stakeholders can similarly participate in guiding how funding will be allocated through the reauthorized Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund through Cap-and-Invest proceeds.

Solution discussed in: San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Statewide

Solution

Establishing clearer state–local points of contact for implementation support. Participants discussed the need for identifiable points of contact within state agencies to help regions and COGs resolve implementation challenges and coordinate across programs. Clear lines of communication are intended to speed problem-solving during project delivery.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

State agencies should harmonize permitting standards, data requirements, and approval processes (e.g., BCDC, CDFW, Army Corps) to reduce delays for infrastructure, restoration, and climate projects.

Solution discussed in: San Francisco Bay Area, Statewide

Solution

Corollary for CAPs and dedicated funding similar to those of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Supporting Implementation Without Requiring Perfect or Updated Inventories. State agencies discussed allowing jurisdictions to move forward with electrification, transportation, and building projects even when inventories are incomplete or outdated. This reduces delays in procurement and construction caused by planning bottlenecks.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Enabling and supporting regional governance and implementation structures. State agencies discussed legislation and policy pathways that allow local governments to form regional entities or financing districts to implement climate and resilience projects. These structures are intended to support cross-jurisdictional delivery.

Existing Examples of Progress: State legislation and policy pathways like SB 852 Climate Resilience Districts (2022) allow cities, counties, special districts, or combinations of these entities to form CRDs specifically for climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience projects.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution Spotlight

The California Water Institute at Fresno State is leading a multi-county Flood-Managed Aquifer Recharge (FloodMAR) initiative across Merced, Madera, Fresno, and Tulare Counties that reframes a regional climate threat as an implementation opportunity. Groundwater basins across the San Joaquin Valley remain in critical overdraft under SGMA mandates while billions of gallons of floodwater leave the region unused every year, and agencies have historically managed both problems in isolation. The initiative brings together groundwater sustainability agencies, irrigation districts, and flood control agencies around a shared mission: mapping priority recharge zones, building coordinated flood response protocols, and empowering local water managers and landowners with the tools and data needed for on-the-ground action. A core innovation is the establishment of a Recharge Response Team designed to enable rapid, coordinated action when high-flow opportunities arise — replacing the fragmented agency response that left communities without a single point of accountability during the 2023 floods. The project pairs technical coordination with deep community engagement, including culturally grounded outreach tools like a Recharge Lotería developed for Spanish-speaking communities, and pre- and post-event surveys that demonstrate measurable knowledge gains among participants. The project is currently advancing priority zone mapping, finalizing the RRT governance structure, and translating planning outputs into actionable recharge projects ready for the next high-flow event.

The Allensworth Progressive Association (APA) is the community development nonprofit serving Allensworth, California’s first Black-founded and Black-funded community, located in southwestern Tulare County. After decades of disinvestment, the APA has built a model for community-led climate implementation that centers self-sufficiency, environmental justice, and Indigenous partnership. The foundation of the current work is the Allensworth Community Plan Update, which established 15 priority areas ranging from water security and energy sovereignty to regenerative agriculture and affordable housing. A critical early implementation step was successfully advocating for Allensworth’s redesignation from a Hamlet to a Community, unlocking access to infrastructure dollars and programs that were previously unavailable. In 2022 the APA received a Round 4 Transformative Climate Communities Planning Grant for a project titled “The Allensworth Model for Rural Climate Resilience and BIPOC Self-Sufficiency in the Central Valley,” which funded preliminary planning for seven priority projects, established formalized ongoing community outreach through a Community Action Committee, and produced the Allensworth Climate Resiliency Report. Current priority projects in various stages of development include a Community Resilience Center that would serve as a cooling and heating center, commercial kitchen, and emergency response hub; an agrivoltaics system combining energy and food sovereignty on repurposed land; and a regional trail connecting historical landmark areas with the Tachi Yokuts’ ancestral lands. The APA’s work is distinguished by its relationship with the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokuts, with whom it has developed an aligned vision for mutually beneficial solidarity programs rooted in Indigenous stewardship of the Tulare Lake Basin.

The Wildlife Conservation Board offers an existing state model for resolving the capital stacking problem that prevents multi-benefit climate projects from moving from planning to implementation. Rather than requiring applicants to independently assemble complex multi-funder packages (with each funder waiting for others to commit first) the Wildlife Conservation Board listens to project proposals and coordinates funding from multiple sources on its end, awarding aligned resources directly to shared project goals. Participants at the Catalyst Convening in the Central Coast participants named this approach as a model the state should replicate more broadly, particularly through SGC, to help regional climate plans move into coordinated, multi-benefit implementation without organizations spending their limited capacity navigating funder-by-funder negotiations.

In a region long dismissed as too isolated and too small to implement meaningful climate action, the Resilient Cuyama Valley Initiative is demonstrating what becomes possible when a community-owned plan is given the implementation support it needs. The Cuyama Valley (a disadvantaged unincorporated community of approximately 1,000 people across 175 square miles at the corners of four counties) was designated an environmental justice community by Santa Barbara County, with residents experiencing persistent pesticide exposure, lead in housing stock, overdrafted groundwater, and repeated isolation during wildfires and flooding.

The initiative is built on the Cuyama Valley Community Action Plan, an 18-month community-owned planning effort led by Blue Sky Center that identified local priorities for home improvements, infrastructure upgrades, workforce development, and town beautification. Those priorities have been directly implemented through a four-partner initiative (Blue Sky Center, Quail Springs, the Community Environmental Council, and the County of Santa Barbara) anchored by a Transformative Climate Communities grant and a diversified stack of federal, state, and regional funding. The effort has generated over $20 million in designed projects, including home energy retrofits, drinking water filtration, food access programming, emergency resilience infrastructure, and a clean energy workforce development program. The planned scope would enable at least three community microgrids, a full school district HVAC retrofit, and energy upgrades to 50 percent of the valley’s housing stock; demonstrating how community-owned planning, patient multi-partner coordination, and sustained funding can move a deeply under-resourced rural community from planning to implementation at meaningful scale.

State legislation and policy pathways like SB 852 Climate Resilience Districts (2022) allow cities, counties, special districts, or combinations of these entities to form CRDs specifically for climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience projects.

The Cities of San Diego and Sunnyvale include an adoptable implementation workplan and budget along with their CAP to gain internal buy-in and investment.

Various types of climate collaboratives have emerged throughout the state. San Mateo County’s Regional Integrated Climate Action Planning Support (RICAPS) model and Sonoma County’s RCPA are coordinating implementation and grant applications across multiple jurisdictions.

The recently reauthorized Cap-and-Invest provides approximately $4B/year the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which funds multiple programs through CARB’s CA Climate Investments that can help a local community reduce emissions including over a billion dollars in investments in housing, transit and infill emission reduction projects through SGC’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities and Transformative Climate Communities Grants.

Local governments are discouraged from developing or implementing CEQA-Qualified CAPs due to potential lawsuits, litigation, and compliance enforcement of CEQA mitigation measures in an EIR.

Legal Hurdle Challenges

View related challenges SLECC stakeholders have experienced across the state.

Filtered Database

Local Solution Opportunities

Solution

Limiting CAP scope to reduce legal exposure. Participants described narrowing CAP content or avoiding detailed mitigation commitments to reduce the risk that measures will be treated as enforceable CEQA obligations. This reflects a defensive planning approach driven by litigation risk.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Delaying or sequencing CAP updates to avoid CEQA conflict. Local governments described postponing CAP updates until major development EIRs or CEQA processes are completed to avoid conflicts or legal complications. While not ideal, this sequencing is used to manage litigation risk.

Solution discussed in: Statewide

Solution

Regional governance coordination – Stronger coordination tables between local, regional, and state entities would help ensure local CAPs aren’t blindsided by CPUC or state-level decisions that introduce legal vulnerabilities

Solution discussed in: San Diego

Solution

Proposal of regulatory review panels (developers, labor, environmental reps) for CAP requirements to audit rules and identify redundancies, helping reduce duplication

Solution discussed in: San Diego

Solution

Regional/shared staffing – Small jurisdictions could pool legal and technical staff to manage CEQA compliance and defensibility collectively

Solution discussed in: San Diego

State Solution Opportunities

Solution

Clarified and Standardized CEQA Treatment of CAPs. The state can reduce uncertainty and legal exposure by clarifying how CAPs and GHG mitigation measures are evaluated under CEQA and standardizing guidance through agencies such as CARB and OPR, enabling jurisdictions to adopt legally defensible CAPs without costly reinvention.

Solution discussed in: San Diego, Statewide

Solution

State Guidance, Tools, and Legal Support to Reduce CEQA Risk. The state can reduce uncertainty and litigation risk by providing clear guidance, templates, and technical and legal assistance for CEQA-defensible CAPs and GHG mitigation measures. State-developed, vetted tools—such as standardized GHG reduction measure toolkits or model approaches—would allow jurisdictions to rely on consistent methods rather than bespoke measures that increase legal exposure.

Solution discussed in: San Diego, Statewide

Solution

Reform CEQA defensibility requirements – Consider state-level indemnification or legal defense funding for jurisdictions adopting CEQA-qualified CAPs, reducing fear of lawsuits

Solution discussed in: San Diego

Solution

Standardized CEQA guidance to reduce litigation risk.

Solution discussed in: San Diego

Solution

Fund regional compliance support – State funding for regionalized compliance staff could reduce duplication and provide smaller jurisdictions with consistent expertise

Solution discussed in: San Diego

Solution

LCI should create database to review CEQA litigation by topic (infill exemptions in. Middle income communities near the coast)

Solution discussed in: San Diego

Solution Spotlight

No results found.

Transitioning vehicles and buildings to clean electric fuels is challenging due to electrical capacity constraints, delayed load studies,long interconnection and energization queues, and process inconsistency managed by the utilities.

Participants shared growing frustration about the long delays associated with load service capacity. Local CAP emission reduction measures like transportation electrification are thwarted when charging stations cannot access the grid. Information on load capacity available for projects is difficult to obtain, often taking months to years, and the process lacks transparency. Local governments are very limited in their authority to change the load capacity or to affect the processes by which they receive load study information from utilities. They seek to raise awareness of this major barrier, and are asking for coordinated State agency and policymaker leadership in addressing these issues.

While this barrier was raised in the context of climate action, associated details and solutions can be viewed under Clean Energy and Building Decarbonization Priority Area Barrier 1: Interconnection & Energization Processes in the Clean Energy Transition Priority Area

See Details