Lack of decision-maker buy-in at the elected level means that even well-developed climate plans lack the political backing needed to move into implementation, particularly when funding is competitive or requires local match.
REACH Central Coast
REACH’s long term mission is to leverage the collective power of state, federal and regional capacity and resources to advance place-based energy, climate, and land use priorities through lasting regional hubs. It is community-driven (local gov, tribal gov, academic institutions, philanthropy, CBO/NGOs) and partners and engages with State and federal agencies.
In the effort to continue engagement in the Central Coast Region, REACH is intended as an ongoing series. To that end we have created the opportunities below to stay engaged and begin to plan future events.
REACH Resources
CCEC and SGC will continuously work to build on what we are learning from the central coast to build a landscape analysis and assistance guide for the region. These materials are intended to support community and state leaders as they seek to understand and serve the region and will evolve over time as we continue to engage. Like we said, Regional Energy and Climate Hubs (REACH) are intended to be more than just a convening!
Assistance Marketplace
The Assistance Marketplace is a constantly updated guide showcasing organizations in the inland empire that provide FREE funding, incentives, or technical assistance to local, tribal, CBOs, NGOs, or schools in the Central Coast. Add your organization to the marketplace by filling out this form!
Regional Organizations
To increase visibility of the organizations in the Central Coast which are already participating in REACH Central Coast or who have been suggested by others to participate are shared in this filterable spreadsheet. Also available is information on the topic areas that the organizations need assistance with as well what topic areas they provide assistance. Feel free to add additional suggestions here on organizations that should be included on future REACH events.
Landscape Analysis
CCEC is currently working on a draft landscape analysis using what we learned at the March 2026 Catalyst Convening. We will share a link to the document soon!
Key Topic Areas for the Central Coast Region – Defining Challenges and Identifying Solutions
The barriers, challenges, solutions and best practices brought up in the Central Coast Region during the 2026 Catalyst Convening and subsequent events can be found below. CCEC is working to continuously update this information based on what we learn from the region. If you live or work in the Central Coast please let us know how we can expand and refine our information. 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.
Small, rural, and under-resourced jurisdictions across the Central Coast struggle to develop and maintain climate action plans due to chronic staff shortages and coordination burdens that outpace available capacity. Multi-jurisdictional planning and rapidly evolving state requirements compound these challenges, leaving many communities reliant on volunteers and unable to sustain momentum from planning into action.
Key Challenges
Small, rural, and under-resourced jurisdictions often rely entirely on volunteers with limited capacity even within the climate space. State program timelines are evolving faster than local governments can absorb, and multi-jurisdictional planning multiplies coordination burden without increasing staff.
Solutions for Local and State
Local jurisdictions can pursue regional block grant structures and multi-partner project teams that distribute planning, engagement, and administrative roles so no single organization bears the full compliance burden. The state can reduce barriers by funding SGC for front-end program design collaboration, offering multi-year recurring funding, providing advance funding at grant award, and establishing pre-planning assessment pathways before formal planning grants begin.
Best Practices
The Pajaro Valley TCC distributed planning, community engagement, grant writing, and fiscal management across four partner organizations demonstrating how multi-partner project structures allow each organization to contribute its strengths without any single under-resourced entity bearing the full compliance burden.
Barrier 1: Transitioning to Implementation
Implementing planned emission reduction measures at a local or regional level is difficult due to budgetary and structural constraints, such as a lack of sufficient funding, decision-maker buy-in, or infrastructural limitations (e.g. electricity load service).
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast, San Joaquin Valley
Funding programs are often single-purpose and capital-focused, making it difficult to pursue multi-benefit projects and leaving coordination, community engagement, and pre-development activities unfunded even when implementation dollars exist.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast, San Joaquin Valley
Despite extensive community engagement and planning work, there is a persistent gap between completed plans and coordinated on-the-ground action, with funding structures, political cycles, and siloed governance preventing momentum from converting into implementation.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
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.
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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Secure elected official commitment and decision-maker buy-in before building community momentum, not after; treating local political will as a prerequisite for entering implementation planning rather than a hoped-for outcome.
The Stanislaus Sustainable Communities Coalition’s repeated rejections at Modesto City Council despite years of community engagement and a completed policy document illustrates what happens when political buy-in is treated as a hoped-for outcome rather than a precondition for entering the implementation process.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Align local feedback directly with action by designing planning processes that explicitly connect community input to specific decisions and deliverables — rather than treating community input as advisory.
The Stanislaus Sustainable Communities Coalition responded to the City of Modesto using their community data without consent by producing a formal policy document that tied resident input directly to specific General Plan recommendations, shifting the coalition's role from advisory to accountable co-author.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Build community-owned plans as the foundation for implementation by anchoring projects in community-identified priorities before seeking funding, so that when implementation dollars become available a ready project pipeline exists rather than plans that sit on shelves.
1. The Cuyama Valley Community Action Plan: An 18-month community-owned planning process led by Blue Sky Center identified priorities that were immediately implemented when TCC funding arrived. 2. The Stanislaus Sustainable Communities Coalition (SSCC) ran 11 community watch parties with 135 Modesto residents to generate community-owned policy recommendations for the city's General Plan before the city's own process began, creating a ready pipeline of priorities rather than reacting after the fact.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
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.
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.
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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
The state should provide more flexibility within implementation programs to fund coordination, community engagement, and pre-development activities as line-item deliverables — not just capital outputs — so that the human infrastructure needed to move plans into action is supported rather than unfunded.
The TCC Planning Grant received by Allensworth in 2022 enabled preliminary planning for seven priority projects and established formalized community outreach infrastructure that would not otherwise have been fundable.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should devolve implementation decision-making away from state-level processes driven primarily by politics and toward structures grounded in local data and planning, so that local communities have meaningful authority over what in their climate plans gets resourced and implemented.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
SGC should coordinate funding across agencies to resolve the capital stacking problem for multi-benefit projects grounded in community climate plans, so regions can pursue the multi-sector implementation their plans call for without assembling complex multi-funder stacks independently.
The Wildlife Conservation Board listens to project proposals and gives out funding from multiple sources/grants that align with shared project proposals, rather than having agencies/orgs spend time 'capital stacking' for multi-benefit projects.
Best Practices
Central Coast stakeholders shared the following case studies that help move the proposed solutions forward.
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.
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.
Central Coast communities face interconnected housing challenges that compound climate vulnerability, disproportionately burdening farmworkers, lower-income residents, and rural communities least able to absorb the costs of both housing instability and climate impacts.
Key Challenges
Complex zoning, permitting delays, and general plan amendment limits make infill and affordable development financially unviable. NIMBY opposition framed around green space or single-family character blocks multifamily density. Infrastructure requirements and missing services in rural areas add costs and delays for farmworker housing. Affordable housing financing requires stacking multiple sources with inconsistent requirements, while missing middle housing remains unviable under current incentives. Corporate speculation and short-term rentals crowd out supply for local workers. High upfront costs block low-income households from resilience and electrification upgrades, and weak building codes leave new construction insufficiently climate-resilient.
Solutions for Local and State
Local jurisdictions should reframe housing conversations around health and affordability rather than density, modernize zoning to allow a wider range of housing types, streamline retrofit permitting as over-the-counter approvals, and restrict luxury development and corporate speculation in favor of workforce housing. The state should extend HCD’s collaborative housing element approach more broadly, make it easier to amend general plans for denser workforce housing, offer low-interest financing for middle-income and resilience upgrades, and prioritize historically underserved communities in climate and housing funding distribution.
Best Practices
Working through iterative pre-draft reviews with HCD, the City of Salinas became one of the only Central Coast jurisdictions with a certified housing element. HCD’s “yes-first” stance helped jurisdictions adjust rather than start over, with Hollister and San Juan Bautista recently achieving certification as well.
The City of Monterey’s over-the-counter permitting for retrofit projects demonstrates that streamlined local permitting improves uptake. In contrast, Hollister’s $2,000 permit fee on a $5,000 retrofit project functions as a direct disincentive that pushes some homeowners to skip permits entirely.
Barrier 1: Climate Resilient Housing
There is a lack of resources dedicated to making homes more wildfire, heat and energy resilient and insurable (e.g. fire resistance materials, backup power/batteries). Aging housing stock, inequitable investments, weak building codes, and limited insurance and workforce capacity leave low-income and vulnerable communities unable to afford or access upgrades that make homes safe from heat, wildfire, and other climate hazards.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Statewide
High Upfront Costs Limit Access to Housing Upgrades. High upfront costs prevent low-income, underinsured households—particularly in older buildings—from accessing resilience, cooling, electrification, and electrical upgrades. Incentives often cover only a small share of costs, limiting participation unless programs offer direct-install options or substantially higher cost coverage.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast, Los Angeles, Statewide
Limited Workforce Capacity for Residential Retrofits. Shortages of trained contractors across electrification, cooling, fire-safe retrofits, stormwater systems, and water-wise landscaping delay projects, increase costs, and exacerbate inequities—particularly in rural and under-resourced communities.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Bundle projects together (clustering similar equipment types across multiple households or buildings in a community area) to reduce per-unit costs and make retrofit economics work for under-resourced communities.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Local governments should streamline building permit processes for electrification and retrofit projects, treating them as over-the-counter approvals rather than complex discretionary reviews.
The City of Monterey offers over-the-counter permitting for electrification and retrofit projects; in contrast to jurisdictions like Hollister, where a $2,000 permit fee on a $5,000 retrofit project functions as a direct disincentive to participation.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Best Practices
Central Coast stakeholders shared the following case studies that help move the proposed solutions forward.
The City of Monterey has implemented an over-the-counter permitting process for electrification and retrofit projects, allowing homeowners and contractors to obtain approvals quickly without navigating complex discretionary review. This approach stands in contrast to jurisdictions where permit costs and complexity actively discourage upgrades — the City of Hollister, for example, charges $2,000 for a permit on a $5,000 retrofit project, a cost ratio that functions as a direct disincentive and pushes some homeowners to skip permits entirely, reducing both participation and safety oversight. The Monterey model demonstrates that streamlined local permitting is achievable and can meaningfully improve retrofit uptake.
Barrier 2: Housing Regulation
Complex zoning laws, inconsistent CEQA requirements, lengthy permitting processes, and local opposition to new development have historically limited housing production and infill development.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Inland Deserts
Community resistance to housing development remains a major barrier (NIMBY Opposition). Local leaders noted that opposition—often framed as protecting neighborhood “green space” or preserving single-family character—can reflect deeper resistance to multifamily density and infill. Many residents still associate new housing with congestion or environmental harm rather than recognizing its potential to improve public health, cost efficiency, and climate outcomes.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Reform and modernize local zoning codes to replace exclusionary single-family and separated-use patterns with infill-oriented, mixed-use, and higher-density districts in walkable, transit-served areas. Updates should allow a wider range of housing types—including modular, mobile, small multifamily, and mixed-use buildings—while reducing unnecessary minimum home size requirements to expand affordability, flexibility, and climate-aligned community design.
1. City of Glendale – Since the 2000s, Glendale permitted 6–7-story mixed-use/apartment buildings in its commercial core. This long-term approach “flooded the market” with housing, keeping rents “pretty reasonable” compared to surrounding Los Angeles. Glendale is now layering parks, pedestrian, and bike plans after this growth, showing how infrastructure can catch up to zoning-enabled supply. Why it matters: Large-scale production moderated rents relative to surrounding LA markets; an example of land-use enablement delivering supply at scale. 2. City of Seaside’s planning approach prioritizes mixed-use infill development—combining housing, small businesses, and civic spaces within walkable districts. This structure reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT), a major contributor to regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while encouraging economic vibrancy and livability. The city has repurposed underused parcels into compact, transit-oriented neighborhoods that integrate energy-efficient buildings, pedestrian pathways, and public gathering areas. 3. In San Francisco, participants described cities where upzoning from single-family to three-story buildings with no CEQA enabled more housing, and highlighted how split residential/commercial zoning and very little mixed zoning prevent “integrated neighborhood” development.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Reframe housing development to residents not in terms of density or environmental compliance, but in terms of the tangible benefits that matter to them (health, safety, affordability, and access) shifting the public conversation away from abstract goals like GHG reduction toward concrete outcomes that resonate with workers and families.
The Pajaro Valley TCC project community engagement process focused the conversation with the community on what people's everyday impacts were (health, safety, pedestrian infrastructure, and affordability). This framing generated participation where emissions framing had not.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should make it easier for cities and counties to amend general plans and zoning to allow denser development (specifically prioritizing housing for essential workers, including farmworkers) removing procedural barriers that make infill and affordable development administratively unfeasible for under-resourced jurisdictions.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State HCD’s collaborative, iterative approach to housing element compliance (offering pre-draft reviews and a “yes-first” problem-solving stance rather than simply rejecting submissions) has proven effective at helping under-resourced jurisdictions navigate complex requirements and achieve certification.
The City of Salinas worked closely with HCD through iterative pre-draft exchanges, sending drafts in advance for quick review ("this will work, this won't") and became one of the only jurisdictions in the region with a certified housing element at the time of the convening. Hollister and San Juan Bautista had recently achieved certification as well. These are noted as "baby steps" toward a regional norm that remains far from universal.
Best Practices
Central Coast stakeholders shared the following case studies that help move the proposed solutions forward.
Working closely with California HCD through an iterative, back-and-forth review process — sending pre-drafts for quick staff review before formal submission — the City of Salinas became one of the only jurisdictions in the Central Coast region to achieve a certified housing element as of the spring of 2026. HCD staff took a “yes-first” problem-solving stance, working with jurisdictions to adjust projects rather than simply rejecting submissions: “We can’t do that, but maybe look at doing this.” Hollister and San Juan Bautista have since achieved certification as well — baby steps toward a regional norm that remains far from universal. The experience points to what becomes possible when state housing element compliance is treated as a collaborative, iterative process rather than a high-stakes one-time submission, particularly for under-resourced jurisdictions that lack the staff capacity to absorb rejections and start over.
Barrier 3: Wealth Gap
Social inequities including the growing wealth gap underlie and exacerbate housing access and affordability issues.
Key Challenges Identified
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Local governments should apply pressure on corporate owners of large swaths of housing and multifamily property to participate in electrification and building improvement programs; recognizing that decision-making authority over much of the region’s housing stock is concentrated in entities with no direct stake in local community outcomes.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
Local and state policies should actively restrict the housing outcomes the region does not want (i.e. luxury developments, second homes, and corporate speculation on housing stock) in favor of development that serves local workers, farmworkers, and long-term residents, by aligning land use restrictions, zoning, and state incentive structures toward affordability and stability rather than investment returns.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should make it easier for cities and counties to amend general plans and zoning to allow denser development specifically for essential workers including farmworkers; addressing the structural disconnect between where affordable workforce housing is permitted and where workers actually need to live.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should ensure equitable distribution of climate and housing funding (including through an explicit equity formula under Prop 4 and other bond measures) so that disadvantaged communities and farmworker communities that have historically not seen the benefit of state investment are prioritized going forward rather than continuing to lose out to better-resourced regions.
Barrier 4: Housing Financing
Affordable housing developments require complex financing involving multiple funding sources, many of which are highly competitive and include excessive and inconsistent requirements, and extend development timelines.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Inland Deserts
Stacking multiple funding sources burdens affordable housing developers with complex compliance and delays. Affordable housing projects typically require stacking tax credits, subsidies, and grants — each with its own timelines and compliance requirements. This patchwork approach creates administrative burdens that slow project delivery and make funding difficult to access efficiently.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should offer low-interest financing tools (similar to those already used in affordable housing programs) to make middle-income and workforce housing financially viable where current market conditions do not support it.
A dedicated public housing finance fund or green housing loan program offering accessible, low-interest capital to developers building for underserved market segments would provide a replicable model for how this could be structured at the state level.
Central Coast communities face compounding climate vulnerabilities (from grid failures and wildfire risk to exclusion from planning processes) with frontline, Indigenous, farmworker, and rural communities bearing the greatest exposure and the least capacity to adapt.
Key Challenges
Existing planning tools fail to capture overlapping climate risks with sufficient granularity, while conflicting agency narratives create mistrust. Resilience planning marginalizes Indigenous knowledge and frontline communities, and fear of government processes chills engagement among undocumented residents. Escalating grid outages and IOU transmission dependence leave communities without reliable alternatives. Fire suppression has created dangerous fuel accumulation, cultural burns remain difficult to scale, and tribal fire crews are underpaid. Agricultural buy-in is undermined by thin margins and regulatory burden.
Solutions for Local and State
Local jurisdictions should use trusted messengers and health framing for climate risk communication, engage tribes as substantive planning leads, build citizen oversight with genuine decision-making authority, deploy microgrids and solar-plus-storage as community resilience hubs, support land access agreements for tribal burns, pay fire crews at living wages, and invest in agrivoltaic systems and local food infrastructure. The state should fund sustained community-led engagement for a minimum of three to five years, build on SB 332’s fire liability protections, amend SB 1383 for farmers, establish regional conservancies for natural and working lands, and provide agricultural extension resources.
Best Practices
Central Coast examples demonstrate the power of treating Indigenous partnership, community infrastructure, and workforce development as resilience foundations rather than afterthoughts. The YTT Northern Chumash Tribe’s inclusion as vegetation management leads in the City of SLO’s climate adaptation plan enabled the region’s first cultural burn in 2024. The Tamien Nation built a tribally sovereign fire program paying crew at twice the Department of Forestry rate and is growing toward twenty firefighters with recently secured land for cultural burns. Blue Sky Center in Cuyama Valley converted its longstanding role as wildfire emergency staging into permanent resilience infrastructure by rezoning its parcel for backup power and cold storage.
Barrier 1: Energy Resilience
Outdated, centralized energy infrastructure, increasing capacity demands, and limited local authority, funding, and coordination – leave communities increasingly vulnerable to outages, heat, wildfire, and flooding, undermining resilience, safety, and affordability.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Inland Deserts
Climate-driven hazards such as extreme heat, wildfire, flooding, and severe storms increasingly disrupt California’s power system, triggering prolonged outages and PSPS events that endanger vulnerable residents and strain local response capacity. These disruptions are escalating—with documented week-long blackouts, wildfire-exposed transmission corridors, and projected 20% grid-capacity losses from heat and flooding—highlighting the urgent need for greater local resilience and system redundancy.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Construction/Installation/Procurement )
Deploy microgrids, solar-plus-storage systems, and backup power capacity at trusted community facilities so they can function as permanent resilience hubs; providing reliable power, cooling, and emergency support during outages and extreme heat events, and serving as staging infrastructure when centralized systems fail.
1. The Cuyama Valley Initiative is deploying solar-plus-battery systems across 50% of the valley's housing stock and planning at least three community microgrids — including a full school district retrofit — in a community that has experienced repeated multi-day outages during wildfires and flooding. 2.Clean Coalition “value of resilience” tool to holistically evaluate energy projects (including intangible benefits like emergency assurance and community safety).
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Target resilience solutions (including community solar, battery storage, and distributed energy) toward smaller rural, unincorporated, and tribal communities that are most exposed to grid failures and have the least capacity to absorb extended outages, enabling them to generate and store their own power rather than depending on centralized IOU transmission infrastructure.
The Tribal Energy and Climate Collaborative (T6)—representing 25 Southern California tribes—is pooling grant resources to conduct feasibility studies for microgrids and clean energy systems to protect tribal housing and community facilities from outage-related risks
Best Practices
Central Coast stakeholders shared the following case studies that help move the proposed solutions forward.
Blue Sky Center, a local nonprofit in the Cuyama Valley, has long served as an informal emergency staging ground for wildfire response — providing space for emergency vehicles, helicopter operations, and overnight accommodations for emergency responders. Recognizing this de facto role, the Resilient Cuyama Valley Initiative is formalizing and expanding it by rezoning Blue Sky Center’s parcel to accommodate resilience-heavy uses including backup power systems and cold food storage. The decision was driven directly by the community’s documented experience of multi-day power and Wi-Fi outages during wildfires and flooding — a recurring reality in a valley connected to surrounding areas by only two state highways, where physical isolation during climate events has repeatedly cut residents off from outside assistance. The Blue Sky Center model demonstrates how an existing trusted community facility can be intentionally upgraded into a permanent resilience hub, converting informal emergency use into durable infrastructure that serves the community before, during, and after climate-driven disruptions.
Barrier 2: Climate Vulnerability
Communities struggle to access and assess the granular information needed to adequately understand and address short-term and long-term climate impacts and challenges like extreme heat, water scarcity, wildfires, and air quality.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast, Inland Deserts, San Diego, Statewide
Communities face overlapping climate risks that unfold across short, medium and long term timeframes and vary significantly across urban, rural, coastal, and inland areas. Existing planning tools do not always capture the granularity of the risks and it is difficult to prioritize actions and investments.
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast
There is a gap between those with technical climate knowledge and the broader public. Agencies and other actors sometimes offer incoherent or conflicting narratives about climate risks and solutions, leading to mistrust and confusion leaving communities confused and unable to understand or act on climate-vulnerability information.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Counter the gap between technical climate framing and community understanding by communicating climate vulnerability through the lens of everyday health, safety, and quality-of-life impacts; using messengers and platforms that communities already trust rather than top-down technical channels.
Youth engagement programs that train young people to communicate extreme heat, wildfire, and emergency-preparedness information to their peers through digital platforms represent one emerging model for how this kind of trusted, community-embedded climate communication can work in practice.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should fund a sustained, community-led engagement campaign that rebuilds trust with frontline communities by replacing top-down technical messaging with locally trusted, multilingual, and culturally relevant communication around heat, wildfire, flooding, and disaster preparedness.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
Reform CalEnviroScreen reliance in favor of locally validated data — though this is better placed under a funding access or equity barrier than under climate vulnerability specifically.
Barrier 3: Inclusive Planning
Authentic community resilience is hindered by shallow, inequitable engagement processes that exclude marginalized, tribal and rural communities, devalue Indigenous and lived knowledge, and fail to build trust, safety, and long-term collaboration across government and community.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, San Diego, Statewide
Resilience Planning Excludes Indigenous, Tribal, and Frontline Leadership. Resilience planning often marginalizes Indigenous knowledge, Tribal sovereignty, and the lived experience of frontline, rural, immigrant, and unhoused communities. Structural, geographic, cultural, and logistical barriers—including misaligned timelines, language access gaps, digital inequities, and exclusion from regional decision-making—prevent authentic leadership and result in strategies disconnected from on-the-ground conditions.
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, San Diego, Statewide
Transactional Engagement and Trust Deficits Undermine Participation. Resilience engagement is often tied to short-term grants or one-off processes, resulting in shallow participation that devalues lived and Indigenous knowledge. Historic harms, competitive funding, generational disinvestment, and safety concerns—particularly for undocumented residents—have eroded trust, reducing community willingness to engage or sustain involvement in resilience planning.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast, Statewide
Power Imbalances Undermine Community-Led Resilience. Resilience efforts where institutions or a handful of people retain decision-making authority while community-based organizations and residents are asked to provide input without shared power or control limit community ownership of resilience outcomes.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast
The immigration status of a significant portion of the Central Coast’s agricultural workforce creates a structural barrier to climate planning participation, as fear of government-connected processes — including surveys, public meetings, and program enrollment — chills engagement among the frontline communities most exposed to climate hazards like heat, drought, and poor air quality.
- Illustrative example: In the Pajaro Valley, the TCC planning team explicitly limited data collection to anonymous, non-identifying information and prioritized relationship-building over formal participation processes specifically to create safety for undocumented residents — yet even these adaptations were insufficient to fully overcome the fear generated by the current immigration enforcement environment.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast
Indigenous and landless tribes face particular barriers to meaningful engagement, including grant contract terms that conflict with sovereignty, lack of advance funding, and reimbursement delays that make participation financially impossible without unrestricted reserves.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Build citizen oversight structures into climate planning projects that give affected residents genuine decision-making power rather than advisory roles.
The Pajaro Valley TCC's Community Climate Coalition, composed of local residents and nonprofit representatives, is a documented example of this structure in practice.
Establishing standing advisory bodies, community steering groups, and regional coordination tables where CBOs, Tribes, and local governments collaborate with state and regional agencies on climate-resilience strategies.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should fund sustained, community-led engagement infrastructure (supporting trusted CBOs and tribal organizations as long-term partners for a minimum of three to five years rather than through episodic contracts) meeting communities where they are rather than requiring them to navigate government processes.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Engage tribes not only in environmental justice sections but as domain experts and leaders on vegetation management, land stewardship, and climate resilience; expanding their role beyond diversity inclusion into substantive planning authority.
The YTT Northern Chumash tribe was written specifically into the City of SLO's climate adaptation plan as leads on vegetation management and traditional ecological knowledge in city open space, enabled by SB 18's tribal consultation requirement for general plan updates.
SB 18's tribal consultation requirement for general plan and specific plan updates provides an existing mechanism for jurisdictions to initiate and deepen these relationships.
Best Practices
Central Coast stakeholders shared the following case studies that help move the proposed solutions forward.
The Yak Tityu Tityu Yak Tiłhini (YTT) Northern Chumash Tribe and the City of San Luis Obispo demonstrate what meaningful tribal inclusion in local climate planning can look like when consultation is treated as relationship-building rather than procedural compliance. When the City updated its climate adaptation and safety element in 2022, a new sustainability staff member used SB 18’s tribal consultation requirement as an opportunity to deepen an existing but shallow relationship — writing YTT directly into the vegetation management and traditional ecological knowledge sections of the open space plan as leads on climate resilience work, rather than placing tribal content only in the environmental justice section.
This planning foundation enabled the region’s first cultural burn within City open space in June 2024 — a 15-acre burn on a popular hiking trail conducted in partnership with CAL FIRE and Sequoia River Lands Trust. YTT is now developing a 14-year cultural burn plan for their homelands, supported by state and conservancy grants that the planning partnership helped make accessible, with goals including native species promotion, invasive management, and community reconnection with fire.
Barrier 5: Fire-Adapted Infrastructure
Conventional infrastructure and land management are ill-equipped to address today’s extreme wildfires, slow landscape recovery, and new fire risks.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast
Cultural burns and prescribed fire, while increasingly enabled by state policy, remain difficult to implement at scale due to complex access agreements, liability concerns, and the particular burden on landless tribes who must negotiate with landowners for every project.
- Illustrative Example: The Tamien Nation cultural fire program and YTT Northern Chumash tribal burns both illustrate this challenge: significant volunteer time and relationship work was required before a single burn could take place, and reimbursement-based grants nearly excluded key partners.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast
Conventional infrastructure and land management (including fire suppression policies that removed Indigenous burning practices) have created dangerous fuel accumulation and reduced landscape resilience, leaving communities more vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Build tribal fire workforce capacity through a structured career ladder (training firefighters, developing burn bosses, and creating contract work opportunities with private landowners) so that tribal fire programs become financially sustainable rather than perpetually grant-dependent.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Pay fire crew workers at living wages with full benefits, recognizing that the hardness and complexity of this work requires compensation that competes with other employment, and that agency wage structures that pay significantly below living wage undermine both workforce retention and the ability to build tribally sovereign fire programs.
The Tamien Nation made this a core principle of their cultural fire program: paying twice the Department of Forestry's approximately $17/hour rate, with full benefits at no out-of-pocket cost.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Partner with state parks and other public land managers to create additional training and burning opportunities for tribal fire crews; expanding the land base available for cultural burns beyond what individual landowner relationships can provide.
Tamien Nation named California State Parks (particularly Henry Coe State Park) as a partner that provides both training opportunities and additional land access for their fire crew. Tamien Nation crew also traveled to Angel Island as part of this expanding network of public land partnerships.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Land trusts and landowners should proactively develop land access agreements with tribal nations to enable cultural burns on their properties; recognizing that as long as tribes remain landless, every burn requires individual negotiation that consumes capacity better spent on the work itself.
Sequoia River Lands Trust, a land trust managing lands within the YTT Northern Chumash homeland area, covers vegetation management costs and provides land access for cultural burns; demonstrating how land trusts can serve as enabling partners for landless tribes seeking to restore fire to their territories.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
SB 332’s prescribed fire liability fund (which protects practitioners from liability for intentional fire and formally defined “cultural fire practitioners” and “cultural burns” in California Code for the first time) provides essential legal infrastructure for scaling tribal and collaborative fire programs and should be built upon rather than treated as a ceiling.
Barrier 6: Natural and Working Lands
Fragmented governance, exclusion of Indigenous stewardship, and urban-rural resource extraction hinder coordinated protection of ecosystems, farms, and food systems as climate change intensifies heat, water scarcity, and land-use conflicts.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, San Diego, Statewide
Tribal stewardship, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, and cultural burning are often marginalized or engaged too late in land-management decisions, despite their importance for climate adaptation and fire resilience. Infrastructure deficits and siloed Tribal economic development further constrain Tribes’ ability to implement coordinated stewardship, sustainable agriculture, and landscape restoration aligned with Tribal priorities.
- Illustrative example: In San Diego County, Tribal enterprises face basic infrastructure gaps—such as limited water and water-system capacity—that restrict the expansion of sustainable agriculture and land stewardship. At the same time, economic development efforts across the region’s 13 Tribal bands remain siloed, limiting coordination and shared investment in landscape-scale resilience and restoration efforts.
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, San Diego, Statewide
Fragmented and Extractive Land Governance Undermines Landscape Resilience. Natural and working lands are governed by siloed authorities with misaligned priorities and uneven investment, reinforcing extractive urban–rural dynamics. Urban areas benefit from rural land, water, and ecological resources while rural communities face disproportionate degradation, climate risk, and limited representation, preventing coordinated, landscape-scale stewardship.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast
Multi-benefit land repurposing (retiring marginal farmland for groundwater recharge, flood control, and habitat) requires pooling multiple funding streams with different rules and timelines, creating coordination complexity that smaller organizations cannot manage alone.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Provide stacked incentives and technical assistance to farmers navigating emissions reduction programs; recognizing that thin margins, comfort with existing machinery, and complex regulatory requirements are the primary barriers to adoption, not lack of interest.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Invest in local agriculture being put into local communities; building food hubs, urban agriculture, and local supply chains that reduce transportation emissions and food insecurity simultaneously.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Advance on-farm practices (including cover cropping, no-till, and targeted water and material application) as tools for reducing emissions, improving soil health, and building agricultural resilience.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Pursue agrivoltaic systems on agricultural land (dual-use installations combining solar generation with continued crop production) as a multi-benefit approach that preserves farmland, generates additional revenue for farmers operating on thin margins, and advances clean energy goals simultaneously.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should establish regional conservancies via the CNRA model to provide sustainable, flexible funding for natural and working lands; giving the region a durable alternative to competitive grant cycles for the long-term stewardship investments that agricultural and landscape resilience require.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should pursue sustainable supply chain reporting for greenhouse gas emissions, helping sustainability become part of procurement conversations at the food buyer level; recognizing that food buyers drive a significant share of agricultural policy decisions and that supply chain transparency could shift incentives upstream.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should amend SB 1383 composting requirements specifically for farmers; recognizing that buyer resistance to certain compost types and the complexity of composting regulations create barriers that are distinct from those faced by other sectors and require targeted regulatory accommodation.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should provide resources to agricultural extension programs to deliver technical assistance to farmers on emissions reduction strategies (including on-farm energy efficiency, electrification, and regenerative practices) and on how to stack and leverage available incentives.
The Central Coast faces interconnected barriers to clean energy adoption and building decarbonization that disproportionately burden low-income households, small businesses, farmworker communities, and rural areas least equipped to navigate fragmented incentive programs.
Key Challenges
Aging grid infrastructure cannot support rapid electrification load growth and is increasingly stressed by climate disruptions, while BESS opposition slows storage buildout. Rising IOU transmission rates burden low-income and rural ratepayers who cannot opt out. Older housing stock requires costly pre-work before electrification, the split-incentive problem discourages multifamily upgrades, permit costs vary dramatically across jurisdictions, and contractor shortages leave households unable to move forward. Community solar and distributed energy remain unaffordable at needed scale, and the region lacks governance structures to advance distributed energy models.
Solutions for Local and State
Local jurisdictions should pursue community microgrids and distributed solar-plus-storage, streamline retrofit permitting, bundle projects across community areas, offer concierge-style technical assistance, build contractor marketplaces and workforce pipelines, and pursue community solar to reduce IOU dependence. The state should align agency energy priorities, reform rate structures to protect disadvantaged ratepayers, provide direct-install programs with minimal burden, offer low-interest retrofit financing, and fund workforce development as an explicit grant deliverable.
Best Practices
Central Coast examples demonstrate that local capacity building and embedded technical assistance are essential to equitable clean energy deployment. GREEN served 80 small businesses through locally embedded one-on-one assistance before losing state funding in 2023. The Tri-County Regional Energy Network’s contractor marketplace and training program builds local installer capacity as a supply-side investment. The Cuyama Valley Initiative built a local clean energy workforce pipeline ahead of implementation funding. A San Francisco four-plex pilot demonstrated that multifamily decarbonization requires sustained coordination across owners, residents, and program administrators rather than individual household incentive programs alone.
Barrier 1: Grid Infrastructure
Insufficient and aging infrastructure (e.g. battery storage, smart grid, transmission) cannot adequately support or optimize growing energy demand (e.g EVs, VPPs, AI, data centers, housing), the rapid transition to renewables, abundant day-time energy, and reliability as climate impacts increase.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, San Diego, Statewide
Distribution and transmission systems are aging and undersized. They cannot support the rapid increase in load from EVs, heat pumps and electrification and are increasingly stressed by climate-driven disruptions such as extreme heat, wildfires, and storms.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast
Public fear and NIMBY opposition to battery energy storage systems, compounded by legitimate safety concerns from real incidents, are slowing the buildout of storage infrastructure that communities need both for renewable energy integration and local resilience.
- Illustrative Example: The 2024 Moss Landing Vistra battery storage facility fire in Monterey County (which raised serious public health and safety concerns for nearby residents) became a concrete local reference point that participants cited as intensifying community resistance to future BESS siting across the Central Coast region.
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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Construction/Installation/Procurement )
Pursue affordable community microgrids and distributed solar-plus-storage systems (including on public buildings, schools, and other community facilities) to build local energy independence at community scale as an alternative to waiting for IOU grid hardening investments that remain outside local control.
1. East Bay agrivoltaics + storage project demonstrates that local generation can move forward with early coordination. 2. City of Fremont deployed solar-plus-battery microgrids at multiple fire stations through a public-private partnership with Gridscape Solutions and CEC funding.
1. Leveraging EV transportation infrastructure within microgrid networks represents an emerging approach to expanding local storage capacity while serving dual transportation and resilience goals. 2.CEC's EPIC Investment Plan: The Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) Program invests in scientific and technological research to accelerate the transformation of the electricity sector to meet the state’s energy and climate goals. The CEC develops a new electricity research investment plan every five years. The fifth investment plan will cover the period from January 1, 2026, to December 31, 2030 (EPIC 5) and be shaped through a robust public process led by CEC staff.
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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
Legislature and CPUC should be pushed by local advocates to align on distributed energy investment priorities. It is noted that CPUC cannot act independently of legislative direction and that the real leverage point for grid policy is the legislature, not the regulatory body.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
Governor should direct agencies and Cabinet Secretaries who fund or influence energy policies to align priorities across agencies; reducing contradictory policies and fragmented investment decisions that slow distributed energy and grid modernization deployment.
Barrier 2: Energy Affordability & Rates
California faces rapidly rising electricity rates driven by escalating system costs creating significant affordability challenges for many households and businesses, and undermining the financial feasibility of building energy and electrification upgrades.
Key Challenges Identified
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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Conduct a dual analysis of affordability from both the customer rate perspective and the systemic cost perspective; recognizing that the Central Coast’s average energy bill ranks in the middle nationally, and that understanding what is driving regional cost patterns is necessary before prescribing solutions.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Deploy customer battery storage to offset costs and maximize use of renewables during daylight hours; reducing household reliance on grid power during peak rate periods and providing a practical affordability tool for households that have already made solar investments.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Pursue community solar programs that make locally generated clean energy affordable and accessible to low-income households and small farms; reducing dependence on IOU transmission infrastructure and the rising rates that accompany it.
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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
Reform rate structures and program designs to protect low-income, renter, tribal, and disadvantaged communities from rising transmission and electrification costs, while scaling direct support (subsidies, rebates, and upfront retrofit and electrification financing) to make efficient options accessible year-round and during emergencies.
CEC/CPUC Disadvantaged Communities Advisory Group (DACAG)
Barrier 3: Retrofit Feasibility
Building retrofits including efficiency, electrification, solar and storage upgrades are often difficult for property owners and renters across the state to install at scale due to high upfront costs, old building stock, contractor and market dynamics, and confusing, complex, unreliable, or hard-to-stack incentive and financing programs.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Inland Deserts, San Diego, Statewide
Fragmented, complex, and unstable incentive programs, with inconsistent messaging and rigid rules, make it difficult for homeowners, renters, and contractors to plan, stack benefits, or move projects forward, leading to missed opportunities and abandoned retrofits.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast, Los Angeles, Inland Deserts, San Diego, Statewide
Older housing stock creates major barriers to electrification and resilience upgrades. Many homes require costly pre-work such as electrical panel upgrades, insulation improvements, and appliance replacement before zero-emission systems can be installed, making retrofits difficult to scale and disproportionately burdening low- and moderate-income households without affordability-first program design.
- Illustrative example: In San Diego an estimated 800,000 buildings built before 1978 lack the electrical capacity or structural readiness for electrification, driving up retrofit costs and extending permitting timelines for clean-energy upgrades.
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Statewide
High upfront costs for replacing systems (heat pumps, water heaters, EV charging, electrical panels) are prohibitive for small businesses, existing homeowners, and especially multifamily and mobile home residents, even when incentive programs exist.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast, Los Angeles, Statewide
Multifamily retrofits face a persistent “split incentive” problem: landlords bear the costs of upgrades while tenants capture most of the utility savings. Renters often lack authority to make improvements, and property owners are reluctant to invest when tenants pay the utility bills. This misalignment of costs and benefits discourages investment in energy efficiency and electrification upgrades, even when technically feasible.
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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Offer concierge-style technical assistance to help households and small businesses move from interest to completion (explaining retrofit options, navigating requirements, stacking incentives, completing applications, and coordinating next steps) reducing drop-off from program complexity and improving equitable access to electrification and resilience upgrades.
1. South Coast AQMD is requiring zero-emission space and water heating technologies and launching a Go Zero program targeting overburdened communities with rebates, stacked incentives, and funding navigation assistance. 2. The Basset Avocado Advanced Energy Community Pilot provides comprehensive homeowner navigation for retrofit incentives and code compliance — participants recommended replication across the region. 3. Silicon Valley Clean Energy operates a one-on-one concierge model for incentive navigation and retrofit support. 4. The City of Alhambra enhances language access and in-person enrollment at libraries for rebates and energy programs. 5. GREEN served 80 small businesses in the Central Coast through a partnership with Intuit before losing state funding in 2023, demonstrating the model's effectiveness and its dependence on sustained public investment.
1. CCEC's assistance marketplace. 2. New local or regional based grant programs: SoCalREN, BAAD, SCAG, CPA.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Build local installer capacity through contractor marketplaces and partnerships with community organizations that provide workforce pipelines for home energy upgrades; closing the gap that leaves households and small businesses unable to find qualified installers even when programs and incentives are available.
1. GRID Alternatives “Communities in Charge” program demonstrates how equity-focused engagement and local contractor partnerships can build community confidence in energy transitions. IREN Programs. 2. The Desert Healthcare District is partnering with community organizations to address air quality and provide in-home interventions. 3. 3CREN operates a contractor marketplace and training program that builds both technical skills and incentive-stacking knowledge among local installers, providing a replicable model for how regional energy networks can function as workforce infrastructure for equitable electrification deployment.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Construction/Installation/Procurement )
Pursue consolidated electrification efforts in multifamily buildings through coordinated owner, resident, and program partnerships; recognizing that variability across units, maintenance complexity, and the split-incentive problem require active coordination rather than individual household-by-household approaches.
San Francisco 4-plex decarbonization pilot: A full decarbonization of a four-unit building in San Francisco, completed over two years with city support, demonstrated that coordinated multifamily electrification is achievable but requires sustained coordination, equipment acquisition support, and outreach across all units to succeed.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Streamline local building permit processes for electrification and retrofit projects (adopting over-the-counter approval as a standard rather than complex discretionary review) recognizing that permit costs disproportionate to project value actively discourage upgrades and push property owners to skip permits entirely, reducing both uptake and safety oversight.
The City of Monterey's over-the-counter permitting model is a documented example of what streamlined local permitting looks like in practice; the City of Hollister's $2,000 permit fee on a $5,000 project is a documented example of how permitting culture can function as a de facto prohibition on electrification in under-resourced communities.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Address the split-incentive barrier by developing distinct electrification pathways for renters and owners, including portable heat pumps and other measures that do not require landlord authorization as near-term options for renters unable to access whole-building retrofit programs.
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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should offer and expand accessible low-interest financing tools (comparable to those used in affordable housing) to help households and small businesses cover upfront costs of electrification and retrofit upgrades that are financially out of reach even when long-term savings exist.
California's GoGreen financing program provides low-interest loans for energy upgrades and represents an existing model for how state-backed financing can bridge the upfront cost gap for small businesses and households entering the clean energy transition.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
Legislature should provide more flexibility within electrification implementation programs, allowing funding to cover coordination, community engagement, and workforce development as deliverables alongside capital installations.
PG&E's program providing free water heaters to any public agency that requests them was named as a model for this approach; described as straightforward and easy to use, demonstrating that removing the application and cost barrier entirely can drive uptake where complex rebate and incentive programs have not.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State and utility programs should offer direct-install approaches, providing equipment at no upfront cost with minimal administrative burden, rather than relying solely on incentive stacking that requires significant research and navigation capacity to access.
PG&E's program providing free water heaters to any public agency that requests them was named as a model for this approach; described as straightforward and easy to use, demonstrating that removing the application and cost barrier entirely can drive uptake where complex rebate and incentive programs have not.
Best Practices
Central Coast stakeholders shared the following case studies that help move the proposed solutions forward.
GREEN, operating in the Central Coast region under coordinator Lacey Raak, demonstrates how locally embedded one-on-one technical assistance can move small businesses through clean energy transitions that fragmented incentive programs alone cannot reach. Small businesses face a particular structural barrier: they rarely own their buildings, have no dedicated sustainability staff, and cannot afford the research time required to identify, stack, and apply for available programs. GREEN addressed this by deploying local coordinators who understand regional program variations and work directly alongside business owners to identify applicable resources and navigate the process. Through a partnership with Intuit, GREEN served 80 businesses and facilitated approximately $1,000 in clean energy upgrades per business. The program lost state funding in 2023, but its track record demonstrates both the viability of the model and its dependence on sustained public investment to continue operating at scale.
The Tri-County Regional Energy Network addresses one of the most persistent structural gaps in electrification deployment: the shortage of trained, locally available contractors who understand how to navigate available incentive programs. 3CREN operates a contractor marketplace connecting households and businesses with qualified local installers, paired with contractor training programs that build both technical skills and incentive-stacking knowledge. The training component is particularly important — contractors who understand how to identify and combine available rebates, utility programs, and state incentives can substantially reduce out-of-pocket costs for customers, making projects financially viable that would otherwise stall. By treating contractor capacity as a supply-side constraint that requires active investment rather than an assumed market outcome, 3CREN provides a replicable model for how regional energy networks can serve as workforce infrastructure for equitable electrification deployment.
A full decarbonization project completed on a four-unit residential building in San Francisco (conducted over two years with active city support) provides one of the clearest documented examples of what coordinated multifamily electrification actually requires in practice. The project involved acquiring and installing equipment across all units, coordinating among residents, navigating variability in unit conditions and occupant circumstances, managing public outreach, and sustaining momentum over a multi-year timeline. The experience confirmed that multifamily electrification is technically achievable, but that the split-incentive problem, coordination complexity, and maintenance transition burden make it categorically different from single-family retrofit work. It cannot be addressed through individual household incentive programs alone; it requires a coordinated effort involving the building owner, residents, local government, and program administrators working together over an extended period. The pilot’s success, achieved specifically because the city provided sustained coordination support, makes the case for embedding active coordination capacity within any program targeting multifamily building stock.
Barrier 4: Workforce
The market of qualified workers necessary to construct and install clean energy projects and retrofits is not large enough, especially outside of major urban centers.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Statewide
California faces a severe shortage of trained contractors and skilled workers—installers, electricians, HVAC technicians, and utility lineworkers—needed to meet growing demand for electrification, retrofits, DERs, and renewables. Many existing workers lack experience with emerging technologies and requirements (e.g., heat pumps, IRA compliance), slowing project delivery and limiting local capacity.
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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Connect clean energy workforce development to the clean energy transition vision. Linking workforce pathways explicitly to distributed energy, electrification, and grid modernization goals so that training programs produce workers aligned with what the region is actually building toward.
The Cuyama Valley Initiative built a local clean energy workforce development program, including hands-on training and job fairs across clean energy, regenerative agriculture, and ecological restoration, specifically so that when implementation-scale funding arrives, the workforce to deliver it will already exist in the valley.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Build clean energy career ladders in rural and under-resourced communities, investing in workforce development as a prerequisite for implementation rather than an afterthought, so that local workers are trained and ready when implementation funding arrives rather than having communities depend on outside contractors.
The Cuyama Valley Initiative built a local clean energy workforce development program, including hands-on training and job fairs across clean energy, regenerative agriculture, and ecological restoration, specifically so that when implementation-scale funding arrives, the workforce to deliver it will already exist in the valley.
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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should fund workforce development as an explicit deliverable within clean energy and climate implementation grants (not as overhead or an unfunded expectation) recognizing that building the local workforce needed to implement programs is itself a program outcome.
Barrier 5: Community Microgrid Development
Community-scale microgrids remain financially and technically difficult to deploy due to restrictive utility rules, undervaluation of battery reserves, and high coordination needs for EV fleets and other DERs. These challenges, compounded by PSPS outages and slow permitting, prevent microgrids from delivering reliable and cost-effective community resilience.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast
Community solar and distributed energy programs remain unaffordable and inaccessible at the scale needed (particularly for small farms, low-income households, and small businesses) leaving the region dependent on IOU transmission infrastructure despite clear community interest in local generation alternatives.
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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
CCAs should leverage their existing infrastructure and customer relationships to advance community-scale battery storage programs, making distributed energy storage accessible and affordable to households and businesses that cannot pursue individual storage solutions.
Central Coast Community Energy's battery storage program provides a regional example of a CCA-led model for community-scale storage deployment already underway on the Central Coast.
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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should provide resources to CCAs and RENs to deliver technical assistance on distributed energy strategies (including community solar, storage, and how to stack and leverage available funding) so that small farms, low-income households, and small businesses can access programs that currently require more navigation capacity than they have.
Barrier 1: Transportation Electrification
Lack of coordination between vehicle electrification, charging infrastructure, building systems, and the grid limits the resilience and energy benefits of transportation decarbonization, leaving communities unable to fully realize the potential of clean mobility investments and emission reductions.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Inland Deserts
Uneven EV charging access in underserved areas limits adoption and deepens transportation inequity. Charging infrastructure remains inconsistent and poorly located in low-income and rural communities, fueling range anxiety and limiting EV adoption.
- Illustrative Example: In the Inland Southern California desert region, both EV ownership and charging access fall well below the state average.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Integrate charging equity into local climate and mobility plans; ensuring chargers are installed where residents live and work rather than primarily along highway travel corridors, and prioritizing low-income, farmworker, and rural communities that currently lack accessible charging infrastructure despite having the greatest transportation energy burdens.
The City of Palm Springs operates roughly half of all publicly accessible chargers in the city, many of them city-owned or operated through license agreements with private firms. These chargers are strategically located in disadvantaged neighborhoods and public parking areas to encourage more electric vehicle (EV) trips and reduce fossil fuel dependency.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Leverage EV transportation infrastructure as a component of affordable microgrid networks; treating EV charging and storage as dual-purpose assets that advance both transportation electrification and local energy resilience goals simultaneously.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should offer low-interest financing tools to help households and small businesses cover upfront costs of vehicle electrification and charging infrastructure; making the transition financially accessible for those who face the greatest transportation energy burdens.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should provide greater flexibility in how EV charging infrastructure grant funds can be used; allowing funds to cover the full range of infrastructure components actually needed rather than restricting expenditures to narrowly defined equipment categories that leave critical gaps.
Barrier 2: Vehicle Miles Traveled
Sprawling land use, siloed planning, and underinvestment in clean and active transportation limit access to low-carbon mobility options and hinder efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast
In regions where housing costs and zoning patterns push workers far from job centers, long-distance commutes become structurally unavoidable; deepening car dependency, increasing household transportation costs, and making transit alternatives economically and practically unviable.
- Illustrative Example: On the Central Coast, farmworkers and service workers are forced into long-distance commutes because housing supply, zoning, and pricing are structured around higher-income buyers rather than the local workforce.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Pursue transition mobility programs that help farmworker and low-income communities understand the full cost of car ownership. Recognizing that once people think concretely about the approximately $12,000 annual cost of a car, interest in alternative transportation and electrification options increases substantially.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Use temporary and tactical infrastructure to establish safe street networks at lower cost; building a functional network in the short term that demonstrates viability and generates community support before committing to permanent capital investment.
The Pajaro Valley TCC proposed a safe streets program along Park Row into Watsonville using temporary and tactical infrastructure to establish a functional pedestrian network quickly and at lower cost; a practical approach in a community where Monterey County ranked third statewide for vehicle strikes on residents under 18.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Frame transportation and mobility improvements around health, safety, and daily convenience rather than climate or emissions goals; recognizing that residents are far more responsive to arguments about getting where they need to go safely and affordably than to VMT reduction framing.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should offer low-interest financing tools to expedite clean and active transportation projects; making the capital investment needed for regional transit and active transportation infrastructure more accessible to under-resourced jurisdictions.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
Governor should direct agencies and Cabinet Secretaries who fund or influence transit and transportation policies to align priorities across agencies; reducing contradictory policies and fragmented investment decisions that slow regional transit buildout.
Best Practices
Central Coast stakeholders shared the following case studies that help move the proposed solutions forward.
The Pajaro Valley Transformative Climate Communities project identified a safe streets program running along Park Row into Watsonville as a top community implementation priority; proposing temporary and tactical infrastructure to establish a functional pedestrian and mobility network quickly and at lower cost, supplemented by nature-based solutions. The approach reflects a community where Monterey County ranked third statewide for vehicle strikes on residents under 18, and where residents have grown up less than two miles from the ocean without safe access to get there. By using tactical infrastructure to demonstrate viability before committing to permanent capital investment, the project offers a replicable model for building active transportation networks in underserved communities where long-term infrastructure funding is uncertain.
Barrier 1: Representation & Inclusion
Systemic inequities and power dynamics—such as privileging academic credentials over lived experience, relying on the same few individuals, or pursuing symbolic rather than genuine participation—undermine authentic, diverse, and trusted community involvement in decision-making.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Inland Deserts, Statewide
Performative engagement and the illusion of inclusion. Climate planning processes routinely invite community participation while keeping real decision-making power with entrenched institutional actors; collecting input that is rarely acted upon, eroding trust, and making meaningful engagement progressively harder to sustain.
- Illustrative Example: Consultants and academics design engagement processes around pre-formed assumptions, bringing communities polished materials to react to rather than building solutions together from the start.
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Inland Deserts, Statewide
Practical barriers (including lack of compensation, childcare, transportation, and digital access) make sustained participation structurally inaccessible for frontline and under-resourced community members even when formal invitations exist.
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Inland Deserts, Statewide
Structural barriers systematically exclude tribal nations, farmworker communities, smaller local governments, and other marginalized groups from climate planning; leaving well-resourced actors to dominate processes and producing plans that fail to reflect the priorities of those most impacted.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Design climate planning processes so that community-identified needs drive funding priorities rather than the reverse. Local and regional agencies should build sustained partnerships with CBO networks and ongoing advisory structures that enable continuous involvement, reducing engagement fatigue and ensuring underrepresented communities have lasting influence rather than episodic, grant-driven access.
1. Community advisory boards can be used as a structure to allow continuous engagement outside of grant cycles. 2. Fifth Climate Change Assessment – Inland Deserts Region: A model for participatory engagement that combines scientific research with locally led advisory groups and storytelling events to center lived experience.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Build citizen oversight structures with real decision-making authority into climate planning projects, treating lived experience and grassroots leadership as equal to technical expertise. Local agencies should include CBOs, tribal partners, and frontline residents as co-designers of plans and projects rather than advisors, strengthening community ownership, trust, and implementation outcomes.
In the Bay Area a city–CBO partnership co-designed a tree-planting and urban canopy program in which community organizers served as project champions.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Invest in community-led cultural programming and cultural assets alongside climate infrastructure. This recognizes that without investment in the social and cultural fabric of communities, the sustained engagement needed to carry out long-term climate visions cannot be maintained.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should fund sustained, community-led engagement infrastructure for a minimum of three to five years, investing in trusted regional anchor organizations as long-term partners, with dedicated funding covering translation, stipends, and culturally appropriate outreach that persists across grant cycles.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should ensure climate plans and strategies are developed with sufficient consultation from tribal nations, farmworker communities, and other frontline populations; so that solutions reflect local knowledge and lived experience rather than exclusively technical or agency priorities.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should make it easier to compensate individuals and organizations that lack fiscal management capacity (including paying for childcare and transportation) so that meaningful participation in climate planning is not structurally inaccessible to frontline community members.
Barrier 2: Awareness, Education & Language Accessibility
Gaps in communication, education, and outreach limit communities’ ability to connect climate issues with everyday concerns and sustain broad, intergenerational understanding.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Statewide
Climate outreach fails to reach frontline communities when it relies on technical jargon, data-dense presentations, and literal translations that lack cultural context; framing issues in political or scientific language rather than the tangible health, safety, and affordability impacts that connect with residents’ daily lives and motivate action.
- Illustrative Example: In the Pajaro Valley, the TCC planning team explicitly reframed their entire community engagement strategy away from greenhouse gas emissions and toward health and safety outcomes, finding that conversations about pedestrian safety, affordable housing, and food access were what moved residents to participate — while emissions-first framing produced little engagement.
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Statewide
Insufficient and inconsistent language access (including near-total exclusion of Mixtec, Zapotec, and other indigenous-language speakers) prevents meaningful participation in climate planning, with CBOs forced to fill translation gaps that agencies leave unaddressed.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Lead climate engagement with everyday health, safety, and affordability impacts rather than technical or emissions framing, using plain language, visual tools, and storytelling to connect climate issues to residents’ daily lives, including converting technical data such as air quality metrics into accessible formats for monolingual and non-technical audiences.
1. Visual and language-based tools: In Bassett/Avocado Heights, Spanish-speaking communities responded best to pictures, infographics, and descriptive terms rather than literal translations of “amenities” and “energy efficiency.” Murals and multilingual displays (like the water mural in Santa Anita Park) served as effective entry points. 2. COVID-era color-coded risk communication as a model for making complex information understandable to the public. 3. The Pajaro Valley TCC reframed its entire engagement approach around health, safety, and affordability rather than GHG reduction — finding that this shift generated community participation where emissions-focused outreach had not.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Translate engagement materials into community languages and culturally grounded formats, recognizing that Spanish-only outreach excludes significant populations whose primary language is neither English nor Spanish.
- Illustrative Example: On the Central Coast, Mixtec, Zapotec, and other indigenous-language speakers make up a growing share of the farmworker community and are systematically excluded from climate planning processes when indigenous language representation is not explicitly designed into engagement efforts.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Invest in cultural programming and cultural assets alongside climate infrastructure; sustaining the social energy communities need to carry long-term climate visions through implementation.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should fund a sustained, community-led engagement campaign for a minimum of three to five years; removing silos, building trust, and meeting communities where they are using locally trusted, multilingual, and culturally appropriate voices.
Barrier 3: Compensation & Resource Gaps
When resources are scarce and funding structures are too rigid or short-term, communities struggle to participate fully and maintain long-term involvement.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles
Grant allowable cost rules systematically exclude frontline communities and the CBOs that serve them by capping stipends and prohibiting reimbursement for childcare, food, and transportation that make participation possible.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Structure multi-partner project teams so that each partner contributes what it does best, with coordination costs treated as a funded deliverable rather than overhead absorbed by the lead organization.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Meaningfully compensate CBO partners within grant budgets rather than capping stipends at token amounts, recognizing that CBOs are essential to delivery and cannot contribute their expertise for free.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
CBOs should preserve their role as community experts and coordinators by partnering with other organizations to handle accounting, HR, and administrative functions rather than building all capacity internally.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should provide flexible, multi-year funding to CBOs and community participants, including advance funding, extended timelines, and raised stipend caps, removing the cash-flow barriers and compensation restrictions that prevent the organizations and individuals most essential to equitable engagement from sustaining their participation.
Southern California Edison - Utility-funded outreach: Edison provided advance engagement funding to CBO partners, enabling early outreach before state funding cycles caught up. This ensured participation wasn’t stalled by cash flow issues
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
State should make childcare, food, transportation, and resident stipends allowable expenses across all state-administered grant programs, and simplify payment processes for individuals and organizations that lack fiscal management infrastructure.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State grant programs should allow coordination, community engagement, and project facilitation as funded deliverables rather than treating them as overhead or forbidding them as non-capital costs.
Barrier 4: Participation Process and Meeting Design
Exclusionary participation processes and meetings erode trust and limit communities’ influence on decisions.
Key Challenges Identified
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Build sustained regional coordination infrastructure through regular convenings and regional anchor organizations that maintain relationships and shared priorities across grant cycles; giving local governments, nonprofits, CBOs, and agencies a dedicated forum to align strategies and co-develop funding approaches rather than competing in isolation.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Come into collaborative spaces as a decision-maker rather than just a representative, ensuring that people attending engagement processes have the authority to make commitments rather than returning to their organizations for approval at every step.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Establish ongoing core working group structures (bringing together major landowners, school districts, agencies, and community organizations for regular joint meetings) rather than relying on episodic public engagement events.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Streamline stakeholder communication by first compiling shared themes and needs across participants, then spending concentrated time on unique challenges rather than relitigating common ground repeatedly across meetings.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Replace standard public hearing formats with joint decision-making forums where government and community determine priorities together, recognizing that public hearings are designed as advisory procedures where organized minorities can override majority input.
Barrier 5: Coalition & Partnership Challenges
When coalitions and partnerships lack alignment, conflict resolution, or sustained support, competing agendas and power imbalances erode trust, displace local groups, and weaken long-term collaboration.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Statewide
Power imbalances between large institutions and smaller CBOs constrain frontline organizations under grant requirements they cannot meet, limit their compensation, and risk displacing the community relationships and trust they have built.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Structure multi-partner project teams that distribute roles according to organizational strengths (with CBOs handling community engagement and relationships while partners with greater administrative capacity manage fiscal management and reporting) including coalitions across local governments, CDFIs, environmental justice organizations, and housing groups where each contributes what it does best.
Barrier 6: Structural & Systemic Barriers
When systems are rigid, fragmented, or unable to retain knowledge, communities face repeated setbacks as inflexible funding, data silos, and staff turnover erase lessons learned and stall progress.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Statewide
Staff turnover and short grant cycles erase institutional memory. Lessons learned disappear, past engagement findings are lost, and communities are repeatedly asked to re-explain their needs from scratch as new staff inherit processes without context or continuity.
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Statewide
Fragmented interagency coordination means policy changes and program requirements are implemented in silos without consulting affected communities, creating duplicative burdens and repeated cycles of communities navigating the same disconnects across agencies.
- Illustrative Example: SB1383 (Composting Requirements) is a policy that has been implemented without adequate consultation with the farmers most directly affected.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Build community capacity to advocate for itself (supporting residents to tell their own stories about the economic, physical, social, and psychological impacts of climate and disinvestment on their lives) rather than relying on technical assessments or government spokespersons to describe community conditions.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Devolve decision-making structures away from state-level processes driven primarily by politics and toward those grounded in local data and planning; recognizing that centralized control over economic development and climate priorities has systematically disadvantaged smaller communities and removed local agency over what gets funded and prioritized.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should discontinue or substantially reform its reliance on CalEnviroScreen as the primary eligibility tool for disadvantaged community designations, replacing it with locally validated data including general plan updates, local action plans, income data, and health equity indicators that more accurately capture on-the-ground conditions.
Fragmented, complex, and unstable funding systems systematically disadvantage rural, tribal, and under-resourced organizations best positioned to deliver community-driven climate action, extracting enormous capacity from those with the least to spare.
Key Challenges
Climate funding is insufficient and treated as discretionary rather than a core budget priority. Staff layoffs at grant end and federal instability create perpetual rebuilding cycles. Funding favors large urban applicants over place-based community-driven approaches. Non-standardized applications, matching deadlocks, reimbursement-only structures, and uncompensated pre-application work compound the burden. Tribal nations face sovereign immunity waiver requirements and multi-year delays receiving awarded funds. Capacity building is explicitly forbidden in most implementation grants.
Solutions for Local and State
Local jurisdictions should pursue diversified funding stacks, build community-owned revenue strategies, and partner with higher-capacity organizations to distribute grant burden. The state should treat climate resilience as a core budget commitment with multi-year recurring funding, require advance payment at grant award, establish a centralized grant portal with standardized reporting, publish grant agreements before award with tribal-specific contracting language, allow capacity building within implementation grants, reform CalEnviroScreen, and establish regional conservancies for durable funding.
Best Practices
California’s tribal capacity building program demonstrates how advance funding at grant award enables tribes to build organizational infrastructure needed to access larger grants. The Pajaro Valley TCC multi-partner structure distributed grant writing, fiscal management, and community engagement across four organizations, allowing frontline CBOs to focus on community delivery rather than compliance.
Barrier 1: Insufficient Investment
Significant budget and funding constraints at local, state and federal levels prevent adequate investments and capacity in needed energy, climate and land use strategies.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Statewide
Available climate funding is not commensurate with regional need and is treated as discretionary rather than a core budget priority; leaving resources spread too thin to produce sustained impact, with the gap falling hardest on rural, tribal, and chronically underinvested communities.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast
Grant programs routinely require organizations to monitor and report on project outcomes for years or decades beyond the grant period itself, but provide no funding to cover those obligations; leaving organizations legally responsible for long-term stewardship commitments they have no resources to fulfill.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Creative, local and regional revenue generation that is community-owned, and community-driven. This recognizes that the vision of an economy built on ecosystem assets and community benefit goals requires sustainable revenue streams, not episodic infighting over grant cycles.
1. Regional wildfire bond discussions in the North Bay (though not adopted). 2. Regional housing bonds (LA’s passed; Bay Area’s failed but used as lessons learned). 3. City of Concord construction recycling fund.
Local revenue mechanisms including bonds, JPAs, and climate resilience districts represent emerging tools for communities seeking greater financial independence from state grant cycles.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Pursue diversified, multi-source funding stacks rather than relying on any single grant program. Combining federal, state, and regional funding streams around shared project goals allows for the loss of any one source not halting progress entirely.
The Cuyama Valley Initiative stacked TCC, HUD, DOE Rural Energy Prize, regional energy network funds, and workforce grants to build a project portfolio of over $20 million.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should treat climate resilience as a core budget commitment; providing steady, multi-year recurring funding including administration and monitoring costs rather than episodic grants that require regions to rebuild capacity from scratch.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should create a continuous funding pipeline covering pre-planning, planning, and implementation within a single grant structure, eliminating the gaps that currently leave pre-development unfunded and force re-competition at each phase. This supports continuity and reduces cost burdens on small jurisdictions.
SB 1 regional shoreline adaptation model funding both planning and implementation phases
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should establish regional conservancies to provide sustainable, flexible, regionally informed funding, giving communities a durable institutional vehicle for climate investment that persists across political cycles rather than rising and falling with state budget priorities.
California's existing conservancy model under CNRA provides a proven template for how this structure could be established and governed at the regional level.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should ensure equitable distribution of climate funding (including an explicit equity formula under Prop 4 and other bond measures) that prioritizes communities historically excluded from state investment, with a funding target or set-aside for farmworker communities and disadvantaged rural areas.
Barrier 2: Unstable Assistance
Fluctuations in federal and state politics and budgets result in funding and technical assistance opportunities for local and place-based efforts that are often offered on a one-time basis and do not recur at predictable intervals, and are not reliably available.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast, Los Angeles, Statewide
State and federal funding priorities consistently misalign with local needs, favoring predetermined categories, rigid metrics, and large-scale urban applicants over the place-based, multi-benefit, community-driven approaches that work in rural and small-jurisdiction contexts.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Build organizational infrastructure and diversified revenue streams not entirely reliant on state grants. This includes pursuing contract work, administrative ventures, philanthropy, utility partnerships, county-level funds, and public-private partnerships so that programs can survive funding gaps and continue operating between grant cycles.
1. Habitat for Humanity LA: Supplemented TCC support for a veteran outside project boundaries by leveraging Habitat resources. 2. The Tamien Nation developed private landowner contract work for cultural burns and building their tribal cultural resource department as revenue-generating infrastructure to reduce dependence on state grants over time.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should establish predictable, recurring climate funding structures (at minimum five-year programs with known schedules) so that organizations can plan staffing, build partnerships, and sustain momentum rather than losing built-up capacity at the end of short grant windows.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should provide funding for long-term monitoring obligations. Organizations are expected to monitor for 20 years but receive funding only for a fraction of that period, creating unfunded obligations that drain capacity long after grant windows close.
Barrier 3: State & Federal Funding Priorities
State and federal funding priorities often misalign with local needs, favoring rigid rules, reactive approaches, and shifting policies that undermine innovation, certainty, and community-driven solutions.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, San Diego
Federal funding is unstable and subject to freezes, clawbacks, and shifting political priorities—creating uncertainty and gaps during federal transitions. Some stakeholders described “total uncertainty and chaos,” noting that many state and local grants rely on federal dollars, and philanthropy cannot fully backfill these disruptions.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Develop community-owned plans and project pipelines before pursuing state funding. When funding becomes available the project is grounded in community-identified priorities rather than shaped by what the funding category happens to require.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
SGC should coordinate funding across agencies to solve the capital stacking problem for multi-benefit projects. Organizations pursuing the integrated approaches communities need should not be forced to independently assemble complex multi-funder packages that structurally favor well-resourced applicants over under-resourced ones.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should devolve decision-making away from state-level political processes and toward local data and planning so that what gets funded reflects actual community conditions and priorities.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
Legislature should provide more flexibility within implementation programs, allowing funding to support coordination, community engagement, and multi-benefit projects rather than restricting grants to single-purpose capital outputs.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
Legislature should fund SGC for front-end state-local collaboration on program design so that community-identified needs are built into program requirements before they are finalized, rather than communities discovering after the fact that their priorities do not fit eligible categories.
Barrier 4: Application Burden & Accessibility
Competitive public grant applications are overly complex, confusing, and inflexible pass/failprocesses that are oversubscribed with little standardization, extracting limited organizational capacity that could be used for action while creating prohibitively high costs and low success probabilities that discourage resource-constrained organizations from attempting to apply.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Inland Deserts, San Diego, Statewide
Fragmented, non-standardized, and overly complex grant processes disproportionately drain the limited capacity of small, rural, tribal, and under-resourced organizations, leaving less time for actual planning and implementation.
- Illustrative Example: A tribal grantee managing five concurrent state grants described having to rewrite the same information five different ways every quarter (same cover page, entirely different formats) with each grant carrying different reporting templates, invoicing requirements, and accounting standards.
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles
The cost of pursuing and managing grants (including pre-application needs assessment, relationship building, project concept development, and grant writing) is entirely uncompensated, with no funding pathway for this work, falling hardest on organizations with the least capacity and creating a structural barrier before any grant process even begins.
Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, Los Angeles
Reimbursement-only grant structures require organizations to carry costs for months (sometimes up to a year) creating cash flow crises that break trust with contractors and effectively exclude organizations without financial reserves.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast, San Diego
Eligibility tools like CalEnviroScreen systematically misidentify disadvantaged communities, leaving some frontline populations excluded from programs designed for them while better-resourced communities with stronger data infrastructure successfully access funding.
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast, Los Angeles
Matching fund requirements create a structural deadlock (each funder requires evidence of match before committing, but no funder will commit first) effectively excluding under-resourced organizations with worthy projects from multi-funder applications.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
Partner with higher-capacity organizations and regional conveners to distribute grant writing, administration, and reporting burdens, allowing CBOs and smaller jurisdictions to focus on community-facing delivery while partners with greater administrative capacity handle compliance, fiscal management, and reporting, reducing redundancy and expanding equitable access to competitive funding.
1. San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative and foundations acting as “regional convening facilitators” to lead multi-partner funding efforts. 2. Regional collaboratives supporting low-capacity districts in applications. 3. The Pajaro Valley TCC multi-partner structure distributed planning, community engagement, grant writing, and fiscal management across four organizations, demonstrating this model in practice on the Central Coast.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Community Program Implementation )
Seek out and maintain relationships with engaged state agency staff who are willing to work hand-in-hand through the application process. Having an accessible, frank contact who explains funding priorities and requirements from the inside is often the difference between a successful and unsuccessful application for organizations without dedicated grant writers.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should require advance payment to nonprofits, tribes, and smaller CBOs at grant award rather than treating advance pay as optional, ensuring organizations have money in the bank on day one and can begin implementation without carrying costs for months while waiting for reimbursement.
1. Existing legislation authorizing (but not requiring) advance pay; stakeholders call for mandatory implementation. 2. California's tribal capacity building program provides early seed funding to tribal organizations at grant award rather than reimbursement, enabling tribes to build the organizational infrastructure needed to access and implement larger grants that would otherwise be financially out of reach.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should create a centralized, publicly accessible database of funded projects including budgets and award reasoning, paired with shared application repositories that allow unsuccessful proposals to be reused and adapted, so that under-resourced organizations can learn from funded applications and reduce duplicative work without hiring expensive consultants.
UCLA Luskin Center: Developing a TCC data dashboard to share findings and identify what is working/not working across grants.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Program Implementation and Outreach )
State should publish grant agreements before award for advance review, develop tribal-specific contracting language that removes sovereign immunity waivers and non-relevant terms, and set hard deadlines for contract execution so negotiations do not consume implementation time.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should clarify CEQA requirements during grant application stages so that tribal and under-resourced applicants understand whether and how environmental review applies before committing to an application — and should consider removing CEQA from initial scoring criteria for grants where implementation has not yet been determined.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State should establish a centralized grant portal for applications, reporting, and reimbursements, saving applicant information across grants, standardizing reporting formats so organizations are not rewriting the same information five different ways for different programs, and streamlining payment processing.
Barrier 5: Capacity Building
Local, tribal, and regional entities lack sustained funding, staffing, and representation to engage effectively in state planning implementation, leading to fragmented efforts, inequitable participation, and missed opportunities to build long-term, community-driven capacity.
Key Challenges Identified
Key challenge discussed in - Central Coast, Statewide
Capacity gaps reinforce inequitable participation. Under-resourced jurisdictions and community partners are least able to engage in complex funding and planning systems, leading to fragmented efforts and missed opportunities to build long-term, community-driven capacity.
Local Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
Local Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Planning/Land Use )
CBOs should resist pressure to build all organizational capacities internally and instead focus on what they do best, coordinating with partners to handle the accounting, HR, and administrative functions that implementation grants require but that community-facing organizations are not equipped to manage, preserving organizational energy for direct community work.
State Solution Opportunities
Central Coast 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.
Local or State
Solution
Existing Examples of Progress
Further Progress Pathways
State Solution
(Type of Activity: Policy/Regulation )
State implementation grants explicitly forbid capacity building activities, requiring organizations to get that funding elsewhere and creating a structural gap where organizations cannot use project funding to sustain or grow the organizational infrastructure needed to continue the work after the grant ends. State should change grant terms to allow capacity building as a legitimate expenditure within implementation grants.
Previous Events
REACH Central Coast was present at the Central Coast Sustainability Summit in Fall of 2025. Here is what we learned.
Catalyst Convening: Central Coast
Tuesday, March 17, 2026
Salinas, CA
Representatives from local and regional governments, tribal governments, community-based organizations, philanthropic foundations, and institutions of higher education came together – alongside key state agencies – on March 17 in SAlinas, to coordinate on the region’s energy, land use, climate barriers, and solutions.
The goals of the Convenings are to:
- Understand the bio-region & explore specific regional issues
- Facilitate two-way conversations on climate, land use, and energy
- Enable regions to have space to inform and co-create policies with actionable recommendations
- Create opportunities for state agencies and program teams to share funding, incentives, opportunities to engage, and other resources available to the region
The Catalyst Convenings are Presented by:
Catalyst Convenings are planned with UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab and the California Climate & Energy Collaborative with support from Farallon Strategies.
