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).
Local governments and their partners face significant barriers when transitioning from planning to implementing climate action measures, primarily due to inadequate and unpredictable funding, with competitive grant processes creating additional burdens for already-stretched staff. While many jurisdictions have developed emission reduction plans with strong community support, frontline communities disproportionately affected by environmental injustice are not being adequately prioritized in implementation. There is insufficient collaboration and alignment between regional, state, and local entities on climate action strategies, leading to fragmented efforts. Additionally, communities struggle to integrate climate considerations across all aspects of urban planning, land use, and infrastructure development, rather than treating it as a standalone issue.
View the details on what communities have shared with SLECC from across the state.
While emission reduction plans exist across jurisdictions with high levels of community support, frontline communities that are disproportionately affected by environmental injustice are not adequately prioritized in the implementation of climate solutions.
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.
Regional Collaboration for Scaled Implementation. Local governments can work through counties, COGs, and regional climate authorities to jointly implement programs, aggregate projects, pursue funding, and coordinate procurement and delivery. Regional support models enable shared staffing and resources, helping jurisdictions overcome individual capacity limits and advance decarbonization and infrastructure projects at scale.
Develop and share local project toolkits across jurisdictions to replicate successful implementation practices.
Using CAPs as guiding frameworks rather than prerequisites for action. Local governments described advancing “obvious” or widely supported climate actions even when CAP implementation is incomplete or unfunded. This reframes CAPs as directional tools rather than gating documents.
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.
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.
Supporting Implementation Without Requiring Perfect or Updated Inventories. State agencies discussed allowing jurisdictions to move forward with electrification, transportation, and building projects even when inventories are incomplete or outdated. This reduces delays in procurement and construction caused by planning bottlenecks.
Enabling and supporting regional governance and implementation structures. State agencies discussed legislation and policy pathways that allow local governments to form regional entities or financing districts to implement climate and resilience projects. These structures are intended to support cross-jurisdictional delivery.
State legislation and policy pathways like SB 852 Climate Resilience Districts (2022) allow cities, counties, special districts, or combinations of these entities to form CRDs specifically for climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience projects.
The Cities of San Diego and Sunnyvale include an adoptable implementation workplan and budget along with their CAP to gain internal buy-in and investment.
Various types of climate collaboratives have emerged throughout the state. San Mateo County’s Regional Integrated Climate Action Planning Support (RICAPS) model and Sonoma County’s RCPA are coordinating implementation and grant applications across multiple jurisdictions.
The recently reauthorized Cap-and-Invest provides approximately $4B/year the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which funds multiple programs through CARB’s CA Climate Investments that can help a local community reduce emissions including over a billion dollars in investments in housing, transit and infill emission reduction projects through SGC’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities and Transformative Climate Communities Grants.
Help us to expand our database. Either share new ideas, best practices or general feedback via this form, or click on a particular item to share additional feedback, information, examples of progress on that particular item.
Please share any additional resources you would like to include by emailing eecoordinator@civicwell.org.
