Transitioning to Implementation - California Climate and Energy Collaborative

Barrier 3: Transitioning to Implementation

Barrier Statement

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).

How this barrier is experienced across the state

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.

Filterable Database

How communities are experiencing this barrier

View the details on what communities have shared with SLECC from across the state.

Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Statewide

Fragmented Coordination Across Departments and Regions. Implementation requires cross-departmental and regional coordination, yet misaligned priorities, siloed decision-making, and the absence of shared regional frameworks or project pipelines limit follow-through. Without clear authority, infrastructure, or a shared vision, jurisdictions duplicate efforts and struggle to scale climate actions across boundaries.

Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Statewide

Limited Decision-Maker Buy-In for Climate Implementation. Climate action often stalls because elected officials and executive leadership do not consistently prioritize implementation, particularly when projects are viewed as costly, risky, or outside core services. Competing political pressures and weak accountability limit allocation of local funds and staff time, even when climate measures are included in adopted plans.

Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Statewide

Insufficient Staff Capacity and Turnover Limit Implementation. Even when funding is available, many jurisdictions—especially small and rural ones—lack staff to manage grants, coordinate departments, and oversee projects and reporting. High turnover disrupts continuity, leading to delayed projects and decisions not to pursue funding due to limited capacity.

Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area, Statewide

Insufficient and Unstable Funding Across the Project Lifecycle. Local governments lack reliable funding to move climate priorities from planning to design, construction, and sustained delivery. Funding is largely short-term and planning-focused, leaving gaps between grant cycles and limiting staffing, program scale, and long-term infrastructure investment.

Key challenge discussed in - San Francisco Bay Area

Structural and Cultural Barriers to Systems-Level Implementation: Implementation is inhibited by deeper systemic factors such as hyper-individualism and entrenched power structures. Decision-makers and institutions often default to narrow, short-term perspectives, prioritizing immediate concerns over long-term emissions reduction. These cultural norms reinforce fragmented approaches and limit the collective action required to deliver systems-level climate solutions.

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 Solution

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.

Existing Examples of Progress:

1. San Mateo County’s Regional Integrated Climate Action Planning Support (RICAPS) model 2. Sonoma County RCPA coordinating implementation and grant applications across multiple jurisdictions.

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): San Francisco Bay Area, Statewide

Local Solution

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

Existing Examples of Progress:

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Statewide

Local Solution

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

Existing Examples of Progress:

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Statewide

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.

State Solution

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

Existing Examples of Progress:

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): San Francisco Bay Area, Statewide

State Solution

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

Existing Examples of Progress:

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Statewide

State Solution

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

Existing Examples of Progress:

Legislation enabling Climate Resilience Financing Districts and regional authorities.

Further Progress Pathways

Region(s): Statewide

Solution Spotlight

No results found.

Help us strengthen our knowledge base!

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

Feedback Form

Additional Resources

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

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