SLECC Key Challenges and State and Local Solutions Database
Challenge/Local/State
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.
Challenge/Local/State
Inconsistent grant timelines do not match the multi-year, relationship-driven nature of community resilience work.
Challenge/Local/State
Create flexible, state-controlled funding mechanisms to backfill gaps caused by unstable federal or program funding. This could include loosening earmark restrictions and establishing supplemental state funding pools to ensure continuity across regions and populations.
Challenge/Local/State
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.
Challenge/Local/State
Build Durable Local and Regional Program Continuity Structures. Local and regional governments can design retrofit and decarbonization programs to persist across funding cycles by establishing standing coordination structures—such as cross-departmental teams or regional collaboration tables—that buffer against grant interruptions and shifting state or federal priorities. These mechanisms reduce reliance on one-time funding, preserve institutional knowledge, and support consistent program delivery during policy and budget volatility.
Challenge/Local/State
Regionalized Technical Assistance Networks. Regional collaboratives (e.g., RENs, COGs) can provide stable, accessible TA that remains consistent even when state programs fluctuate. This shared TA capacity helps smaller jurisdictions navigate unstable funding and evolving requirements.
Challenge/Local/State
Technical assistance “comes and goes”, is not stable, and is inconsistent across state agencies and even within programs.
Challenge/Local/State
Philanthropic support is limited and rarely directed toward building local government or CBO capacity, creating additional dependency on unstable state and federal grants
Challenge/Local/State
Staff hired with grant funds are often laid off when grants end, preventing local governments and nonprofits from maintaining the capacity needed to manage future programs
Challenge/Local/State
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.
Challenge/Local/State
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.
Challenge/Local/State
Funders constantly seek new projects and new organizations to fund, meaning that by the time a successful program is ready for a second round, the funder has moved on, creating boom-and-bust cycles that undermine long-term community investment.
Challenge/Local/State
Provide continuity mechanisms between funding rounds. State agencies maintain engagement, guidance, and light-touch support even when grant funds are temporarily unavailable.
Challenge/Local/State
In addition to being one time, funding is rarely available for O&M and many grant-funded assets can find themselves in a City or County’s Deferred Maintenance List
Challenge/Local/State
Unstable funding structures: Local governments and CBOs often rely on one-off project grants without baseline operational funding, leaving them unable to maintain staff or build the systems needed to pursue larger clean energy or resilience funds. Quarterly reimbursement cycles further compound the challenge, forcing nonprofits with limited reserves to shoulder significant financial risk and jeopardizing their ability to sustain participation in long-term projects.
Challenge/Local/State
Budget deficits at state and city levels (e.g., LA $1B shortfall) threaten continuity of projects.
Challenge/Local/State
Enable carbon credit monetization by certifying local projects for voluntary carbon markets.
Challenge/Local/State
Ensure Prop 4 funds deliver direct community benefit, avoid duplication, and replace lost federal funding quickly.
Challenge/Local/State
Explore new funding opportunities for declining revenue sources
Challenge/Local/State
Explore innovative revenue sources: retail electricity tax, mileage-based road fees, resilience taxes.
Help us to expand this 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.
