Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to direct utilities to undertake transportation electrification (TE) activities and to ensure that, among other factors, access to TE-related opportunities for low- and moderate-income communities, as well as disadvantaged communities (DACs) increase as TE becomes more widespread. This research explores the range of tangible benefits that the implementation of TE programs can achieve for DACs. The research questions examine how funds spent to date through SB 350 target investment intended to support DACs; how public and private investments in DACs ensure energy justice, transportation justice, and equity, and finally how perceptions and priorities of stakeholders inform the implementation of TE programs. The researchers collected metrics from various California sources and across the literature, and then asked stakeholders in the CPUC Service List associated with SB 350 proceedings to rank and provide their expert opinion on various metrics by their relative importance. From this information, a final weighted evaluation framework was created. The most important metrics for projects targeted under SB 350 were tangible benefits for local community members; improvements in local air pollution; transparent and collaborative community engagement; consideration of end-of-life impacts, and enhanced access to additional sustainable technologies. The least important metrics include forecasted business closures; potential for accident zones; effects on native flora and fauna; upstream impacts (i.e., through raw material acquisition or construction phases), and/or the support of distributed generation and the development of micro-grids in electrification plans. The framework developed as part of this research supports program evaluation by guiding program administrators through a set of questions designed to facilitate a detailed account of expected outcomes and potential externalities.

View the NCST Project Webpage

Local governments have steadily increased their initiative to address global climate change, and many present their proposed strategies through climate action plans (CAPs). This study conducts a literature review on current local approaches to greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategies by assessing CAPs in California and presents common strategies in the transportation sector along with useful tools. One identified limitation of many CAPs is the omission of quantitative economic cost and emissions data for decision-making on the basis of cost-effectiveness. Therefore, this study proposes a framework for comparing strategies based on their life cycle emissions mitigation potential and costs. The results data can be presented in a marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) to allow for side-by-side comparison of considered strategies. Researchers partnered with Yolo and Unincorporated Los Angeles Counties to analyze 7 strategies in the transportation and energy sectors (five and two, respectively). A MACC was subsequently developed for each county. Applying the life cycle approach revealed strategies that had net cost savings over their life cycle, indicating there are opportunities for reducing emissions and costs. The MACC also revealed that some emissions reduction strategies in fact increased emissions on a life cycle basis. Applying the MACC framework to two case study jurisdictions illustrated both the feasibility and challenges of including quantitative analysis in their decision-making process. An additional barrier to using the MACC framework in the context of CAPs, is the mismatch between a life cycle and annual accounting basis for GHG emissions. Future work could explore more efficient data collection, alternative scopes of emissions for reporting, and environmental justice concerns.

View the NCST Project Webpage

Spurred in part by state-level climate policies, California cities and counties have released climate action plans (CAPs) over the last decade to set emissions reduction targets and outline actions that will help meet those goals. However, the state provides little guidance to jurisdictions on how to produce these plans. The range of information included in CAPs varies dramatically across jurisdictions. Additionally, little is known about how jurisdictions transition from the planning to the implementation phase of climate action, or what major factors influence their decision-making process. Other state laws promote emissions reductions in disadvantaged communities, highlighting the importance of making equity a key consideration in CAPs.

Researchers at the University of California, Davis assessed and scored over 30 CAPs released between 2009 and 2020 based on the degree to which they addressed three themes: emissions reductions, cost, and equity. The researchers also surveyed local agency staff from 25 California jurisdictions with published CAPs about the importance of different factors during climate action planning and implementation, the inclusion of equity impacts in CAPs, sources of funding, and more. Finally, the researchers developed a set of guiding questions to assist jurisdictions in developing CAPs that include equity considerations both broadly and by specific sector. This policy brief summarizes the findings from that research and provides policy implications.

View the NCST Project Webpage

Local governments increasingly prepare Climate Action Plans to lay out specific strategies for achieving local and state greenhouse gas reduction goals. Strategies to reduce transportation emissions are often a key component of these plans, as the transportation sector is responsible for 41% of greenhouse gas emissions in California and 28% in the US. However, many Climate Action Plans do not quantify the emissions reductions or costs of proposed strategies, and even fewer consider the life cycle impacts of the strategies. Life cycle-based assessments consider emissions and costs that occur at the outset of a strategy’s implementation (e.g., purchase, installation, and construction), during operation and maintenance, and at end-of-life. Quantifying the life cycle cost effectiveness and emissions reductions of different strategies can, along with other community priorities, inform the design and implementation of Climate Action Plans that achieve climate goals at a reasonable cost. A marginal abatement cost curve is a useful way to present this information, offering a visualization of the rank order cost-effectiveness and total possible emissions reductions of alternative strategies in a Climate Action Plan.

Researchers at the University of California, Davis developed a decision support framework for local governments to assess life cycle greenhouse gas reductions and costs of Climate Action Plan strategies. The researchers demonstrated their approach by developing marginal abatement cost curves for two California counties, Yolo and Unincorporated Los Angeles, based on strategies from their respective Climate Action Plans. This policy brief summarizes findings from that research.

View the NCST Project Webpage