The ubiquity of plastic in the modern economy has created a global crisis. Plastic pollution is now everywhere worldwide, and increasingly poses grave risks to human health and the environment. However, while this plastic burden is widespread, lower-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately exposed. Recycling has proven ineffective to address the plastic crisis, with only a small fraction of global plastic ever being recycled. California's Senate Bill 54 is the most ambitious domestic policy effort to address the plastic crisis to date. It establishes a state investment fund to address plastic-related impacts within communities. The researchers created an environmental justice-centered Three-Part Framework for Identifying Plastic-Burdened Communities to facilitate a data-driven approach for targeting these investments equitably. This paper develops one of the framework’s parts to demonstrate that plastic exposure risks are highest in California's lower-income communities and communities of color. This framework characterizes overall exposure risk by focusing on the three general types: 1) site-based (impacts related to industrial sites and waste facilities), 2) dietary (inadvertent consumption of plastic or related contaminants via food and drink), and 3) consumer goods (dermal contact with products, services, and packaging containing or using plastic). The authors recommend that decision-makers use the Three-Part Framework to target investments to address exposure risks with efficacy and transparency equitably.
Public schools are key institutions for climate resilience investments in California, including schoolyard tree planting efforts to mitigate extreme heat. However, past and current policies and other factors have created and reinforced the expansive amounts of impervious surfaces in K–12 public schools -- a major barrier to greening projects. Such policies and factors include 1) land use planning in schools being heavily driven by concerns about student overcrowding and meeting playground space standards; 2) a focus on creating durable all-weather play areas; 3) physical education (PE) curricula that encourage activities that require hard surfaces; 4) inconsistent and insufficient state school funding limiting resources available for maintain landscaping in schools; 5) onerous approvals processes for school infrastructure improvements that involve depaving; and 6) administrative barriers to accessing and securing funding opportunities for schoolyard greening.
The following recommendations may support school depaving efforts: 1) revise PE standards to accommodate more free and unorganized play in schools; 2) encourage the California Department of Education to issue guidance for school districts to accommodate green space development in site planning; 3) encourage the state to increase the amount of funding allocated to the School Facilities Program; 4) encourage state and localities to integrate school districts in stormwater programs; 5) encourage climate and sustainability funding program administrators to develop clear guidelines for school project proposals; and 6) educate policymakers about the value of schools as ideal demonstration sites for green infrastructure projects.
Due to climate change, drought, and earthquakes, drinking supplies in the western U.S. and similar climatic regions globally will become strained, especially in densely populated urban areas, such as the City of Los Angeles (City). In response, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power committed at least $6 billion to invest in Pure Water Los Angeles, also known as Operation Next. The initiative would treat wastewater to create a new local, sustainable, and reliable source of over 250,000 acre-feet of drinking water per year. By developing the Operation NEXT Resilience Analysis Model and analyzing about 100,000 scenarios, the researchers found that Operation NEXT would be a strategic investment to address immediate water supply challenges and offer long-term economic and water security benefits. Operation NEXT would: 1) offer substantial regional economic benefits; 2) significantly bolster local water supply resilience; 3) improve resilience to uncertain water imports; and 4) significantly reduce earthquake-driven water shortages. Because climate uncertainty will be the largest driver of the City's water shortage, the project should be designed to be adaptable. This analysis can inform broader planning efforts both in the U.S. and beyond.
(TCC) is an innovative investment in community-scale climate action with potentially broad implications. Launched in 2017 by the California State Legislature, TCC funds the implementation of neighborhood-level transformative plans that include multiple coordinated projects to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The program is also designed to provide an array of local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities, while minimizing the risk of displacement. TCC empowers the communities most impacted by pollution to choose their own goals, strategies, and projects to enact transformational change — all with data-driven milestones and measurable outcomes. The California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) serves as the lead administrator of TCC. At the time of this report, SGC has awarded 15 TCC Implementation Grants across five rounds of funding to 15 communities throughout the state (ranging from $9.1 million to $66.5 million per site).1 The UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation (LCI) serves as the lead evaluator for six communities that have received TCC Implementation Grants across the following funding rounds: all three Round 1 sites (Fresno, Ontario, and Watts), one Round 2 site (Northeast San Fernando Valley), one Round 3 site (Stockton), and two Round 4 sites (South Los Angeles and Stockton). LCI researchers are working with these communities to document their progress and evaluate the impacts of TCC investments. This progress report is the final in a series of five that provides an overview of the key accomplishments and estimated benefits of TCC-funded activities in Watts, collectively referred to as Watts Rising.2 This specific report documents progress through the end of (FY) 2022-2023, which overlaps with about 14 months of post-award planning (January 2018 to March 2019), and 52 months of grant implementation (March 2019 through June 2023). Even though this is the f inal progress report authored by UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation (LCI), Watts Rising carries on, with implementation milestones that are expected to continue through September 2025.
(TCC) is an innovative investment in community-scale climate action, with potentially broad implications. Launched in 2017 by the California State Legislature, TCC funds the implementation of neighborhood-level transformative plans that include multiple coordinated projects to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The program is also designed to provide an array of local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities, while minimizing the risk of displacement. TCC empowers the communities most impacted by pollution to choose their own goals, strategies, and projects to enact transformational change — all with data-driven milestones and measurable outcomes. The California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) serves as the lead ad- administrator of TCC. At the time of this report, SGC has awarded 15 TCC Implementation Grants across five rounds of funding to 15 communities throughout the state (ranging from $9.1 million to $66.5 million per site). The state legislature has allocated funding to distribute one additional round of TCC grants.1 The UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation (LCI) serves as the lead evaluator for six communities that have received TCC Implementation Grants across the following funding rounds: all three Round 1 sites (Fresno, Ontario, and Watts), one Round 2 site (Northeast San Fernando Valley), one Round 3 site (Stockton), and two Round 4 sites (South Los Angeles and Stockton). LCI researchers are working with these communities to document their progress and evaluate the impacts of TCC investments. This progress report is the final in a series of five that will provide an overview of the key accomplishments and estimated benefits of TCC-funded activities in the City of Fresno, collectively referred to as Transform Fresno.2 This report documents progress through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2022-2023, which overlaps with about 15 months of post-award planning (January 2018 to April 2019), and 51 months of grant implementation (April 2019 through June 2023). Even though this report is the final progress report authored by LCI, Transform Fresno carries on, with implementation milestones that are expected to continue through October 2025.
(TCC) is an innovative investment in community-scale climate action, with potentially broad implications. Launched in 2017 by the California State Legislature, TCC funds the implementation of neighborhood-level transformative plans that include multiple coordinated projects to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The program is also designed to provide an array of local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities, while minimizing the risk of displacement. TCC empowers the communities most impacted by pollution to choose their own goals, strategies, and projects to enact transformational change — all with data-driven milestones and measurable outcomes. The California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) serves as the lead administrator of TCC. At the time of this report, SGC has awarded 15 TCC Implementation Grants across five rounds of funding to 15 communities throughout the state (ranging from $9.1 million to $66.5 million per site).1 The UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation (LCI) is the lead evaluator in six communities that have received TCC Implementation Grants: all three Round 1 sites (Fresno, Ontario, and Watts), one Round 2 site (Northeast San Fernando Valley), one Round 3 site (Stockton), and two Round 4 site (South Los Angeles and Stockton). LCI researchers are working with these communities to document their progress and evaluate the impacts of TCC investments. This progress report is the fourth in a series of five that provides an overview of the funded projects, key accomplishments, and estimated benefits of TCC activities in the Northeast San Fernando Valley, collectively referred to as Green Together.2 This specific report documents progress through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2022-2023, which overlaps with about 17 months of of post-award planning (December 2018 to April 2020), and almost 38 months of implementation for funded projects and transformative plans (May 2020 through June 2023). Green Together projects and plans are expected to continue unfolding through the end of April of 2025.
(TCC) is an innovative investment in community-scale climate action, with potentially broad implications. Launched in 2017 by the California State Legislature, TCC funds the implementation of neighborhood- level transformative plans that include multiple coordinated projects to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The program is also designed to provide an array of local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities, while minimizing the risk of displacement. TCC empowers the communities most impacted by pollution to choose their own goals, strategies, and projects to enact transformational change — all with data-driven milestones and measurable outcomes. The California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) serves as the lead administrator of TCC. At the time of this report, SGC has awarded 15 TCC Implementation Grants across five rounds of funding to 15 communities throughout the state (ranging from $9.1 million to $66.5 million per site).1 The UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation (LCI) serves as the lead evaluator for six communities that have received TCC Implementation Grants across the following rounds: all three Round 1 sites (Fresno, Ontario, and Watts), one Round 2 site (Northeast San Fernando Valley), one Round 3 site (Stockton), and two Round 4 sites (South Los Angeles and Stockton). LCI researchers are working with these communities to document their progress and evaluate the impacts of TCC investments. This progress report is the final in a series of five that provides an overview of the key accomplishments and estimated benefits of TCC-funded activities in the City of Ontario, collectively referred to as Ontario Together.2 This report documents progress through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2022-2023, which overlaps with about 14 months of post-award planning (January 2018 to March 2019) and 52 months of grant implementation (March 2019 through June 2023). Even though this report is the final progress report authored by LCI, Ontario Together carries on, with implementation milestones that are expected to continue through October 2025.
(TCC) is an innovative investment in community-scale climate action, with potentially broad implications. Launched in 2017 by the California State Legislature, TCC funds the implementation of neighborhood-level transformative plans that include multiple coordinated projects to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The program is also designed to provide an array of local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities, while minimizing the risk of displacement. TCC empowers the communities most impacted by pollution to choose their own goals, strategies, and projects to enact transformational change — all with data-driven milestones and measurable outcomes. The California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) is the lead administrator of TCC. At the time of this report, SGC has awarded 15 TCC Implementation Grants across five rounds of funding to 15 communities throughout the state (ranging from $9.1 million to $66.5 million per site).1 The UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation (LCI) serves as the lead evaluator for six communities that have received TCC Implementation Grants across the following funding rounds: all three Round 1 sites (Fresno, Ontario, and Watts), one Round 2 site (Northeast San Fernando Valley), one Round 3 site (Stockton), and two Round 4 sites (South Los Angeles and Stockton). LCI researchers are working with these communities to document their progress and evaluate the impacts of TCC investments. This progress report is the third in a series of seven that provides an overview of the accomplishments and estimated benefits of TCC activities in Stockton, collectively referred to as Stockton Rising.2 This specific report documents progress through the end of fiscal year 2022-2023 (June 30, 2023), which overlaps with about 30 months of Round 3 grant implementation. This report does not yet account for the accomplishments and anticipated benefits from Stockton’s Round 4 Implementation Grant, which was executed in September of 2023. Details about Stockton Rising’s Round 4 Implementation Grant will be provided during the next cycle of annual reporting.
placeholder
California maintains ambitious clean vehicle targets, including a mandate that all passenger vehicles sold in the state be zero-emission by 2035. This paper examines the distributional impacts of six light-duty clean vehicle incentive programs, especially for equity. The authors find that of the more than $1.9 billion allocated, only about $311 million was distributed to households in disadvantaged communities (DACs). The Clean Vehicle Rebate Project and other statewide programs are heavily skewed towards benefitting non-DACs (87.9%). Clean Cars for All and other regional programs have been more effective at delivering funds to DACs (51%). Between 2015 and 2021, nearly every region of the state has increased clean vehicle registration rates, though rural areas and the Los Angeles core remain persistently low. In addition to spatial inequalities, there are disproportionately low clean vehicle registrations among lower-income areas. By projecting current and optimistic rates of adoption to 2035, the researchers found that California is unlikely to reach its goals, and marginalized communities will continue to be far behind in their adoption rates. Policy recommendations include: 1) allocate more funding for equity-focused clean vehicle programs, 2) be creative in maximizing used vehicle inventory, and 3) focus more on delivering rather than merely advertising the benefits of one-stop shops for incentive access.
