i

Climate Council Best Practices

Prepared for Dane County Office of Energy and Climate Change

By Scott Coleman

Elizabeth Doyle Miranda Ehrlich Andrew Fisher

Workshop in Public Affairs Spring 2017

ii

©2017 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System All rights reserved.

For an online copy, see

http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/outreach-public-service/workshops-in-public-affairs publications@lafollette.wisc.edu

The Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs is a teaching and research department

of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The school takes no stand on policy issues; opinions expressed in these pages reflect the views of the authors.

The University of Wisconsin–Madison is an equal opportunity and affirmative-action educator and employer.

We promote excellence through diversity in all programs.

iii

Table of Contents Foreword ..........................................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... vii Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ix

I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1

II. Methodology ...............................................................................................................................1

III. Case Studies ...............................................................................................................................2

Case Study #1: Utah Climate Action Network ............................................................................2

Lessons from the Utah Climate Action Network .....................................................................5

Case Study #2: City of Santa Monica ..........................................................................................6

Lessons from Santa Monica .....................................................................................................8

Case Study #3: City of Portland and Multnomah County Climate Action Plan ..........................8

Lessons from the City of Portland & Multnomah County .......................................................9

Case Study #4: Pittsburgh Climate Initiative .............................................................................10

Lessons from the Pittsburgh Climate Initiative .....................................................................11

Case Study #5: King County, Washington ................................................................................11

Lessons from King County ....................................................................................................13

Case Study #6: Tompkins County, New York...........................................................................13

Lessons from Tompkins County ............................................................................................15

Case Study #7: Boulder County, Colorado ................................................................................16

Lessons from Boulder County ...............................................................................................17

Comparative Analysis ................................................................................................................18

Developing Strong Relationships ..........................................................................................18

Achieving Consensus and Commitment to Common Goals..................................................19

Allow Different Degrees of Participation ..............................................................................21

Incorporating Equity and Diversity .......................................................................................22

Inconsistencies in Case Studies .............................................................................................23

IV. Recommendations....................................................................................................................24

V. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................26

References ......................................................................................................................................27

Appendices .....................................................................................................................................30

Appendix I: Interview Contact Information ..............................................................................30

iv

Boulder County, Colorado .....................................................................................................30

Boulder, Colorado, Town and Gown .....................................................................................30

City of Santa Monica, California ...........................................................................................30

Pittsburgh Climate Initiative ..................................................................................................30

King County, Washington .....................................................................................................30

Utah Climate Action Network ...............................................................................................31

Multnomah County, Oregon ..................................................................................................31

Tompkins County, New York ................................................................................................31

UW-Madison..........................................................................................................................31

Appendix II: Sample Interview Questions .................................................................................32

Appendix III: Collective Impact and Coalition Building ..........................................................33

Collective Impact ...................................................................................................................33

Coalition-Building .................................................................................................................34

Appendix IV: Collective Impact and Coalition Building in Practice – The County Health Rankings and Roadmaps ............................................................................................................36

v

Foreword This report is the result of a collaboration between the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and the Dane County Office of Energy and Climate Change, a division of the County Executive’s Office. Our objective is to provide graduate students at the La Follette School with the opportunity to improve their policy analysis skills while providing Dane County policymakers with a blueprint for cross-sector collaboration on efforts to combat climate change through a countywide climate action council. The La Follette School offers a two-year graduate program leading to a master’s degree in public affairs. Students study policy analysis and public management, and they can choose to pursue a concentration in a policy focus area. They spend the first year and a half of the program taking courses in which they develop the expertise needed to analyze public policies. The authors of this report all are in the final semester of their degree program and are enrolled in Public Affairs 869 Workshop in Public Affairs. Although learning a set of skills in the classroom is important, there is no substitute for doing actual policy analysis as a means of developing these abilities. Public Affairs 869 gives graduate students that opportunity. This year, workshop students were divided into eight teams. Other teams completed projects for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the City of Madison’s Division of Economic Development, the Aspen Institute’s Financial Security Program, Transition Projects (a nonprofit organization focused on reducing homelessness in Portland, Oregon), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, UNICEF, and a second report for the Dane County Office of Energy and Climate Change. Drawing on a series of case studies of similar cross-sector collaborative efforts spearheaded by local governments across the country, the report provides Dane County with a series of best practices and recommendations for Dane County’s new Council on Climate Change. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting communities to a changing climate requires buy-in from a diverse group of stakeholders committed to taking action. As a national leader in local government efforts to combat climate change, Dane County and the newly established Climate Council will be looked to for leadership on countering and adapting to this threat. We hope the ideas and analyses presented in this report—coupled with the companion capstone report prepared on policy options to combat climate change—will enhance Dane County’s efforts in this critical area.

Rourke O’Brien Assistant Professor of Public Affairs

May 2017 Madison, Wisconsin

vi

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Dane County for the opportunity to engage in this project on advising best practices for its climate council. Thank you to Nick Bubb and Dave Merritt from the Department of Administration, Todd Violante from the Planning and Development Department, and John Welch from Public Works, Highway and Transportation for offering their time and resources to help guide and coordinate our work with Dane County. Thank you to all those who shared information about climate change efforts in their organizations around the country and the lessons they have learned, including, Senior Sustainability Analyst Garret Wong, CivicSpark Fellow Dylia Tyrrell, and CivicSpark Fellow Samantha Rosenbaum of Santa Monica, Peter Bardaglio, Ed Marx and Katie Borgella of Tompkins County, Brad Smith of Boulder County, Nicole Sanders of the King Count-Cities Climate Collaboration, Sarah Yeager of Pittsburgh, and Tim Lynch of Multnomah County. Thank you to Professor Rourke O’Brien for his continued insight, support, and guidance through the progress of this report. All the aforementioned partners and stakeholders contributed to the quality and completion of this report in all its stages.

vii

List of Abbreviations EPA Environmental Protection Agency CGR Collaborative Governance Regime CAP Climate Action Plan PCI Pittsburgh Climate Initiative GHG Greenhouse Gas GWC Green Workplace Challenge HECC Higher Education Climate Consortium K4C King County-Cities Climate Collaboration TCCPI Tompkins County Climate Protection Initiative PACE Partners for a Clean Environment USDN Utah Sustainability Directors Network

viii

Glossary Adaptation: In the context of climate change, adaptation means to focus on dealing with the effects of climate change. Backbone Support Organizations: Organizations that can manage the collective-impact process by supporting the initiative through facilitating, data collection, reporting, and other administrative tasks. Climate Action Plan: Document developed by a community that outlines goals and strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Coalition: An alliance created for collective action. Collective Impact: A way of cooperating for social change involving centralized infrastructure, dedicated staff, and a structured process that leads to common agendas, shared measurement, and goal alignment among participating entities. Convener: An organization that supports general network structure and operations; provides oversight, implementation, facilitation, and administrative functions. Mitigation: In the context of climate change, mitigation means to focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Stakeholder: Individuals, organizations, businesses, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and other entities who can provide input and participate in governance processes and who may be impacted by policies.

ix

Executive Summary Dane County in Madison, Wisconsin, is establishing the Dane County Office of Energy and Climate Change. The Dane County Council on Climate Change is an organization of municipalities, nonprofit organizations, businesses, utilities, the University of Wisconsin – Madison, and environmental advocates. The goal of the council is to conduct a countywide climate action plan and create a basis for inspiring additional activities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change. This organization is designed to build upon successful projects and inspire additional effort. Dane County charged our group with researching best practices related to communitywide climate action planning, collaboration between a diverse group of stakeholders, and developing strategies to ensure the new organization results in actions responding to climate change. Our analysis included evaluating literature and conducting case studies of government entities that have established effective climate change adaptation and mitigation practices and successfully integrated partnerships in these efforts. Based on interests expressed by Dane County, these pursuits also focused on the issues of equity and diversity. Our recommendations include short-term, medium-term, and long-term steps to assist in the council’s implementation.

By serving as the council’s supporting organization, Dane County will continue its strong leadership in climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts and enable other partners to join into this enterprise. Dane County staff and resources can enable organizations not necessarily focused on sustainability to become partners in this important venture and advocate for and incorporate their respective constituencies. This expansion of energy and outreach will result in a better quality of life for both current and future county residents.

1

I. Introduction At a time when higher levels of government are refusing to acknowledge the existence of climate change, let alone funding adaptation and mitigation efforts, local government policies addressing climate change are essential in ensuring the health and sustainability of our communities. Dane County recognizes that the public sector can better address this pressing issue by facilitating collaboration with private-sector, public-sector, and nonprofit-organization stakeholders. As a result, Dane County commissioned the Dane County Council on Climate Change. This report identifies best practices to guide the climate council in establishing a structure that will result in real action to counter and prevent the effects of climate change. Many cities and counties throughout the United States have successfully implemented collaborative structures that facilitate the exchange of cross-sector strategies to address climate change. Although each collaboration has unique characteristics, overarching principles from these endeavors can be a helpful guide for creating the climate council. These recommendations are separated into short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals to assist in their implementation. Dane County has its own strengths and challenges to consider in the coalition creation process. Its jurisdiction includes a diverse range of urban and rural areas. This presents challenges as there is a broader range of climate-related issues to address, from the more rural challenge of phosphorus mitigation to the more urban issue of traffic congestion. Successful efforts will need to unify a multitude of perspectives. Because the well-being and livelihood of many of these stakeholders are in jeopardy due to changes related to climate change, proper messaging and inclusion are necessary to address these issues. The wealth of expertise and spheres of influence represented by these diverse stakeholders is a definitive strength of the County. The County purview includes a multitude of departments operating in diverse areas. Each presents opportunities for climate change adaptation and mitigation, which Dane County has worked to harness through planning efforts. In 2013, the Dane County Climate Action Council prepared a Climate Change and Emergency Preparedness Report. Dane County convened representatives from each department to create plans for how each one could contribute to improving sustainability efforts. These ideas were included in the Dane County Government Sustainable Operations Plan released in 2016. The climate council will be able to facilitate the sharing of best practices and insights gained from these efforts and build upon what Dane County has achieved internally by engaging outside stakeholders. The establishment of the Dane County Office of Energy and Climate Change and the appointment of a Climate Change Coordinator are the first steps in initiating this consequential collaboration. II. Methodology Cross-sector collaboration is a relatively new component of local climate action, and there is limited published material about its successes and challenges. Given these limitations, we believed the best way to inform our report was through interviews with local organizations across the country that are climate leaders in their regions.

2

To identify the most relevant organizations, we investigated the climate action programs of numerous communities and compared them to Dane County’s needs and plans. In addition, both our client and some of our first interview contacts provided further recommendations on organizations to pursue. We ultimately chose to conduct interviews with Salt Lake City, the City of Santa Monica, the City of Portland and Multnomah County, the City of Pittsburgh, King County, Tompkins County, and Boulder County. We formulated our interview questions to learn about several facets of these organizations. These included processes for creating their initial action plans, how they structure and conduct their community actions, how they involve different stakeholders in their communities, and what they perceive to be best practices and lessons learned from their experiences. These interviews as well as published materials regarding each communities’ climate actions informed the following case studies, the contact information for the people we interviewed, as well as our interview questions, are located in Appendix I and II. III. Case Studies In this section, we will explore case studies of collaborative structures addressing climate change that can serve as models for Dane County.

Case Study #1: Utah Climate Action Network The Utah Climate Action Network (the Network) is a collaborative group of regional stakeholders invested in adapting to and mitigating the impacts of climate change. Its mission is to foster “diverse conversation, leadership, and coordinated action to ensure a collaborative response to climate change and its impacts on the people, economies, and prosperity of Utah.”1 Stakeholders in the Network include nonprofit organizations, businesses, governments, institutions of higher education, faith organizations, and individuals.2 The Network was formally launched in 2016 and is led by Salt Lake City and six other convening organizations. However, the strategic planning process for the Network goes back several years. This process is detailed in the paragraphs below. The Network is a relevant case study for the Dane County Council on Climate Change for two main reasons. First, the political situation in Utah is similar to the political situation in Wisconsin. While Salt Lake City is liberal and has had a Democratic mayor for several decades, the surrounding areas and state as a whole are far more conservative. This has forced the Network to think critically about framing climate issues to engage stakeholders from across the political spectrum. Second, the Network is attempting to convene a similar cross-section of stakeholders as the Dane County Council on Climate Change. While the Network’s efforts are regional, rather than local, lessons can be drawn from its strategic planning process, unique member structure, working-groups, and engagement tactics. Strategic Planning Process Salt Lake City’s Sustainability Department – SLC Green – created the Utah Climate Action Network. Before establishing the Network, Salt Lake City had made significant progress on climate change at a municipal level. In 2008, the Salt Lake City Council and the Mayor’s Office

3

signed a joint resolution3 agreeing to reduce the city’s municipal carbon footprint 20 percent by 2020, 50 percent by 2040, and 80 percent by 2050 below a 2005 baseline. Salt Lake City also completed its first communitywide greenhouse gas inventory in 2009, paving the way for a second joint resolution4 in 2016 to transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2032 and reduce community carbon emissions 80 percent by 2040 from a 2009 baseline. SLC Green Sustainability Director Vicki Bennett was a founding member of the Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN), an organization created for directors of city and county sustainability departments across the country to share best practices and work collaboratively to advance green initiatives.5 Inspired by the collaborative model of USDN, SLC Green began its efforts to create a similar network around climate change in Utah. SLC Green first proposed the idea of the Utah Climate Action Network to six6 other entities: Brendle Group, the University of Utah, Park City, Alta Ski Area, the Salt Lake County Health Department, and Utah Clean Energy. The result was unanimous; all of the organizations felt that creating a climate network would be a worthwhile endeavor. These organizations, plus SLC Green, became conveners for the Network, which hired Brendle Group7 as a consultant to facilitate the first few meetings. Between the initial meeting and the Network’s public launch, the conveners held six meetings with a gradually expanding membership (approximately 15 organizations). These meetings occurred quarterly. Recruitment responsibilities for new members were assigned to conveners with the most pre-existing relationships with those organizations. The seven conveners also met before each meeting to determine topics for discussion with the broader group, such as the organization’s structure and charter, potential members, and issue priorities. After the first several meetings, the meeting topics expanded to include specific issue areas such as the intersection between climate change and public health. The Network publicly launched in April 2016. In November 2016, the Network hired a part-time (30 hours/week) program manager8 to help direct the Network. The consulting group that originally served a similar role – Brendle Group – is still involved in the Network as a member organization, but it is no longer paid for its participation. The program manager’s duties include managing the budget, applying for grants, serving as a liaison to the media, creating a newsletter for participants, responding to email inquiries, managing social media, facilitating events, and guiding the overall growth of the Network through strategic planning.9 This position was made possible through a $52,000 grant from the USDN Innovation Fund.10 Initial funding was also provided by Salt Lake City; the city has budgeted $15,000 each year for the Network for its first three years, and additional funding will be considered after that point.11 While the original conveners are still involved, the Network has now formally moved from the control of Salt Lake City to become a project run by Utah Clean Energy, a local nonprofit organization. Future funding is expected to come from a combination of grants, donations, and participant contributions.12 In addition to the program manager position, primary budget expenses are for networking events, such as food, drink, and booking fees for space. Technical assistance and special projects are other possible budget items.13

4

Member Structure The Network has three levels of partnership: conveners, members, and participants. Convener is the highest level of partnership. Conveners “support general network structure and operations, provide oversight of work plan prioritization and implementation, administer budget and funding, initiate and host meetings, identify and recruit potential participants, adopt the charter, create a strategic operating plan, and modify the governance structure as necessary.”14 Members “endorse the Network charter (via signature and a brief participant statement), attend network meetings and support external network communications, participate in network planning and strategy development, assist in identifying and recruiting participants, lead and support implementation of initiatives, form committees, and report back to the large group.”15 Of the 25 members, seven are conveners. Participants are involved on a more ad-hoc basis and primarily “follow network communications, provide targeted information and support, support implementation of initiatives, and assist in connecting the Network to other groups, organizations, and individuals.”16 Together, partners at all three levels make up the Utah Climate Action Network. Most organizations send one staff member to each meeting, but others send up to three.17 Working-Groups The Network holds quarterly meetings as a full body. In addition, the Network has four working-groups, which also meet quarterly in-person or via internet or phone. There are 10 to 20 organizations in each group, with some organizations participating in multiple working-groups.18 The four groups are chosen based on their relevance to ongoing initiatives and issues in Utah. For example, because water is a scarce resource in the western United States and climate change will likely exacerbate that scarcity, it is one of the highest priorities for Network stakeholders. The current groups19 are: Water and Climate Change, Energy/Carbon Footprint Analysis and Planning, Sustainable Transportation, and Public Health and Climate Change. Each group has a section leader or leadership team to set meeting agendas, facilitate the creation of an action plan, and report on the group’s progress at the full-body quarterly meetings.20 Engagement Tactics Recently, the Utah Climate Action Network has announced a new partnership with ecoAmerica to launch the “Path to Positive Community – Path to Positive Utah” project. This project is designed to engage a diverse set of stakeholders, including conservative stakeholders, on the issue of climate change, while remaining sensitive to the political difficulties surrounding the issue in Utah. The Network’s press release on the partnership reads, “We are wholly aware of the cultural and political reasons why people may be reticent to discuss the issue and as such, the goal is just to address the fact of climate change – not advocate a specific policy or technical solution. Climate change has unfortunately become a political quagmire and by seeking support from a diverse cohort of leaders, we aim to avoid alienating those more reticent to talk about the issue. As Representative Curbelo (R-FL) of the U.S. House of Representatives Climate Solutions Caucus recently said: ‘Reasonable people can disagree about how to respond to the risks of climate change. But there should be little disagreement that it is something that must be done’.”21 In addition to this recent partnership, the Network has been successful in engaging conservative

5

organizations by focusing on the impact that climate change will have in Utah, particularly on the ski slopes and snowpack, which could harm the tourism industry. The Network has also done an excellent job of engaging institutions of higher education. University partners are primarily engaged through their sustainability offices. Staff from the University of Utah, Weber State University, and Westminster College all have been regular participants in the Network, and the University of Utah is also a Network convener. Professors and other faculty members are invited to participate22 in the Network on an ad-hoc basis, presenting their work, and contributing on issues where they have expertise. For example, faculty from a local university recently presented on their online stream flow reconstruction model.23 University staff members have also participated in Network events, such as a recent Climate-Health Symposium.24 Although the Network is primarily targeted at organizations, academics are invited to join the working-groups as individuals if they work in that group’s area. Accomplishments Because the Utah Climate Action Network is so new, it is difficult to evaluate the long-term success of the organization. However, we can certainly say that the Network has been successful in its inception. Going forward, the Network has three main areas of action. First is public engagement. The Network aims to “develop and deliver a clear and consistent climate message that informs Utah citizens of science-based climate realities, and compels them to engage in individual or group climate solutions.”25 Second is leadership and policies. The Network will attempt to “build support for local leaders and decision-makers in the public and private sector to recognize climate risks and take actions to reduce impacts and enhance resiliency.”26 Third is enhanced system-level response. The Network will “support the inclusion of carbon mitigation and climate adaptation and priorities in existing organizational, partner, and regional efforts (and will) incorporate sector-based best practices and opportunities to reduce emissions and prepare for climate impacts.”27 It remains to be seen how well the Network achieves each of these goals.

Lessons from the Utah Climate Action Network #1: Regular meetings are necessary to sustain interest. Although similar groups have convened previously in Utah, establishment of the Network was the first time “the conversation was sustained across a diverse array of stakeholders”28. Quarterly full-body meetings plus quarterly working-group meetings have ensured that the conversation moves forward. While the working-groups are relatively new (as of March 2017), we can see from the meeting frequency in the set-up phase that quarterly meetings were sufficient to maintain interest and move the organization along to the point of public launch. #2: Climate action is possible, even in a conservative state. The Network’s stakeholders included many conservative organizations, especially businesses. Explaining how climate change could have local impacts in Utah was persuasive in getting these stakeholders on board. Joint projects such as “Path to a Positive Community – Path to a Positive Utah” create cover for organizations to talk about climate change as a scientific fact and a threat without committing to a specific solution to stop it. While this isn’t ideal in the long-run, it is a necessary first step to bring conservative organizations to the table. #3: Stakeholders can be involved at different levels of commitment. As our interviewee stated, the Network’s focus was “on an organizational level,” and the original convening organizations

6

were chosen for maximum impact. The first meeting was small, involving approximately 15 organizations. Now, the organization has expanded, and organizations are involved at the convener, member, and participant levels described above. This model may be useful for incorporating small nonprofit entities into the Dane County Council on Climate Change.

Case Study #2: City of Santa Monica Santa Monica, California, a city of 92,98729 people surrounded by Los Angeles, has made major strides toward reducing its carbon footprint. The City has reduced its carbon emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels, exceeding its 15 percent goal.30 Although Santa Monica is different from Dane County in a number of important ways, including population density, climate, and proximity to one of the largest cities in the world, we believe valuable lessons can be drawn from its model of stakeholder collaboration and results-oriented approach. In Santa Monica’s 2006 update of its Sustainable City Plan, the City set a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent by 2015.31 In 2013, city officials were concerned that they may not hit the target, so they created the 15x15 Climate Action Plan (CAP), a short-term plan designed to ensure that the City hit its original goals. As part of the CAP, the City conducted a greenhouse gas inventory and found that in the year 2011, emissions had already dropped 14 percent below 1990 levels. However, emissions were projected to rise by 2015, leaving approximately 29,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to be reduced by 2015.32 In its final report, the City of Santa Monica identifies the initiative’s successes. Utility programs “have proven to be effective in driving energy efficiency. Between 2013 and 2015, commercial customers saved over 15M kWh of electricity and over 39,000 therms of natural gas.”33 Southern California Edison and the Southern California Gas Company assisted with the installation of new energy efficiency measures and appliances, which resulted in a substantial net reduction of emissions.34 Solar Santa Monica also provided free technical and financial assistance for residences and commercial entities interested in installing rooftop solar panels. Because of this assistance, “over three years, 1,479 kW in solar capacity was installed, capable of producing nearly 1 million kWh each year.”35 Santa Monica’s history of sustainability work was also identified as a factor that helped the city achieve its goals, as were “unexpected innovations,”36 such as Santa Monica’s municipal bus lines transitioning to renewable natural gas. Representatives from Santa Monica emphasized that actionability was a key factor in their success. The Climate Action Plan was written in a checklist format, and GHG values were assigned to various activities. Data was measured and used extensively throughout the process in order to ascribe real impacts and benefits to each of the plan’s steps.37 However, the initiative faced challenges as well. Lack of funding was a key issue; several city projects did not receive the funding necessary to be implemented. Other projects, such as installing charging stations for electric vehicles, took a long time and extensive planning to execute. Finally, “split incentives” between tenants and property owners was a barrier to some sustainable building measures.38 In the end, the City of Santa Monica exceeded its climate goals for 2015, reducing emissions to 20 percent39 below 1990 levels, 5 percent more than the target. However, some of these emissions reductions may have been influenced by external factors such as the price of oil and levels of economic growth.

7

While the emissions reduction was primarily implemented through a collaboration of “City departments and divisions, local utilities, and the State government,”40 the final report notes that “these efforts would bear no impact if it weren’t for the active roles our residents, businesses and regional partners played.” While consulting with stakeholders has long been an integral component of Santa Monica’s climate achievements, the process for gathering stakeholder input has recently evolved to include more opportunities for collaboration.

The City of Santa Monica has two collaborative enterprises of note: an expert task force appointed by the City Council and a steering committee for stakeholders. Created in 1991, the task force has seven experts: Mark Gold, University of California Los Angeles Institute of the Environment and Sustainability; David Hertz, Studio of Environmental Architecture; Robert Lempert, RAND Corporation; Susan Mearns, Mearns Consulting; Erik Neandross, Gladstein, Neandross and Associates; David Pettit, Natural Resources Defense Council; and Bill Selby, Santa Monica College.41 Together, these experts review proposals and make recommendations for the City to take further action on environmental issues. The task force has significant influence in the City’s decision-making process.

The steering committee, on the other hand, is more informal, and is designed to gather input, rather than to give stakeholders the formal ability to approve or deny aspects of the climate action plan. At the first steering committee meeting, the City of Santa Monica convened approximately 45 stakeholders to work on a planning document for future climate action. The stakeholders were chosen to represent “significant interests or community populations groups,”42 including the Chamber of Commerce, the school district, the local community college, and a nonprofit affordable-housing provider.

At the kickoff meeting in June 2016, the City asked these stakeholders about their vision for a carbon-free Santa Monica, challenges they anticipated, and additional people who should be involved. There are six meetings planned in total. The City also created interactive graphs to decide which climate impacts would most likely affect Santa Monica. These activities were structured so that no one was able “to soapbox”43 and everyone had a chance to give input. These activities helped the City gather information about stakeholders’ priorities for climate action. For example, the City learned that people “were interested in providing greater access for seniors to mobility services.” Instead of electrifying the bikeshare system as proposed, they proposed that bikes be available for different types of users, such as kids, families, and senior citizens44.

Finally, the City of Santa Monica engaged in community outreach around the plan through a Community Climate Action Summit in October 2016. The summit was hosted45 by the City of Santa Monica and two local nonprofit organizations – Climate Action Santa Monica and SustainableWorks. DNV-GL, a renewable energy consulting firm based in Norway, provided support for the event. DNV-GL, which has an office in Madison, Wisconsin, also provides technical analysis for Santa Monica’s Climate Action Plan and helps facilitate steering committee meetings.46 The summit included speakers, panel discussions, interactive workshops, a green living expo, food, music, and activities designed to engage children. Representatives from the City of Santa Monica felt that the event was a great way to get the community excited about the plan and to receive substantive feedback.47

8

Lessons from Santa Monica #1: Pre-planned activities can facilitate discussion and get everyone on the same page. Santa Monica’s initial steering committee meetings went so well in part because of the activities they used to generate ideas and facilitate discussion. By orienting the meeting around a planning document, Santa Monica successfully brought stakeholders to a consensus around climate priorities for the city. #2: Action plans must be specific and have timelines attached for completion. Plans that say “explore” or “develop,” explained representatives from the City of Santa Monica, sound great on paper “but don’t lead to results.” Clear targets must be set. Putting the plan in a checklist form can help hold stakeholders accountable for taking action to achieve a broader goal48. #3: External variables can affect whether goals are met. Santa Monica representatives noted that “there is no definitive way…to say a GHG reduced from a climate action plan results in a GHG inventory that shows emissions to be lower” in the aggregate. External factors such as economic growth and the price of oil can increase or decrease emissions despite other measures that are being taken to reduce emissions.49 Thus, reduction plans must take into account anticipated emissions trends.

Case Study #3: City of Portland and Multnomah County Climate Action Plan The City of Portland and Multnomah County have a strong culture surrounding sustainability and climate change. Portland adopted a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in 1993, making it the first city in the country to take such an action.50 Multnomah County joined these efforts in 2001, and these entities collaboratively released a Local Action Plan on Global Warming that April.51 The Multnomah County Office of Sustainability is headquartered in Portland, Oregon, which enables partnership between the two governments around addressing climate change. Stakeholder collaboration and the creation of working-groups center around its five-year climate action planning process. Annual progress reports document the status of goals identified in the latest Climate Action Plan (CAP). The most recent CAP, released in 2015, starts with the shared vision for the City and the County and incorporates more-ambitious goals regarding climate change mitigation that align with the most recent scientific findings. This vision is categorized into four areas: a community that is prosperous, connected, healthy and resilient, and equitable.52 The plan frames the importance of addressing climate change and the City’s and County’s previous efforts. After this introduction, the plan provides expanded information about each of the vision categories as well as details of climate mitigation efforts by category such as buildings and energy, food and agriculture, urban forest, natural systems, and carbon sequestration.53 The main bodies related to the Climate Action Planning Process include a steering committee and an equity work group. The steering committee includes various community stakeholders such as youth, health professionals, developers, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and public

9

sector representatives. Their advice to Dane County about forming a similar organization was to not try to do too much too quickly. Small and achievable goals are preferable to grand targets that require more effort than can be realistically expected. They also found that capturing and honoring commitments already being made in the community helped increase political buy-in and keep representatives invested.54 The equity work group includes networks and advocacy groups representing area minorities, health and public sector representatives, and steering committee members.55 The group formed after Portland received a grant from a local foundation to help it include equity in the 2015 CAP. Various community organizations applied for pieces of this grant to support a representative participating in the equity work group. After the grants were awarded, the various organizations came together to create common goals for equity inclusion in Multnomah’s climate action. The working-group ultimately created nine metrics for evaluating how the 2015 CAP addressed equity issues. The group found that funding was crucial for getting these groups to the table, and that finding an agreed-upon series of metrics to frame equity with respect to climate action is necessary for future work.56 Other collaborations are created or come together organically when people working in similar sectors seek out each other to strengthen actions. For example, the County is working to implement a community clean energy finance plan funded through property taxes. The County is collaborating with the local development authority and other agencies to implement these initiatives. They stressed that each new initiative requires careful recognition of the resources needed in terms of who is necessary to contact for implementation and the number of staff hours required for the project.57

Lessons from the City of Portland & Multnomah County #1: Recognize capacity. There are benefits to being ambitious, but it is also important to be realistic so initiatives progress. If goals are too difficult to achieve, stakeholders will lose interest. If only incremental progress can be achieved at first, that is okay; it is more important to keep stakeholders on board. Incremental progress can build support for more dramatic action in the future. #2: Involve community-based organizations in consultations. This will help ensure equity concerns are addressed. Building coalitions between environmental groups and community organizations that address homelessness, hunger, racial inequity and other issues can improve lobbying strength for future initiatives. However, when talking to these organizations about climate change, it is important to use shared vocabulary. Excessive scientific jargon can be off-putting and seem exclusionary to individuals who do not work in the environmental field. #3: Capture and honor successes already achieved. Dane County’s successes in reducing emissions should be noted and celebrated. Multnomah County deliberately set goals in some areas that were very close to being met or already achieved. This allowed proponents of the plan to claim some early victories and boosted morale among stakeholders.

10

Case Study #4: Pittsburgh Climate Initiative The Pittsburgh Climate Initiative (PCI) was founded in 2008. Initially convened by nonprofit organizations, the City of Pittsburgh’s Office of Sustainability became the leader of the PCI in 2015. The PCI includes representatives from the business community, nonprofit organizations, county and city government, and higher education.58 The organization has six chapters: buildings, waste, energy, transportation, agriculture, and urban ecology. Chapters meet either monthly or quarterly, and full PCI meetings occur about twice per year. While there are no restrictions on PCI membership, organizations must seek out PCI to join, which ensures only dedicated organizations are included. The PCI is funded through the 100 Resilient Cities initiative, the Green Trust Fund, and other grants. Funding will be one of the PCI’s biggest challenges59 moving forward. Several successful projects have resulted from the PCI, including the Black and Gold City Goes Green Campaign, the Green Workplace Challenge, and the Higher Education Climate Consortium. Black and Gold City Goes Green Campaign

The Black and Gold City Goes Green campaign began in 200960 as a community-focused offshoot of the PCI. PennFuture, a clean energy advocacy group, manages the campaign, which is targeted at Pittsburgh residents who are interested in reducing their carbon footprint. The campaign includes several components, including a newsletter, a website where residents can tally their total carbon footprint reduction, and “neighborhood blitzes,” which involve volunteers handing out “free energy-savings toolkits” designed to promote energy efficiency within households.61 Toolkits include “CFL light bulbs, a smart power strip, LED night lights, window and door caulk, and various pamphlets with energy-saving tips.”62 According to PennFuture, “each bag helps to avoid over 3,817 pounds of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere and saves each household over $100 in electricity costs per year.”63 Between 2010 and 2014, the Black and Gold City Goes Green campaign has helped 2,139 households reduce their carbon footprint.64 Green Workplace Challenge

The Green Workplace Challenge (GWC) is a yearly competition65 where workplaces try to earn the most points for GHG emissions reduction activities. The competition, which local nonprofit organization Sustainable Pittsburgh manages, grew out of PCI. GWC activities occur within seven66 categories: Social Equity, Engagement, Energy, Water, Waste, Transportation and Air Quality. To ensure fair competition, workplaces are placed in divisions67 – large, medium, small, and micro businesses; medium, small, and micro nonprofit organizations; universities; observers; large and small municipalities; and K-12 schools. The GWC website has instructions for completing each challenge and tallying points. Winning workplaces are featured on the website’s leaderboards. In addition, workplaces can attend workshops associated with the challenge. The impact of this program has been substantial. According to the GWC website,68 “over the course of three competitions, more than 200 participants have completed 5,831 measurable actions, saved enough energy to power 9,700 average U.S. homes for a year (more than 111,000,000

11

kWh of energy savings) at a value of over $9 million” and 67 million gallons of water was saved. Additionally, “participants saved over 25,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent” and “reduced landfill waste by 436 tons, or 35 percent compared to the baseline, and total waste (including compostable, recyclable, and landfill materials) was reduced 517 tons, or 24 percent.”69 Higher Education Climate Consortium

The Higher Education Climate Consortium (HECC) is a group of colleges and universities in the Pittsburgh area that discuss ways for higher education institutions to address climate change. According to the PCI website, “HECC meets quarterly in an effort to address the short-term (within two years), medium-term (within five years) and long-term (beyond five years) recommendations on how colleges, universities, and their 70,000 students can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. For Pittsburgh Climate Action Plan, Version 2.0, HECC developed a series of recommendations addressing energy use, transportation, recycling and waste management, and general sustainability.”70 Members include the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, Carlow University, Carnegie Mellon University, Chatham University, Community College of Allegheny County, Duquesne University, La Roche College, The Penn State Center, Point Park University, Robert Morris University, and the University of Pittsburgh.71 The PCI website highlights specific projects at each of these institutions.

Lessons from the Pittsburgh Climate Initiative #1: Find ways to engage different sets of stakeholders through specific initiatives. Climate collaboration should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. Sector-based collaboration can be highly productive, as illustrated by the Higher Education Climate Consortium. Additionally, the Green Workplace Challenge was a great way to engage businesses, nonprofit organizations, and municipalities, and the Black and Gold City Goes Green campaign successfully targeted individual residents. These types of initiatives can complement each other while giving various groups a unique way to contribute to emissions reductions. #2: After the initial meetings, use subgroups to better facilitate collaboration. While the PCI originally had large group meetings with every sector represented, the PCI now divides into subgroups based on the topics listed above. These subdivisions have allowed PCI members to better focus on specific initiatives. The full PCI group now meets approximately twice each year.72

Case Study #5: King County, Washington The King County-Cities Climate Collaboration (K4C) was created in 2011, when nine cities (Issaquah, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Redmond, Renton, Seattle, Shoreline, Snoqualmie, and Tukwila) joined73 with King County to collaborate in climate change mitigation efforts. The collaboration was borne out of research by Lynda Lyshall,74 a graduate student at Antioch University. Lyshall had been researching local climate initiatives for a project and found that while there was a lot of activity in King County on the part of municipalities, there was little to

12

no coordination among them. She approached the cities and the county about this issue, and they agreed to attend a series of workshops convened by Lyshall to try and coordinate their efforts. From these initial meetings, KC4 was created to sustain collaboration after Lyshall completed her work. In 2012, the Cities and the County signed an intergovernmental agreement75 agreeing to participate in a formal collaboration over their climate mitigation efforts. Since then, KC4 has expanded76 from the initial nine members to 13 (adding Bellevue, Burien, Normandy Park, and Sammamish), covering 1.5 million people or 75 percent of King County’s population. K4C is funded through a combination of member contributions and grants. As part of the intergovernmental agreement, all partners agreed to contribute to a K4C fund at levels appropriate for their respective sizes. Small cities pay annual membership fees77 of around $700, while larger cities like Seattle contribute up to $5,000 per year. King County contributes $10,00078 each year. This fund has allowed K4C to pay for projects, hire consultants, and apply for grants that require matching funds. It also serves to keep each government entity invested in the partnership.79 Membership fees cannot be increased without the consent of the party whose dues are going up. Even if some members vote for a fee increase, it is not binding80 on other members unless they agree to it. However, it is important to note that many of the bigger initiatives K4C has taken on would not have been possible without the investment of substantial resources81 by King County, both in terms of staff time and funding. While K4C does not have any dedicated staff, King County’s Climate Change Program Coordinator, Matt Kuharic, works with K4C on a regular basis and serves a role similar to Dane County’s Climate Change Coordinator. K4C’s decision-making process is collaborative. Each member city selects a representative for the K4C steering committee, which meets bimonthly. The steering committee sets the K4C agenda, decides what initiatives to pursue, and has the power to hire contractors to assist with K4C objectives.82 However, to make binding decisions, a majority must be present. Each member gets an equal vote. When major disagreements arise, smaller working-groups are formed to provide an opportunity for further discussion. Issues are usually worked out in these groups83 before they reach the steering committee for a vote. All initiatives are voluntary for members to adopt. While this does sometimes result in unequal contributions by members, it also ensures that all members stay involved even if they don’t have the resources84 to participate in every initiative. The KC4 collaboration has been successful in pushing for coordinated climate action. The group divides its work into four85 primary areas: outreach, coordination, funding and resources, and solutions. KC4 played an integral role in developing shared emissions reduction targets throughout the county. Together, King County and its partner municipalities adopted the following targets86 for emissions reduction below a 2007 baseline: 25 percent by 2020, 50 percent by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050. They also succeeded in changing the existing Sustainable Cities Roundtable meetings to include climate change as a rotating topic, held summits to educate elected officials on local climate change efforts, and created partnerships with local nonprofit organizations such as the Cascadia Green Building Council and Climate Solutions to increase87 KC4’s technical expertise. In 2016, KC4 won a Climate Leadership Award88 from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

13

Lessons from King County #1: Keeping initiatives voluntary sustains long-term engagement. If participation in every single initiative had been a precondition for staying in K4C, many smaller cities would not have continued as members. While it is unfortunate that not all initiatives have full member participation, trying to force such a level of participation would not have been feasible for the smaller cities that do not have the same level of resources at their disposal. Making collaboration voluntary is a key component of K4C’s success. #2: Small sector-based groups have benefits and drawbacks. K4C includes only local government. In many ways, this has been positive because it has allowed meetings to focus on policy options that all members have the capacity to take. King County has additional forums to collaborate on climate change with the business community and other sectors, but these collaborations are less formal. While splitting the climate discussion by sector allows for more candid conversations among like-minded entities, it forecloses the possibility of collaboration and may have led to missed opportunities within the County.

Case Study #6: Tompkins County, New York Tompkins County is located in the central west region of New York state, near the Finger Lakes. The county has a population of 104,926 people, and its largest city is Ithaca, home to Cornell University, Ithaca College, and Tompkins Cortland Community College.89 Tompkins County is similar to Dane County in that the economy is driven by strong institutions of higher education and a large agricultural sector.90 Our case study is informed by documents located on the Tompkins County website, the Tompkins County Climate Protection Initiative (TCCPI) website, and interviews with Ed Marx and Katie Borgella of the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability and Peter Bardaglio, the TCCPI coordinator. The Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability is responsible for implementing the energy and greenhouse gas emission, climate adaptation, and sustainability chapters of the county comprehensive plan. To achieve this, the department “informs and involves the general public, key stakeholders, and other organizations in the development of planning programs” and “strive[s] to collaborate with others on projects and programs.”91 In 2008, Tompkins County set a goal of achieving a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2008 levels by 2020, and an 80 percent reduction by 2050.92 It committed to improving energy efficiency in the community energy system; increasing the use of local and regional renewable energy sources; increasing carbon capture and storage in the county forest, wetlands, and soil; and reducing landfill waste.93 To monitor progress on meeting climate mitigation goals, Tompkins County has been tracking communitywide GHG emissions since 1998. In 2016, released a 2014 inventory and an updated 2008 inventory based on the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, version 1.1, and they used ClearPath 2014 for calculating emissions.94

14

The 2014 inventory showed that the County government had reduced emissions 53 percent since the 2008 inventory, while the community had achieved a reduction of 21 percent, positioning them to achieve the 80 percent reduction goal by 2050.95 They attributed a portion of the community reduction to the shift from coal to natural gas on the electric grid, most prominently at Cornell’s Central Energy Plant.96 Between 2008 and 2014, they saw 136 percent increase in the use of renewable energy in the community, including 3.3 MW of solar and increases in hydropower.97 They also found that energy consumption and GHG emissions were down in all sectors except for transportation.98 Their emissions inventory report highlighted the importance of accounting for the origin of the natural gas that is displacing coal. There is a potential for methane leakage from fracked shale gas compared to conventional wells, meaning that what is counted as an emissions reduction since 2008 could be counted as an increase in GHG emissions, if this leakage takes place.99 This possibility was cited as a further reason to transition toward more renewable energy in the community. To bring various sectors of the community together around the greenhouse gas reduction goals and accelerated renewable energy deployment, Tompkins County participates in or leads the work of several organizations designed to encourage collaboration in the community. The most relevant for Dane County to consider are TCCPI, which is a coalition of government, business, education, and other local organizations, and the Tompkins County Energy Task Force, which is part of the County government. Established in 2008, TCCPI coordinates the work of different sectors in the community on climate issues, which were described as existing “in separate finger lakes, with no water flowing between them.”100 The initiative was designed to share knowledge and new information about programs in the community. The main goals were to enhance collaboration, particularly with university partners, and to bring together various sectors of the community. TCCPI holds monthly meetings with about 20 to 30 people at every meeting.101 The people who attend the meetings are representatives of local governments, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions.102 Each meeting has a set agenda, with speakers, discussions about grant opportunities, or updates from members. The initiative is led by a steering committee, which meets once per month and develops meeting agendas. Every January, the steering committee proposes focus areas and goals that support the County’s greenhouse gas reduction goal. The steering committee includes one representative each from groups representing business, youth, government, nonprofits organizations, and higher education.103 A local foundation provides funding for TCCPI. TCCPI encourages youth and student engagement as well as efforts related to equity, diversity, and social justice, and it funds a project assistant who works to engage students in the community. The impetus for including a youth representative on the TCCPI steering committee came from local high school students who wanted to become involved. The TCCPI coordinator noted that students often push the most to ensure that equity and social justice are considered in TCCPI’s work.104 The steering committee and the coordinator take the lead in setting the meeting agendas, based on what they want to hear about and what the membership would be interested in. They also take input from stakeholders and react to other suggestions, for example if the local utility asks to

15

present at the next meeting.105 Tompkins County views this organizational set-up as a success and notes that it has become somewhat more informal over time. It sees TCCPI as a group for getting feedback on county initiatives and for encouraging members to pursue actions that support the overall community goals. Tompkins County does not view it as a body for making recommendations or developing action items. It strives to build a group understanding of current issues and community conditions as well as a forum for information sharing and collaboration opportunities. Tompkins County emphasized that the group had created trust among members though their cooperation over the years and the relationships that had developed. One useful exercise noted by the TCCPI coordinator is the creation of brief reports created by coalition partners on their main achievements regarding climate action and clean energy. The reports allow everyone to see what has been accomplished. The coordinator uses these reports to get members thinking about their successes and to celebrate accomplishments in the community. TCCPI saves all of the meeting agendas and annual reports on its website and publicizes accomplishments via a newsletter.106 The Tompkins County Energy Task Force is a relevant body created by the County legislature and charged with updating the 2030 energy strategy by identifying actions, targets, and goals. The task force provides a diversity of opinions that is broadly representative of the community, with members from business, economic development, higher education, local utilities, local government, and environmental organizations. The County emphasized that this is a very prestigious group in the community, receiving many more applications for membership than there are available seats. The task force structures its meetings with advance agendas, and the planning department provides staffing. The group’s primary focus is to bring together community expertise for updating the energy and greenhouse gas reduction strategy. Members have the opportunity to discuss the plans and provide feedback on proposed climate efforts.

Lessons from Tompkins County #1: Institutions of higher education are important drivers of action. Tompkins County representatives emphasized the importance of these institutions in bringing action out of the siloes of higher education and government and driving climate action in their community. The local institutions had launched sustainability initiatives and signed climate pledges, while the county was adopting a greenhouse gas reduction target and TCCPI sought to bring these efforts together. Students in the community, in both high schools and colleges, were instrumental in pushing to include social justice, equity, and diversity into climate conversations and ensuring that people often left out of those conversations were included. #2: Both formal organizations and coalitions are useful in driving action toward achieving community goals. Tompkins County representatives said they believed it was important that TCCPI exist as a coalition that would serve as a forum for sharing information and building trust among members, and not strictly for setting goals or targets. They saw value in bringing everyone into a room to brainstorm on important issues and share their experiences and successes. They believed that it was useful to have the task force exist as a separate body with a formal charge to update goals and targets toward the specifics of emissions reduction plans. However, they emphasized that the circumstances and politics in every county are different and that there isn’t a one size-fits-all approach to how collaboration is structured.

16

#3: Building a sustainable organization takes time and requires patience. The TCCPI coordinator noted that it was important to be patient and allow a culture to form in groups like TCCPI. He believed it was important for the group to evolve organically over time, which allows the organization to be sustainable. He said that the organization should not be focused around a personality but rather should be about all the group members, which was why the TCCPI coordinator was not an “executive director” and why steering committee leadership rotated.

Case Study #7: Boulder County, Colorado Boulder County is home to more than 300,000 residents and has gained national recognition for its sustainability efforts.107 The area’s picturesque landscapes have instilled a reverence for the environment in the community and its government. The County supports a sustainability office with five staff members: a sustainability coordinator, a residential energy efficiency program manager, and specialists in community sustainability and energy, zero waste sustainability, and sustainability outreach and education.108 Because the County does not have jurisdiction over outlying areas, different methods of encouragement and messaging are appropriate for interactions with more rural communities around sustainability and climate change. A lack of trust and engagement between the local government and unincorporated areas and mountain communities was cited during our interview. Therefore, communication regarding these issues is more productively framed around self-reliance. This focus has enabled action around climate adaptation in these areas. Equitable sustainability efforts have been one of the County’s focus areas for the last year and a half. The efforts emerged from the realization that primarily middle-income residents were utilizing government-sponsored energy efficiency and weatherization programs. To address this gap, the County and a local organization offer half-price weatherization services for people earning 30 percent to 80 percent of area median income. One of the barriers to these government-sponsored programs is lack of awareness. In 2016, the County launched a dedicated sustainability website. It serves as a visually engaging tool for communicating information about sustainability achievements to residents and businesses. Each area – energy, food and agriculture, parks and open space, transportation, waste, and water – includes information about ongoing initiatives and methods for joining these efforts.109 Various business-engagement efforts have also been successful in initiating action in diverse communities. A program that started in the mid-1990s and is still successful today is Partners for a Clean Environment (PACE). Through this program, the county rewards sustainable business practices through recognition and consultation services that enable the business community to be more environmentally friendly and multiply the county’s efforts to address climate change. PACE participants do not currently meet on a regular basis; however, the county’s PACE program coordinator is exploring new means of keeping the business community engaged in these initiatives.

17

In addition, Boulder County participates in the Colorado Communities for Climate Action.110 This coalition includes Boulder County, 13 local governments, and other counties, cities, and towns in the area.111 The organization’s main charge is to advocate for state and federal policies that will protect the sustainability of the State’s communities for current and future generations. An additional collaboration in the area includes the county, City of Boulder, and the University of Colorado. Meetings are held to create organizational goals and accountability for the identified goals among the partners. A centerpiece of this coalition is the annual Town and Gown. This event features a speaker and opportunities for participants to share goals and keep each other on track. Although Boulder County does not support a coalition on its own, lessons can be learned from its participation in the aforementioned collaborations, the Colorado Communities for Climate Action and the Town and Gown. The County is aware of the importance of appropriate messaging to engage diverse communities and stakeholders along with how to incentivize this participation. The county also recognizes that re-evaluating long-standing efforts and utilizing new technology and outreach methods can increase its effectiveness in countering the effects of climate change. Participants referenced the collective impact model as a strong fit for their programs. Collective impact involves a “centralized infrastructure, a dedicated staff, and a structured process that leads to a common agenda, shared measurement, continuous communication, and mutually reinforcing activities among all participants.”112 Boulder County participants also emphasized the importance of a support (backbone) organization to incentivize change; without this driver, collaborations can be ill-defined and ineffective.

Lessons from Boulder County #1: The collective impact model is effective. Boulder County sustainability staff revealed that this structure is an essential component of their success in climate change adaptation. In addition, they stressed the necessity of a backbone organization to provide incentives and drive the entity forward. County staff recommended investigating this model when framing climate action. For more information about collective impact, see Appendix III. #2: Providing incentives and supportive services can engage private sector participation. The PACE program has been a valuable tool in engaging the business community. By providing recognition and information on how to become more sustainable, the county has stimulated ongoing participation from the private sector and increasingly positive business practices. This model can be integrated into a climate council model by providing members with incentives and services that encourage ongoing and increasing level of participation. #3: An annual gathering can reinvigorate partners and induce new participation. Creating an annual summit focused on sustainability and environmental issues can be a useful means of renewing commitment to council goals for current partners as well as enticing new participants to join the council’s efforts. Some groups have an interesting and engaging speaker along with breakout sessions that give participants a more detailed exploration of the issues being addressed and the council’s initiatives. This can also serve as a forum for tracking progress.

18

Comparative Analysis Through our review of the relevant literature and our interviews with various organizations, some important lessons stand out. Many of the collaborations in our case studies were initiated alongside a city or countywide climate action plan. Most met at least quarterly. Nearly all of our cases involved subcommittees formed around key issue areas or particular projects. All of our case studies had a lead entity to convene and run the meetings. These themes confirm the initial steps Dane County has taken to establish its climate council. Our review of relevant literature and our case studies also led to a number of other important aspects of collaboration for Dane County to consider.

Developing Strong Relationships In some of our case studies and the literature on collaboration, we found an emphasis on the strength of relationships among participating members. There are a few reasons these relationships are important for how the climate council might function. The stronger existing relationships are among organizations represented on the council at the outset, the more likely they will be to collaborate. Organizations with a history of working and communicating with each other are likely to feel more comfortable doing so on new projects because they trust the other organizations to be dedicated toward their collaboration. Without these existing ties, organizations have no way to know the level of effort their partners are willing to contribute, and this can lead to lower effort of their own for fear of dedicating too much time to a collaboration that might not yield any benefits for themselves.113 When ties exist among organizations, the probability that partnerships will lead to better outcomes increases. Whenever two organizations work together, whether they are businesses, nonprofit organizations, or governments, they are likely to have some substantial differences in internal processes. These differences can cause conflict about how decisions are made and information is shared. However, if two organizations previously worked together, it is likely that they have worked out many of these differences and have an established way of merging their established processes.114 In the case where trust is not already established, measures can be taken to encourage better relationships. One critical way to build trust at the start of a collaborative effort is to encourage information sharing in formal group settings and informally among participants. Even the sharing of basic knowledge and non-threatening information can demonstrate member competency and good intentions on following through with their commitments. Establishing early on that information sharing is a key part of committing to the group will lead to strong ties.115 The King County and Tompkins County case studies supported this lesson. Both emphasized information sharing and open communication as a core tenant of their organizations. Program administrators found this open style of communication to be helpful in encouraging organizations to share their expertise. They also believed that it led to a greater commitment to the organization among individual representatives.116 Literature on collaboration also emphasized that in new organizational partnerships it can be helpful for the lead organization to check in regularly with members on their relationships with

19

other partners. This can identify budding problems before they cause conflict and open opportunities to alleviate the issue. It also helps to build trust between the governing organization and the group as a whole. 117 With this in mind, the council’s coordinator should take several steps. First, the coordinator should map out existing relationships among organizations in the council’s initial stages. This knowledge of existing familiarity among group members may be useful as organizations undertake certain climate actions where they may benefit from the expertise of others. Pairing organizations with existing relationships will likely improve project outcomes. Second, the coordinator should make it clear in the council’s first meetings that sharing knowledge and expertise among members is encouraged and a core feature of the organization. This builds trust over time, and given the long-term nature of climate change, stronger relationships over decades are a powerful tool to encourage organizational actions over a longer timeframe. This may also encourage organizations to work together on climate action goals outside of official council meetings. Lastly, the council coordinator should occasionally contact members about their relationships with other organizations in the council. In any inter-organizational collaboration, conflicts may arise from members’ competing visions and priorities. Being aware of these situations may lead to more-effective council management, and members will feel they are being heard. This, in turn, will increase their levels of trust with the coordinator. It must also be remembered that building trust takes time and cannot be expected to take place over the course of a few meetings. Many collaborations take years to fully mature, and as these relationships evolve long-term effectiveness becomes possible.118 Given that climate change will require action over several decades, it will be prudent for the council coordinator to be patient with the development of new partnerships among organizations.

Achieving Consensus and Commitment to Common Goals The importance of members agreeing upon a singular vision was a common theme in the literature about collaborative efforts and in our case studies. If the participants are trying to accomplish the same goals, conflict is less likely and effective governance is more likely; conversations will be centered around how do we get to where we want to be, not what are we doing. Without consensus, it becomes more likely that some members will disagree with the council’s direction, which can lead to those members participating in fewer initiatives and attending fewer council activities. Given that greater participation by members is likely to lead to better outcomes, the council coordinator should take action to encourage consensus and commitment to common goals. One action the coordinator can take is making sure the group uses a participatory and collaborative process that includes stakeholder input when establishing initial goals and purpose. Initial discussions should be open and treat members’ input equally, allowing participants to feel some semblance of control over where the group is going. When a third party mandates the group’s goals before the process has begun and ignores member input, it can destabilize shared consensus, unless that member has a strong degree of trust with each other organization.119

20

This emphasis on collaborative process showed up in several of our interviews. In Tompkins County and the City of Santa Monica, their community action organizations had member input in the initial meetings regarding what they were looking to accomplish. In TCCPI meetings, participants discussed what they believed the role of their organization was in the community, what unique function it could serve with regards to climate change in the county, and who might be worth contacting going forward.120 In the Santa Monica group, participants outlined how they felt the City should target emissions and identified policy options important to them.121 Our contact with King County also advised that Dane County ask members what they want to see from the council and not prescribe it all for them from the outset.122 With this in mind, the coordinator should outline the County’s perception of the council’s goals and encourage comment from participating organizations in the first meeting. Before the council turns to specific actions undertaken by members, the coordinator should be confident that all members have the same conception of their responsibilities regarding the council’s overall goals. Even though members are likely to share priorities by virtue of participating in the council, these initial discussions can avoid future unplanned divergences from the council’s purpose. A second way to avoid goal-consensus issues is getting members to commit early on to a vision or mission for the council. This can be as simple as a verbal confirmation of the council purpose outlined in initial conversations or can include written goals and informal signed contracts rather than verbal commitments. This process should occur after initial discussions of the group’s purpose and may be effective even if the goals are vague. Explicit commitment reaffirms that the participant is agreeing to the group’s purpose. This is also when all participants can agree to specific terms of reference for the council’s goals.123 To achieve this, the council coordinator should attempt to summarize the conclusions reached during the initial discussions about the council’s purpose. They should then have members formally commit to the decided-upon goals. Depending on how initial discussions go, these commitments can be centered around vague general goals, such as agreeing to address climate issues in the County, or can be more specific, such as emissions targets or actionable steps for members to undertake. In either case, an informal agreement among organizations, whether verbal or written, will help formalize understanding of larger goals and aspirations. Though these commitments will be non-binding and unenforced, they serve as a baseline commitment that can help the organization move forward. The final component that can help participants align with the group’s larger goals is undertaking a small and accomplishable task to start council action. This helps establish a sense of accomplishment and can help solidify buy-in among participating members.124 To identify an easily achievable action, the council coordinator should ask members about their current actions regarding climate during the council’s initial stages. It is possible some organizations are already taking steps in a direction that could be applied to the broader council or have ideas for first steps. An early measurable outcome assures members that the council is oriented toward real action, and that their time and resources are well spent.

21

Allow Different Degrees of Participation The literature and several of our case studies emphasized that it is important not to put too large a burden on any one member of the collaborative effort. Participation fatigue can arise if a member feels that he or she is putting in an amount of effort that is not proportional to the gain, expectations in terms of time or resources are too high, or their priorities have shifted from the group’s goals. The coordinator can alleviate some of the stress that leads to fatigue by emphasizing a culture that allows members to engage at various intensities.125 In any collaborative effort, some members will be able to devote more resources to its functions than others, and this should be presented as a normal part of the group’s functionality. If the coordinator demands uniform commitment from everyone, this does not recognize the difference in capabilities that exists among organizations and can put undue pressure on certain participants.126 Our interviews with both King County and Utah emphasized this as an important feature of their groups. Utah’s three-tiered membership structure allowed organizations to choose how much time to devote to network activities, preventing them from feeling pressure to participate at higher intensities.127 King County likewise found that flexibility in member participation was key for their group’s long-term sustainability. King County allows subcommittees to form organically through voluntary agreements so no one is shamed into taking action. Our contacts there emphasized that one of their most important pieces of advice to Dane County was not to force every council member to discuss every issue or take action on every project.128 Beyond emphasizing a flexible culture, the coordinator should work to institutionalize processes. When decision-making structures and time commitments are formalized to a reasonable degree, members will know what is expected of them at a foundational level.129 If everyone can agree to more baseline commitments, even if some members are doing more, the sustainability of the network increases.130 With this in mind, having regularly scheduled council meetings and formal structures dictating how information is discussed and disseminated within the council can help avoid some of these conflicts. Fatigue can also be exacerbated if the tasks undertaken require coordination and cooperation with other members. For example, council members may decide they want to work on improving the energy efficiency of their buildings. Some members may want to accomplish this within their organization but do not have the technical knowledge to do so, while other members with experience in this area may genuinely want to help but dedicating their time in this way can feel burdensome.131 The council coordinator should take steps to manage partnerships like this. Though these relationships forming organically is a good sign of increasing trust among members, if the coordinator does not provide at least a little oversight these partnerships can cause tension. By making sure no one feels he or she is being asked to do too much, the coordinator can manage conflict and help align expectations between the different organizations, combatting the possibility of network fatigue.

22

Incorporating Equity and Diversity We found in our case studies that many communities focused on climate were only recently beginning to include diversity and equity in their planning. In light of this, we conducted an interview with an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official with past experience working with these communities and drew on lessons from relevant literature to inform best practices for reaching out to and including underserved communities in Dane County. Lower-income and minority communities traditionally have been left out of the decision-making process when it comes to planning and development in their cities and wider community. Reaching out to these communities can be difficult for several reasons. Language barriers, limited educational opportunities, and other social factors make them more likely to be unaware of environmental issues. They may also work longer or irregular hours and lack access to technology used for more traditional forms of outreach. This makes it essential to use local leaders to represent the concerns of these communities on the council.132 Given the lack of representation in other areas of government, more personal outreach may be necessary when deciding who to include on the council. Attending local community events and talking with residents in underrepresented areas may also be necessary given the barriers to participation that make them less likely to be aware of county government actions.133 Tompkins County used justice-oriented student organizations to identify local community leaders who could represent underserved populations in the County.134 The EPA official also advised the county to look beyond its usual partners when reaching out to diverse communities. Governments can become familiar working with certain organizations that they believe represent these communities, the official said, but by not reaching out to new partners, certain groups may continue to lack representation. The EPA official advised talking with local nonprofit and environmental organizations about who the County should reach out to.135 After council representatives are chosen, the coordinator can assist these members with several tasks that can improve their ability to participate. One is to map out the central community concerns in these areas. Getting community leaders from these areas to talk with each other about their goals and concerns, even those that are not officially represented on the council, can give a wider understanding of what issues are important to these areas of the county and how they might fit into climate council actions.136 Incorporating members to represent underserved communities without a wider understanding of the needs of those communities as a whole may leave out important concerns when it comes to the council agenda. It is also worth considering mapping out climate impacts and vulnerabilities in the County. The impacts of climate change are not uniform, and understanding what effects are likely to occur and where is crucial when taking equity and diversity into account. Mapping these effects by variables such as income, education, and language skills can help identify where urgent action is necessary to ensure equitable solutions.137 After the County understands how climate risk is spread across different communities, it can identify the resources that are available in these communities to adapt and foster discussions on overcoming challenges.

23

The coordinator should also take particular care to make sure these organizations are not overburdened by council responsibilities. Organizations from these communities often have more limited resources, and may not be able to participate at the intensity level of other partners. Allowing them to set their own levels of participation and choose where to devote their efforts can be a crucial component of successfully incorporating their voices in the council.138 The coordinator must also recognize that these groups may have different perspectives on climate issues than other collaborators. Climate change is a global issue, but how the county responds will have local impacts, and the most efficient mitigation or adaptation measures may conflict with the most equitable solutions. To manage these tradeoffs, the coordinator should proactively present the pros and cons of proposed actions, providing detailed information on the inherent tradeoffs of different policy choices. This will encourage council members to take a more nuanced view of the issues and will help members with different perspectives come together on policy choices.139 Although it is important, including equity and diversity in the council is not just about having a few representatives of local communities involved in its processes. Without taking measures like these to understand community concerns and foster more-productive working relationships, conversations about equity and diversity may fail to find adequate solutions to their problems. It also allows council representatives to more effectively bring information back to their communities about how climate change will affect them and how the county is responding. This can help build local knowledge and encourage active participation on the community level, raising the council’s profile and setting the groundwork for future action.

Inconsistencies in Case Studies There are several places where our cases differ or even contradict one another. Some groups, such as K4C, divided collaborations by sector. K4C’s leaders felt that creating a space for municipalities to collaborate with the county on specific initiatives was beneficial because all members had similar capacity to take action. King County also met separately with leaders of the business community and occasionally brought in nonprofit organizations to assist with K4C initiatives. However, they did concede that this model may have led to missed opportunities for cross-sector collaboration. Most of our other cases took a mixed-sector approach to collaboration. For example, the Utah Climate Action Network includes organizations across several sectors, including nonprofits, institutions of higher education, and local businesses. The consensus from these case studies was that a mixed-sector approach better facilitates collaboration, even if the scope of action is not always equally relevant to all sectors. Additionally, some groups disagreed about the purpose of their stakeholder networks. The City of Santa Monica emphasized a strong orientation to action and suggested using checklists and other tools to hold stakeholders accountable for commitments. Our contacts at Tompkins County, on the other hand, felt that the purpose of TCCPI was to provide a forum for local stakeholders to share ideas and gain information. They felt strongly that imposing too much of an action-oriented structure on the group would have alienated some members and precluded cooperation on future initiatives. The appropriate balance for Dane County may be somewhere in between.

24

Finally, our case studies had different types of convening organizations. Some collaborations started as nonprofit-driven coalitions that were later incorporated by a government entity. The Pittsburgh Climate Initiative is one example. Other collaborations were started by a city or county and eventually became independent nonprofit entities, albeit still with some government involvement. The Utah Climate Action Network and the Tompkins County Climate Protection Initiative are examples. Finally, the collaborations for each of our other case studies were initiated by local governments and continue under their control. These cases tend to focus on advising government-led initiatives such as local climate action plans. IV. Recommendations The research reviewed above and examples regarding successful coalition building provide important points to consider for implementing the Dane County Council on Climate Change. Incorporating these fundamentals and concepts from the council’s inception can increase the organization’s efficiency and assist in avoiding obstacles along the council’s course of action. Based on this research, we provide the following recommendations for short-term, medium-term, and long-term implementation of the council: Short-term

• Form a steering committee to determine the climate council’s agenda. One option for the steering committee would be to include a representative from each sector. The committee’s role would be to create founding documents, determine key issue areas, and support the duties of the climate coordinator. The steering committee may also be helpful in identifying additional stakeholders to include on the council.

• Use the first council meeting as a time to set common goals. Let stakeholders discuss their priorities and use interactive techniques to arrive at a common mission and vision for the council. Have members commit to the final goals. These commitments can be informal and non-binding, but having each organization commit to a shared goal can be a powerful tool for encouraging action down the road.

• Include diverse representation from the outset. Environmental justice organizations and other organizations dedicated to marginalized communities are often an afterthought in climate efforts. Including these groups from the beginning will ensure that their voices are heard throughout the process. The County should also take a special effort to reach beyond groups it is comfortable with, asking leaders of local environmental and nonprofit groups who they believe are important to include on the council.

• Map out potential climate change impacts. Engaging in this process will help identify how climate change will affect Dane County. It also can contribute to the conversation around equity by helping to identify if certain communities will be disproportionately affected.

Medium-term

• Celebrate all accomplishments, even small ones. Making the council a place for celebration of progress is rewarding for stakeholders and can generate momentum for new projects. Celebrating accomplishments early (even things that were finished prior to the council’s formation) will build morale. Undertaking a small and easily

25

accomplishable task shortly after the council’s formation can help this process and show participants the organization is worth their time and resources.

• Regular meetings are necessary to sustain participation and interest. We recommend that full climate council meetings occur at least quarterly, with subcommittees meeting more frequently as needed. Having fewer meetings risks stagnating momentum and causing participants to lose interest.

• Allow participation at different intensities. Not all stakeholders will have the same capacity to attend meetings or take on new projects. Participation in individual initiatives should be optional. Also, recognize that stakeholders have different levels of scientific expertise and interest. Jargon should be avoided as much as possible.

• Consider using subcommittees. Most of the cases we looked at formed subcommittees around specific issue areas. This allowed the council’s work to focus in on specific projects. It also ensured that members were always addressing with topics relevant to them. Subcommittees could also be formed around sectors.

• When engaging institutions of higher education, incorporate faculty expertise. Look for opportunities to have faculty present at meetings or advise subcommittees on technical issues. Also, consider forming partnerships with the university around specific projects. The Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and UW-Extension are possible candidates for collaboration. Other potential partners include Madison Area Technical College and Edgewood College.

Long-term

• Obtain a dedicated source of funding. In addition to funding for the climate coordinator, funding will likely be necessary for collaborative projects undertaken by council members. The climate coordinator should consider applying for grants to fund these activities. Collecting membership fees or voluntary contributions from municipalities (or all members) would also be potential options for raising revenue. However, the fee option may alienate some members.

• Evaluate the council’s progress on an annual basis. Consider having members contribute to an annual report detailing specific projects or initiatives that that members completed over the course of the year. Determine if current structures are working. Look to see if staffing levels are sufficient or if additional staff or consultants should be hired.

• Measure outcomes where possible. If projects initiated by the council result in concrete emissions reductions, these outcomes should be quantified and published. Evaluation is essential for determining whether to continue the council’s programs or if money would be better spent on different initiatives.

26

V. Conclusion Dane County is already making progress in implementing the elements that are essential to effective coalition building. County leaders have demonstrated their commitment by engaging in the hiring process for a climate change coordinator. The county has shown its forward thinking in addressing climate change by pursuing innovative strategies to produce energy and improve sustainable operations. By supporting the climate council and bringing stakeholders throughout the County together, the impact of these strategies will be multiplied and the health and sustainability of the community will be protected.

27

References Affairs, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental. n.d. Advancing

Environmental Justice in the Commonwealth. Accessed April 2017. http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/mod-ej.html.

Bardaglio, Peter, interview by Andrew Fisher, Scott Coleman and Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Interview with Peter Bardaglio (April 10).

Biggs, Dave. 2015. How to Engage the Environmental Justice Community. May 28. Accessed April 2017. http://metroquest.com/how-to-engage-the-environmental-justice-community/.

Boulder County. 2017. Boulder County, Colorado. Accessed April 10, 2017. Boulder County Sustainability. 2017. Boulder County Sustainability. Accessed April 10, 2017. Bryson, John, Barbara Crosby, and Melissa Stone. 2006. “The Design and Implementation of

Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature.” Public Administration Review 44-55.

Catino, Nicole. 2014. PennFuture Facts. July 23. Accessed April 30, 2017. http://pffacts.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-black-gold-city-is-still-going-green.html.

CC4CA. 2017. Colorado Communities for Climate Action. Accessed April 10, 2017. City Data. 2014. City-Data.com. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.city-

data.com/city/Santa-Monica-California.html. City of Portland and Multnomah County. 2001. “Local Action Plan on Global Warming.”

Portland. City of Portland. 2017. Planning and Sustainability: Climate Action Plan. Accessed March 15,

2017. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/49989. City of Santa Monica. 2016. “City of Santa Monica 15x15 Climate Action Plan Final Report.”

Santa Monica. City of Santa Monica. 2017. Task Force on the Environment. City of Santa Monica: Office of

Sustainability and Environment. Cohen, L., N. Baer, and P. Satterwhite. 2002. “Developing Effective Coalitions: An Eight Step

Guide.” In Community Health Education & Prootion: A GUide to Program Design and Evaluation, 144-161. Gaithersburg.

County Health Rankings. 2016. County Health Rankings and Roadmaps. Accessed February 2017. http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/roadmaps/action-center.

Cross-Departmental Sustainability Work Group. 2016. Dane County Government Sustainable Operations Plan. Madison: Dane County.

Dane County Climate Change Action Council. 2013. Dane County Climate Change and Emergency Preparedness. Madison: Dane County.

Emerson, Kirk, Tina Nabatchi, and Stephen Balogh. 2012. “An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1-29.

EPA, interview by Scott Coleman. 2017. Hanleybrown, Faye, John Kania, and Mark Kramer. 2012. “Channeling Change: Making

Collective Impact Work.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, January 26. Jabareen, Yosef. 2013. “Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with

climate change and environmental risk.” Cities 220-229. Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. 2011. “Collective Impact.” Stanford Social Innovation Review,

Winter.

28

Keast, Robyn, Myrna Mandell, Kerry Brown, and Geoffrey Woolcock. 2004. “Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing Expectations.” Public Administration Review 363-371.

King County. 2016. King County Natural Resources and Parks Newsroom. March 9. Accessed April 30, 2017. http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/newsroom/newsreleases/2016/March/09-Climate-Leadership-Award.aspx.

Krasner, Stephen. 1982. “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes and Intervening Variables.” International Organization 185-205.

Lynch, Marcia. 2016. “Tompkins County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories Completed.” Tompkins, September 16.

Marx, Ed, and Katie Borgella, interview by Andrew Fisher, Scott Coleman, Elizabeth Doyle and Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Interview with Tompkins County (April 6).

Multnomah County. 2015. “Climate Action Plan.” Portland. Myren, Travis, and Nick Bubb. n.d. “Dane County - Climate Action Champions Application.”

Madison, Wisconsin. Neger, Hillary, and Annie Bennett. 2017. Lessons in Regional Resilience: King County Region.

Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Climate Center. PennFuture. 2015. The Black and Gold City Goes Green: Making Pittsburgh Even Cooler.

August. Accessed April 5, 2017. http://blackandgoldcitygoesgreen.blogspot.com/. Pittsburgh Climate Initiative. n.d. Pittsburgh Climate Initiative: Working Together for a

Sustainable Future. Accessed April 1, 2017. http://pittsburghclimate.org/. Popp, Janice, H. Brinton Milward, Gail MacKean, Ann Casebeer, and Ron Lindstrom. 2014.

Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for The Business of Government.

Provan, Keith, and Patrick Kenis. 2007. “Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 229-252.

Sanders, Nicole, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. K4C Interview (April 14).

Schlosberg, David. 2012. “Climate Justice and Capabilities: A Framework for Adaptation Policy.” Ethics & International Affairs 445-461.

Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Correspondence (April 12). SLC Green Blog. 2016. SLC Green Blog. October 15. Accessed April 30, 2017.

https://slcgreenblog.com/tag/usdn/. Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Interview (March 1). Sustainable Pittsburgh. 2016. Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge. Accessed April 5, 2017.

http://gwcpgh.org/. 2017. Tompkins County Climate Protection Initiative. Accessed April 2017. Tompkins County. 2015. Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Part 1. Comprehensive Plan,

Tompkins: Tompkins County. —. 2017. Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability. Accessed April 14,

2017. http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/planning. Urban Sustainability Director’s Network. 2016. “Urban Sustainability Innovation Report.” US Census. n.d. QuickFacts: Tompkins County, New York. Accessed April 14, 2017.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/36109.

29

Utah Climate Action Network. 2016. “Job Announcement: Utah Climate Action Network Program Manager.” Salt Lake City.

—. 2017. Welcome to the Utah Climate Action Network. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/.

Williams-Rajee, Desiree, and Taren Evans. 2016. Climate Action Through Equity. Multnomah County.

Wong, Garrett, Samantha Rosenbaum, and Delia Tyrrell, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. City of Santa Monica Interview (March 8).

Yeager, Sarah, interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Pittsburgh Climate Initiative Interview (March 20).

30

Appendices Appendix I: Interview Contact Information Boulder County, Colorado Brad Smith, Sustainability Outreach and Education Specialist bsmith@bouldercounty.org 720-564-2720 Zac Swank, Pace Partners Advisor zswank@bouldercounty.org 303-786-7223 Boulder, Colorado, Town and Gown Susie Strife, Sustainability Coordinator, Boulder County sstrife@bouldercounty.org 303-441-4565 Jonathon Koehn, Regional Sustainability Coordinator, City of Boulder EnergyFuture@BoulderColorado.gov 303-441-3274 David Newport, LEED AP, University of Colorado-Boulder sustainability@colorado.edu 303-492-7438 City of Santa Monica, California Garrett Wong, Senior Sustainability Analyst, Climate & Energy Garrett.Wong@SMCGOV.net 310-458-2238 Pittsburgh Climate Initiative Sarah Yeager, Resilience Analyst, City of Pittsburgh sarah.yeager@pittsburghpa.gov King County, Washington Nicole Sanders, Climate & Long-Range Senior Planner, City of Snoqualmie NSanders@ci.snoqualmie.wa.us 425-888-5337

31

Utah Climate Action Network Tyler Poulson, Sustainability Program Manager, Salt Lake City Tyler.Poulson@slcgov.com 801-535-7259 Multnomah County, Oregon Tim Lynch, Senior Policy Analyst tim.j.lynch@multco.us Tompkins County, New York Edward Marx, Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability Katherine Borgella, Deputy Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability Emails available through form: http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/planning/email 607-274-5560 Peter Bardaglio, Tompkins County Climate Protection Initiative Coordinator info@tccpi.org 607-229-6183 UW-Madison Greg Nemet, Associate Professor of Public Affairs and Environmental Studies gnemet@lafollette.wisc.edu 608-265-3469

32

Appendix II: Sample Interview Questions We attempted to ask the people we interviewed a similar set of questions. Variation resulted from follow-up questions or specific questions targeted at community-specific policies or circumstances. Below is a list of our basic interview questions.

1. How do you engage community stakeholders and local businesses? What is the process? Do you have regular meetings? What has worked, what hasn’t? Is there formal voting? Are these groups advisory? How often do they meet? Are meetings public or private? What kind of activities during meetings engage participants? What kind of feedback do you get on meetings?

2. What steps did you take to get your coalition/council started? 3. What do you believe are some of your biggest accomplishments? What went well, what

are you the most proud of from your perspective? How do you define success? 4. How do you fund your work? Do membership dues keep groups/entities committed?

What is your experience with applying for grants? Where have you applied for them, how does the process work? Who provides a leadership role?

5. Is there a person whose sole job it is to coordinate work or do others have different responsibilities?

6. What is the relationship between county employees and the council? What are important staff positions?

7. Any lessons you have found for moving from vague commitments to action? 8. Did you create work groups or did they form organically? Were they based on shared

interests or existing relationships? How did you choose what topics subcommittees work on?

9. How does the county/municipality measure outcomes? 10. How do you frame issues of climate change in your work when not all communities or

individuals may be on board with it? 11. How do you include and engage the private sector in coalitions? How do you reach out to

the private sector? 12. How do you include equity in your work? How do you reach out to all parts of the

community and include them in decision-making? Do you feel that everyone’s voice is being heard? How do you take equity and diversity into account when thinking about environmental justice and climate change?

13. How do you engage university partners in your work? 14. If you have focus areas and goals for the year in your work, what process do you use for

deciding what those focus goals and areas are? Do coalition members vote on the areas?

33

Appendix III: Collective Impact and Coalition Building During our interview with officials from Boulder, Colorado, we discussed how the collective impact model informed their work. Below is information about collective impact that may be relevant to Dane County. Of particular importance is the idea of the “backbone” organization that manages the process.

Collective Impact Collective impact is an approach from the nonprofit community that offers another useful frame for understanding how to get various groups to cooperate for social change. Writing in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, John Kania and Mark Kramer argue that “large-scale social change requires broad cross-sector coordination” where a “core group of community leaders [decide] to abandon their individual agendas in favor of a collective approach.”140 Using a case study involving education in a city, they describe how focusing the community on a “single set of goals, measured in the same way” helps the community align efforts.141 Collective impact involves a “centralized infrastructure, a dedicated staff, and a structured process that leads to a common agenda, shared measurement, continuous communication, and mutually reinforcing activities among all participants.”142 These elements can combine to produce alignment and results. Common Agenda All participants in collective impact need “a shared vision for change, one that includes a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving it through agreed-upon actions.”143 Participants don’t need to agree on every aspect of the problem, but they must agree on the primary goals. Organizations that are funding work have a role to play in setting goals and encouraging organizations to act toward achieving them. Shared Measurement Systems Agreement on a common agenda and goals is useless “without agreement on the ways success will be measured and reported.”144 All organizations should measure results using the same criteria and report on the same measures so that patterns and solutions can be identified. Mutually Reinforcing Activities Collective impact works by allowing a diverse group of stakeholders to “undertake the specific set of activities at which it excels in a way that supports and is coordinated with the actions of others” in support of an overarching plan of action.145 Continuous Communication Communication is required to build trust among nonprofit organizations, corporations, government agencies. This trust develops through regular, frequent meetings that allow participants “to build up enough experience with each other to recognize and appreciate the common motivation behind their different efforts.”146

34

Backbone Support Organizations The most essential ingredient in collective impact is the existence of backbone organizations that manage the process. This requires dedicated staff who plan and support the initiative through facilitation, data collection and reporting, and other administrative tasks.147 It also requires structured decision-making processes and adaptive leadership to “focus people’s attention and create a sense of urgency, the skill to apply pressure to stakeholders without overwhelming them, the competence to frame issues in a way that presents opportunities as well as difficulties, and the strength to mediate conflict among stakeholders.”148 Backbone organizations are essential for sustaining collective impact initiatives and serve six functions, including “providing overall strategic direction, facilitating dialogue between partners, managing data collection and analysis, handling communications, coordinating community outreach, and mobilizing funding.”149 Along with the backbone organization, “cascading levels of linked collaboration” where a steering committee or oversight group is formed along with working-groups around each goal. These committees work through a “continuous process of ‘planning and doing’ grounded in constant evidence-based feedback about what is or is not working.”150 Working-groups come together regularly “to share data and stories about progress being made, and for communicating their activities more broadly with other organizations and individuals affected by the issue.”151 The backbone organization’s role is to assess progress being made by the working-groups and report them to the oversight committee.152 Collective impact initiatives require several conditions to be in place before they can be launched. First, they require influential champions who can provide leadership and have the respect of cross-sector leaders to bring them together and keep them engaged over time.153 Second, they require adequate funding that can last up to several years and can support and mobilize other resources to pay for the needed infrastructure and planning processes.”154 Finally, there needs to be an urgency for change around a particular issue that can come from a crisis or from the existence of potential funding source.155

Coalition-Building Efforts to bring local governments, nonprofit organizations, and businesses together to address a community problem may also benefit from lessons on coalition building from the public health arena. For example, the Prevention Research Institute offers a practical eight-step guide for developing effective coalitions that can help groups develop plans to approach issues and create lasting change. Keeping these steps in mind while establishing the council and recruiting members will help Dane County ensure the council is action-oriented. This guide offers several definitions of collaborative organizations that fit the loose definition of a coalition, including advisory committees, commissions, consortia, networks, and task forces, as well as the roles in those organizations.156 Analogous to the “backbone organization” in the collective impact literature, is the “lead agency,” which “convenes the coalition and assumes significant responsibility for its operation.”157 The benefits of coalitions are that they can conserve resources, achieve a greater reach in a community, accomplish objective beyond the scope of one organization, achieve greater credibility, provide a forum for information sharing,

35

provide advice to the lead agency, help members see broader perspective, and foster cooperation between organizations and community members.158 The eight steps to building an effective coalition are to:

• determine whether to form a coalition based on a community need or a directive from a community leader to act;

• recruit a diverse membership with the right kind of organizations that work on the identified issue;

• establish objectives and activities for the coalition; • convene the coalition through meetings, conferences or workshops; • anticipate the level of staff and financial resources that will be needed; • define elements of a successful structure, including decision-making rules; • maintain coalition vitality by addressing difficulties, sharing power and leadership,

recruiting new members, and sharing success; and • make improvements through evaluation.

36

Appendix IV: Collective Impact and Coalition Building in Practice – The County Health Rankings and Roadmaps The County Health Rankings and Roadmaps, a joint project of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, collects data and ranks the health of every county in the United States to form a baseline of health indicators that communities can use to prioritize action for health improvements. The program offers advice and resources to communities that are interested in working together to improve community health. This program takes lessons from collective impact and coalition building and puts them into practice using a logic model that can help communities move from recognizing a problem based on data, to acting to address that problem. This logic model can also be adapted to issues such as climate change adaptation and resilience. The County Health Rankings and Roadmaps organizes its work around an “Action Cycle,” with community stakeholders and community members in the center, to represent the idea that those stakeholders need to be central to efforts to improve community health.159 Around the circle are action steps that coalitions take to move action forward toward achieving a goal. In this case, we believe the most relevant steps are Work Together and Act on What’s Important. Work Together Working together is required for every step and focuses on building and sustaining partnerships. Some of the key activities include recruiting diverse stakeholders; building relationships; developing vision, values, and mission; building common knowledge; and developing leadership. Managing boundaries and determining organizational structures are also important for managing action. Act on What’s Important Acting on what’s important to a community involves taking action by harnessing community strengths and resources. The point is to ensure that the policies selected by the community are implemented and achieve the intended results. The County Health Rankings and Roadmaps model stresses the need to develop a strategy for action and a resource plan as well as to identify allies, opponents, and key decision makers. There is also an advocacy element to this stage, with activities such as organizing and mobilizing community support, developing and delivering messages, and building political will.

37

Endnotes 1 Utah Climate Action Network. 2017. Welcome to the Utah Climate Action Network. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/. 2 Utah Climate Action Network. 2017. Welcome to the Utah Climate Action Network. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/. 3 SLC Green. “Climate Change: What We’re Doing.” Salt Lake City. http://www.slcgreen.com/climate-slc 4 SLC Green. “Climate Positive SLC.” Salt Lake City. http://www.slcgreen.com/climatepositive 5 SLC Green Blog. 2016. SLC Green Blog. October 15. Accessed April 30, 2017. https://slcgreenblog.com/tag/usdn/. 6 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Interview (March 1). 7 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Correspondence (April 12). 8 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Interview (March 1). 9 Utah Climate Action Network. 2016. "Job Announcement: Utah Climate Action Network Program Manager." Salt Lake City. 10 Urban Sustainability Director's Network. 2016. "Urban Sustainability Innovation Report." 11 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Correspondence (April 12). 12 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Correspondence (April 12). 13 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Correspondence (April 12). 14 Utah Climate Action Network. 2017. Welcome to the Utah Climate Action Network. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/. 15 Utah Climate Action Network. 2017. Welcome to the Utah Climate Action Network. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/. 16 Utah Climate Action Network. 2017. Welcome to the Utah Climate Action Network. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/. 17 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Correspondence (April 12). 18 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Correspondence (April 12). 19 Utah Climate Action Network. 2017. Welcome to the Utah Climate Action Network. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/. 20 Utah Climate Action Network. 2017. Welcome to the Utah Climate Action Network. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/. 21 Utah Climate Action Network. 2017. Welcome to the Utah Climate Action Network. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/. 22 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Interview (March 1). 23 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Correspondence (April 12). 24 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Correspondence (April 12). 25 Utah Climate Action Network. 2017. Welcome to the Utah Climate Action Network. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/. 26 Utah Climate Action Network. 2017. Welcome to the Utah Climate Action Network. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/. 27 Utah Climate Action Network. 2017. Welcome to the Utah Climate Action Network. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.utahclimateactionnetwork.com/. 28 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Interview (March 1). 29 City Data. 2014. City-Data.com. Accessed March 12, 2017. http://www.city-data.com/city/Santa-Monica-California.html. 30 City of Santa Monica. 2016. "City of Santa Monica 15x15 Climate Action Plan Final Report." Santa Monica. 31 City of Santa Monica. 2016. "City of Santa Monica 15x15 Climate Action Plan Final Report." Santa Monica. 32 City of Santa Monica. 2016. "City of Santa Monica 15x15 Climate Action Plan Final Report." Santa Monica. 33 City of Santa Monica. 2016. "City of Santa Monica 15x15 Climate Action Plan Final Report." Santa Monica. Pg. 8. 34 City of Santa Monica. 2016. "City of Santa Monica 15x15 Climate Action Plan Final Report." Santa Monica. 35 City of Santa Monica. 2016. "City of Santa Monica 15x15 Climate Action Plan Final Report." Santa Monica. 36 City of Santa Monica. 2016. "City of Santa Monica 15x15 Climate Action Plan Final Report." Santa Monica. Pg. 8.

38

37 Wong, Garrett, Samantha Rosenbaum, and Delia Tyrrell, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. City of Santa Monica Interview (March 8). 38 City of Santa Monica. 2016. "City of Santa Monica 15x15 Climate Action Plan Final Report." Santa Monica. Pg. 9. 39 City of Santa Monica. 2016. "City of Santa Monica 15x15 Climate Action Plan Final Report." Santa Monica. 40 City of Santa Monica. 2016. "City of Santa Monica 15x15 Climate Action Plan Final Report." Santa Monica. Pg. 3. 41 City of Santa Monica. 2016. "City of Santa Monica 15x15 Climate Action Plan Final Report." Santa Monica. 42 Wong, Garrett, Samantha Rosenbaum, and Delia Tyrrell, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. City of Santa Monica Interview (March 8). 43 Wong, Garrett, Samantha Rosenbaum, and Delia Tyrrell, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. City of Santa Monica Interview (March 8). 44 Wong, Garrett, Samantha Rosenbaum, and Delia Tyrrell, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. City of Santa Monica Interview (March 8). 45 Wong, Garrett, Samantha Rosenbaum, and Delia Tyrrell, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. City of Santa Monica Interview (March 8). 46 Wong, Garrett, Samantha Rosenbaum, and Delia Tyrrell, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. City of Santa Monica Interview (March 8). 47 Wong, Garrett, Samantha Rosenbaum, and Delia Tyrrell, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. City of Santa Monica Interview (March 8). 48 Wong, Garrett, Samantha Rosenbaum, and Delia Tyrrell, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. City of Santa Monica Interview (March 8). 49 Wong, Garrett, Samantha Rosenbaum, and Delia Tyrrell, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. City of Santa Monica Interview (March 8). 50 City of Portland and Multnomah County. 2001. "Local Action Plan on Global Warming." Portland. 51 City of Portland and Multnomah County. 2001. "Local Action Plan on Global Warming." Portland. 52 Multnomah County. 2015. "Climate Action Plan." Portland. 53 Multnomah County. 2015. "Climate Action Plan." Portland. 54 City of Portland. 2017. Planning and Sustainability: Climate Action Plan. Accessed March 15, 2017. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/49989. 55 City of Portland. 2017. Planning and Sustainability: Climate Action Plan. Accessed March 15, 2017. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/49989. 56 Williams-Rajee, Desiree, and Taren Evans. 2016. Climate Action Through Equity. Multnomah County. 57 City of Portland. 2017. Planning and Sustainability: Climate Action Plan. Accessed March 15, 2017. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/49989. 58 Pittsburgh Climate Initiative. n.d. Pittsburgh Climate Initiative: Working Together for a Sustainable Future. Accessed April 1, 2017. http://pittsburghclimate.org/. 59 Yeager, Sarah, interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Pittsburgh Climate Initiative Interview (March 20). 60 PennFuture. 2015. The Black and Gold City Goes Green: Making Pittsburgh Even Cooler. August. Accessed April 5, 2017. http://blackandgoldcitygoesgreen.blogspot.com/. 61 PennFuture. 2015. The Black and Gold City Goes Green: Making Pittsburgh Even Cooler. August. Accessed April 5, 2017. http://blackandgoldcitygoesgreen.blogspot.com/. 62 Catino, Nicole. 2014. PennFuture Facts. July 23. Accessed April 30, 2017. http://pffacts.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-black-gold-city-is-still-going-green.html. 63 Catino, Nicole. 2014. PennFuture Facts. July 23. Accessed April 30, 2017. http://pffacts.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-black-gold-city-is-still-going-green.html. 64 Catino, Nicole. 2014. PennFuture Facts. July 23. Accessed April 30, 2017. http://pffacts.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-black-gold-city-is-still-going-green.html. 65 Sustainable Pittsburgh. 2016. Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge. Accessed April 5, 2017. http://gwcpgh.org/. 66 Sustainable Pittsburgh. 2016. Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge. Accessed April 5, 2017. http://gwcpgh.org/. 67 Sustainable Pittsburgh. 2016. Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge. Accessed April 5, 2017. http://gwcpgh.org/.

39

68 Sustainable Pittsburgh. 2016. Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge. Accessed April 5, 2017. http://gwcpgh.org/. 69 Sustainable Pittsburgh. 2016. Pittsburgh Green Workplace Challenge. Accessed April 5, 2017. http://gwcpgh.org/. 70 Pittsburgh Climate Initiative. n.d. Pittsburgh Climate Initiative: Working Together for a Sustainable Future. Accessed April 1, 2017. http://pittsburghclimate.org/. 71 Pittsburgh Climate Initiative. n.d. Pittsburgh Climate Initiative: Working Together for a Sustainable Future. Accessed April 1, 2017. http://pittsburghclimate.org/. 72 Yeager, Sarah, interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Pittsburgh Climate Initiative Interview (March 20). 73 Neger, Hillary, and Annie Bennett. 2017. Lessons in Regional Resilience: King County Region. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Climate Center. 74 Neger, Hillary, and Annie Bennett. 2017. Lessons in Regional Resilience: King County Region. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Climate Center. 75 Neger, Hillary, and Annie Bennett. 2017. Lessons in Regional Resilience: King County Region. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Climate Center. 76 Neger, Hillary, and Annie Bennett. 2017. Lessons in Regional Resilience: King County Region. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Climate Center. 77 Neger, Hillary, and Annie Bennett. 2017. Lessons in Regional Resilience: King County Region. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Climate Center. 78 Neger, Hillary, and Annie Bennett. 2017. Lessons in Regional Resilience: King County Region. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Climate Center. 79 Sanders, Nicole, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. K4C Interview (April 14). 80 Neger, Hillary, and Annie Bennett. 2017. Lessons in Regional Resilience: King County Region. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Climate Center. 81 Sanders, Nicole, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. K4C Interview (April 14). 82 Neger, Hillary, and Annie Bennett. 2017. Lessons in Regional Resilience: King County Region. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Climate Center. 83 Neger, Hillary, and Annie Bennett. 2017. Lessons in Regional Resilience: King County Region. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Climate Center. 84 Sanders, Nicole, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. K4C Interview (April 14). 85 Sanders, Nicole, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. K4C Interview (April 14). 86 Neger, Hillary, and Annie Bennett. 2017. Lessons in Regional Resilience: King County Region. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Climate Center. 87 Neger, Hillary, and Annie Bennett. 2017. Lessons in Regional Resilience: King County Region. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Climate Center. 88 King County. 2016. King County Natural Resources and Parks Newsroom. March 9. Accessed April 30, 2017. http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/dnrp/newsroom/newsreleases/2016/March/09-Climate-Leadership-Award.aspx. 89 US Census. n.d. QuickFacts: Tompkins County, New York. Accessed April 14, 2017. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/36109. 90 2017. Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability. Accessed April 14, 2017. http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/planning. 91 2017. Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability. Accessed April 14, 2017. http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/planning. 92 2014. Tompkins County Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use Inventory. Tompkins County Planning Department. http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/files/planning/Energy-greenhouse/Community%202014%20Final%20GHG%20Emissions%20Report.pdf 93 Tompkins County. 2015. Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Part 1. Comprehensive Plan, Tompkins: Tompkins County. 94 2014. Tompkins County Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use Inventory. Tompkins County Planning Department. http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/files/planning/Energy-greenhouse/Community%202014%20Final%20GHG%20Emissions%20Report.pdf

40

95 Lynch, Marcia. 2016. "Tompkins County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories Completed." Tompkins, September 16. 96 2014. Tompkins County Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use Inventory. Tompkins County Planning Department. http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/files/planning/Energy-greenhouse/Community%202014%20Final%20GHG%20Emissions%20Report.pdf 97 2014. Tompkins County Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use Inventory. Tompkins County Planning Department. http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/files/planning/Energy-greenhouse/Community%202014%20Final%20GHG%20Emissions%20Report.pdf 98 2014. Tompkins County Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use Inventory. Tompkins County Planning Department. http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/files/planning/Energy-greenhouse/Community%202014%20Final%20GHG%20Emissions%20Report.pdf 99 2014. Tompkins County Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use Inventory. Tompkins County Planning Department. http://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/files/planning/Energy-greenhouse/Community%202014%20Final%20GHG%20Emissions%20Report.pdf 100 Bardaglio, Peter, interview by Andrew Fisher, Scott Coleman and Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Interview with Peter Bardaglio (April 10). 101 Bardaglio, Peter, interview by Andrew Fisher, Scott Coleman and Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Interview with Peter Bardaglio (April 10). 102 2016. Tompkins County Climate Protection Initiative. http://www.tccpi.org/tccpi-members.html 103 Bardaglio, Peter, interview by Andrew Fisher, Scott Coleman and Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Interview with Peter Bardaglio (April 10). 104 Bardaglio, Peter, interview by Andrew Fisher, Scott Coleman and Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Interview with Peter Bardaglio (April 10). 105 Marx, Ed, and Katie Borgella, interview by Andrew Fisher, Scott Coleman, Elizabeth Doyle and Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Interview with Tompkins County (April 6). 106 Bardaglio, Peter, interview by Andrew Fisher, Scott Coleman and Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Interview with Peter Bardaglio (April 10). 107 Boulder County. 2017. Boulder County, Colorado. Accessed April 10, 2017. 108 Boulder County. 2017. Boulder County, Colorado. Accessed April 10, 2017. 109 Boulder County Sustainability. 2017. Boulder County Sustainability. Accessed April 10, 2017. 110 Boulder County Sustainability. 2017. Boulder County Sustainability. Accessed April 10, 2017. 111 CC4CA. 2017. Colorado Communities for Climate Action. Accessed April 10, 2017. 112 Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. 2011. "Collective Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter. 113 Popp, Janice, H. Brinton Milward, Gail MacKean, Ann Casebeer, and Ron Lindstrom. 2014. Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for The Business of Government. 114 Popp, Janice, H. Brinton Milward, Gail MacKean, Ann Casebeer, and Ron Lindstrom. 2014. Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for The Business of Government. 115 Popp, Janice, H. Brinton Milward, Gail MacKean, Ann Casebeer, and Ron Lindstrom. 2014. Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for The Business of Government. 116 Sanders, Nicole, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. K4C Interview (April 14). Marx, Ed, and Katie Borgella, interview by Andrew Fisher, Scott Coleman, Elizabeth Doyle and Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Interview with Tompkins County (April 6). 117 Popp, Janice, H. Brinton Milward, Gail MacKean, Ann Casebeer, and Ron Lindstrom. 2014. Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for The Business of Government. 118 Popp, Janice, H. Brinton Milward, Gail MacKean, Ann Casebeer, and Ron Lindstrom. 2014. Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for The Business of Government. 119 Bryson, John, Barbara Crosby, and Melissa Stone. 2006. "The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature." Public Administration Review 44-55. 120 2017. Tompkins County Climate Protection Initiative. Accessed April 2017.

41

121 Wong, Garrett, Samantha Rosenbaum, and Delia Tyrrell, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. City of Santa Monica Interview (March 8). 122 Sanders, Nicole, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. K4C Interview (April 14). 123 Popp, Janice, H. Brinton Milward, Gail MacKean, Ann Casebeer, and Ron Lindstrom. 2014. Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for The Business of Government. 124 Popp, Janice, H. Brinton Milward, Gail MacKean, Ann Casebeer, and Ron Lindstrom. 2014. Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for The Business of Government. 125 Popp, Janice, H. Brinton Milward, Gail MacKean, Ann Casebeer, and Ron Lindstrom. 2014. Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for The Business of Government. 126 Popp, Janice, H. Brinton Milward, Gail MacKean, Ann Casebeer, and Ron Lindstrom. 2014. Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for The Business of Government. 127 Interview by Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. SLC Correspondence (April 12). 128 Sanders, Nicole, interview by Miranda Ehrlich, Scott Coleman, Andrew Fisher and Elizabeth Doyle. 2017. K4C Interview (April 14). 129 Keast, Robyn, Myrna Mandell, Kerry Brown, and Geoffrey Woolcock. 2004. "Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing Expectations." Public Administration Review 363-371. 130 Popp, Janice, H. Brinton Milward, Gail MacKean, Ann Casebeer, and Ron Lindstrom. 2014. Inter-Organizational Networks: A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for The Business of Government. 131 Provan, Keith, and Patrick Kenis. 2007. "Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 229-252. 132 Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. n.d. Advancing Environmental Justice in the Commonwealth. Accessed April 2017. http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/mod-ej.html. 133 Biggs, Dave. 2015. How to Engage the Environmental Justice Community. May 28. Accessed April 2017. http://metroquest.com/how-to-engage-the-environmental-justice-community/. 134 Bardaglio, Peter, interview by Andrew Fisher, Scott Coleman and Miranda Ehrlich. 2017. Interview with Peter Bardaglio (April 10). 135 EPA, interview by Scott Coleman. 2017. 136 Schlosberg, David. 2012. "Climate Justice and Capabilities: A Framework for Adaptation Policy." Ethics & International Affairs 445-461. 137 Jabareen, Yosef. 2013. "Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk." Cities 220-229. 138 EPA, interview by Scott Coleman. 2017. 139 EPA, interview by Scott Coleman. 2017. 140 Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. 2011. "Collective Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter. 141 Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. 2011. "Collective Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter. 142 Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. 2011. "Collective Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter. 143 Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. 2011. "Collective Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter. 144 Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. 2011. "Collective Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter. 145 Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. 2011. "Collective Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter. 146 Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. 2011. "Collective Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter. 147 Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. 2011. "Collective Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter. 148 Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. 2011. "Collective Impact." Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter. 149 Hanleybrown, Faye, John Kania, and Mark Kramer. 2012. "Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work." Stanford Social Innovation Review, January 26. 150 Hanleybrown, Faye, John Kania, and Mark Kramer. 2012. "Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work." Stanford Social Innovation Review, January 26. 151 Hanleybrown, Faye, John Kania, and Mark Kramer. 2012. "Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work." Stanford Social Innovation Review, January 26.

42

152 Hanleybrown, Faye, John Kania, and Mark Kramer. 2012. "Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work." Stanford Social Innovation Review, January 26. 153 Hanleybrown, Faye, John Kania, and Mark Kramer. 2012. "Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work." Stanford Social Innovation Review, January 26. 154 Hanleybrown, Faye, John Kania, and Mark Kramer. 2012. "Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work." Stanford Social Innovation Review, January 26. 155 Hanleybrown, Faye, John Kania, and Mark Kramer. 2012. "Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work." Stanford Social Innovation Review, January 26. 156 Cohen, L., N. Baer, and P. Satterwhite. 2002. "Developing Effective Coalitions: An Eight Step Guide." In Community Health Education & Prootion: A Guide to Program Design and Evaluation, 144-161. Gaithersburg. 157 Cohen, L., N. Baer, and P. Satterwhite. 2002. "Developing Effective Coalitions: An Eight Step Guide." In Community Health Education & Prootion: A Guide to Program Design and Evaluation, 144-161. Gaithersburg. 158 Cohen, L., N. Baer, and P. Satterwhite. 2002. "Developing Effective Coalitions: An Eight Step Guide." In Community Health Education & Prootion: A Guide to Program Design and Evaluation, 144-161. Gaithersburg. 159 County Health Rankings. 2016. County Health Rankings and Roadmaps. Accessed February 2017. http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/roadmaps/action-center.