Report | Rebates or Planning Grants?

Advancing Equity Through Individual-Based and Community-Based Approaches to Climate Funding

From transitioning to cleaner buildings to cutting pollution from transportation, climate action ultimately takes root at the local level. As federal and state dollars flow into these efforts, policymakers grapple with the potential benefits and drawbacks of incentives that target individual people, households, and businesses, versus those that provide support for projects at the community level. In this white paper, GCC Affiliated Scholar Alice Kaswan^{See footnote 1}  compares individual and community-based funding approaches to inform agency and community group decision-making.

"Putting dollars on the table is one thing,” writes Kaswan, a Professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law and an Affiliated Scholar with GCC. “But as these programs are implemented and lawmakers consider future clean energy funding, major questions arise, such as: How should funds be allocated? Who will benefit? What are the most effective, efficient, and equitable ways to help finance the clean energy transition?"

"Even as the federal government pulls back funding for critical energy and resilience infrastructure, states continue to invest in a cleaner, healthier future," Kaswan explains.  "This research draws on examples from federal programs and from California's long standing climate justice initiatives to discuss how the rubber hits the road on these investments, through tax credits, rebates, grants, and other funding mechanisms."

Read the full white paper: Rebates or Planning Grants? Advancing Equity Through Individual-Based and Community-Based Approaches to Climate Funding