Napa County's Climate Action Committee: Where's the Action?*

R1

The CAC should increase the sense of urgency in implementing GHG emission reduction actions. This recommendation will not be implemented by the City, as it is not warranted or reasonable. The recommendation does not indicate what timeline should be used for implementation, nor does it define what steps should be taken to "increase the sense of urgency." The State has established specific milestones for local jurisdictions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: a 90% reduction below 1990 levels by 2035, and net zero emissions by 2045. These goals are more immediate than the 2050 net zero goal established by Federal agencies, the United Nations, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In addition, there is much being done already to achieve these goals. The individual member agencies of the Committee have all adopted Climate Emergency Resolutions, and all members have adopted, or are in the process of preparing, Climate Action Plans. The municipalities participating in the Committee have adopted a Joint Powers Agreement, establishing the composition and operations for the Committee, as well as an ongoing funding commitment. The Committee has secured a grant and is in the final process of updating the 2009 regional greenhouse gas emission inventory, which will include specific actions that can be taken by member agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Committee has also directed staff to begin work on an Electric Vehicle Charging Station plan, to determine how the member agencies will meet the goals established by the California Energy Commission Assembly Bill 2127 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Assessment. The Committee has been meeting for a total of 33 months. During that time, Napa has experienced two major wildfires, a pandemic, and a continuing severe drought. A great deal has been accomplished in a short time, despite numerous challenges. <b>R2:</b> The CAC should create monitoring protocols that seek to identify what its individual members have set as goals and to identify whether they have met meaningful standards consistent with those goals. These should be formalized and reported to the CAC on a quarterly basis. This recommendation will not be implemented by the City, as it is not warranted or reasonable. Using individual climate action plans as the basis for monitoring progress towards greenhouse gas reduction goals would require a significant level of effort due to the different timelines and methodologies used by each jurisdiction. For example, both American Canyon's 2012 Climate Action Plan and Calistoga's 2014 Climate Action Plan have a greenhouse reduction goal of 2020, but no goals beyond that date. The City of Napa's 2012 Sustainability Plan has goals for 2030, 2040, and 2050, but it looks only at municipal operations and not at community sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Yountville's 2016 Climate Action Plan has a goal of 2030, St. Helena's 2019 General Plan has goals of 2030 and 2040, and the draft County 2019 Climate Action Plan has goals of 2030 and 2050. Beyond the lack of common timelines used, how each jurisdiction calculates emissions also varies. Different methodologies, definitions, and data sources have been used, as climate modeling has changed greatly over the past 10 years. Lastly, not all jurisdictions have action items that have quantitative reductions in emissions associated with them. Several of the plans have qualitative action items and are not clear as to how reduction goals will be achieved. The value of a single integrated inventory is that all jurisdictions can be analyzed using the same information and modeling to create a basis for comparison, as well as the opportunity to determine how collaborative actions can gain greater reduction through effective collaboration. The Committee is established as a collaborative effort that allows each member agency to retain local control within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the City and Town Councils and Board of Supervisors are held accountable by their respective constituents for meeting greenhouse gas reduction goals. Staff is not aware of any regional climate action committee (including the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority) that monitors member agencies for progress towards meeting each jurisdiction's climate action goals. It is unclear what added value monitoring by the Committee would provide or what steps, if any, would be taken by the Committee for any member that was not meeting "meaningful standards" as established by the Committee.

R2

The CAC should create monitoring protocols that seek to identify what its individual members have set as goals and to identify whether they have met meaningful standards consistent with those goals. These should be formalized and reported to the CAC on a quarterly basis. This recommendation will not be implemented by the City, as it is not warranted or reasonable. Using individual climate action plans as the basis for monitoring progress towards greenhouse gas reduction goals would require a significant level of effort due to the different timelines and methodologies used by each jurisdiction. For example, both American Canyon’s 2012 Climate Action Plan and Calistoga’s 2014 Climate Action Plan have a greenhouse reduction goal of 2020, but no goals beyond that date. The City of Napa’s 2012 Sustainability Plan has goals for 2030, 2040, and 2050, but it looks only at municipal operations and not at community sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Yountville’s 2016 Climate Action Plan has a goal of 2030, St. Helena’s 2019 General Plan has goals of 2030 and 2040, and the draft County 2019 Climate Action Plan has goals of 2030 and 2050. Beyond the lack of common timelines used, how each jurisdiction calculates emissions also varies. Different methodologies, definitions, and data sources have been used, as climate modeling has changed greatly over the past 10 years. Lastly, not all jurisdictions have action items that have quantitative reductions in emissions associated with them. Several of the plans have qualitative action items and are not clear as to how reduction goals will be achieved. The value of a single integrated inventory is that all jurisdictions can be analyzed using the same information and modeling to create a basis for comparison, as well as the opportunity to determine how collaborative actions can gain greater reduction through effective collaboration. The Committee is established as a collaborative effort that allows each member agency to retain local control within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the City and Town Councils and Board of Supervisors are held accountable by their respective constituents for meeting greenhouse gas reduction goals. Staff is not aware of any regional climate action committee (including the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority) that monitors member agencies for progress towards meeting each jurisdiction’s climate action goals. It is unclear what added value monitoring by the Committee would provide or what steps, if any, would be taken by the Committee for any member that was not meeting “meaningful standards” as established by the Committee.

R3

The CAC should provide a detailed prioritized list of potential projects for possible grant funding and either retain or designate a current staff person as a grant researcher and writer to identify and seek grants from any possible source. This recommendation has been implemented, as it pertains to the City. Staff to the Committee have already secured one $50,000 grant and continue to search for other appropriate potential funding opportunities, where local agencies qualify and where funding to support and implement the grant has been allocated at the direction of the member agencies of the Committee. The City has independently allocated funds in its 2022/2023 budget to fund the Committee, is currently working on an ordinance banning gas-powered leaf blowers, and has allocated funds to provide grants to help implement that effort. <b>R4:</b> The CAC should restructure itself to provide authority over and accountability of its member jurisdictions. This recommendation will not be implemented by the City, as it is not warranted or reasonable. The Committee is established as a collaborative effort that allows each member agency to retain local control within its jurisdiction. The Grand Jury is proposing a restructuring of the Committee to convert it into a regional climate agency, with the ability to enforce and regulate within member jurisdictions. The Grand Jury describes, "...the problem of each jurisdiction going its own way and operating on a non-collaborative course." They advocate for the creation of a new bureaucracy, where power over climate change can be centralized and enforced. Certainly, such an approach can lead to greater and faster action. However, the Grand Jury does not discuss the disadvantages of such an approach. A regional agency would be able to enforce actions against a member agency, regardless of the fiscal or economic impact on the jurisdiction. Solutions that work in a City of 75,000 may be equally applied in a Town of less than 4,000, or a rural community where they may not be effective or relevant. Residents and businesses who may be disproportionately and adversely affected by new regulations would not have a place to appeal any decision and would not be able to directly vote for the decision makers. If this model were the most effective approach, it seems that the State would have created a centralized regulatory agency to administer climate change requirements throughout California, but that has not occurred. The sources of greenhouse gas emissions, patterns of community development, demographics, and lifestyles of communities in Napa County are very diverse. A uniform, top-down strategy to expedite action on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can lead to oversimplification and may instead impede progress by focusing scarce resources enforcing a "one-size-fits-all" solution. Moreover, City staff are unaware of any region within the State of California that has adopted such a model. The Sonoma County process referred to in the Grand Jury report is not binding on member jurisdictions. The countywide plan is made available for each municipality to consider on its own. It should be noted that an appeal of the Superior Court decision regarding the California Environmental Quality Act document for the Sonoma countywide climate action plan was not pursued because member agencies did not unanimously support continued action. As a result, an Environmental Impact Report for the Sonoma countywide climate plan was never certified. The other examples of regional climate agencies that staff are familiar with are also advisory; none have legal authority over the participating jurisdictions. The Grand Jury is advocating for a new agency with powers over climate action planning and implementation that has not been attempted anywhere in California. At a minimum, a great deal more thought and consideration should be applied to the question, rather the casual support given to such a radical idea by the Grand Jury.

R4

The CAC should restructure itself to provide authority over and accountability of its member jurisdictions. This recommendation will not be implemented by the City, as it is not warranted or reasonable. The Committee is established as a collaborative effort that allows each member agency to retain local control within its jurisdiction. The Grand Jury is proposing a restructuring of the Committee to convert it into a regional climate agency, with the ability to enforce and regulate within member jurisdictions. The Grand Jury describes, “...the problem of each jurisdiction going its own way and operating on anon-collaborative course.” They advocate for the creation of anew bureaucracy, where power over climate change can be centralized and enforced. Certainly, such an approach can lead to greater and faster action. However, the Grand Jury does not discuss the disadvantages of such an approach. A regional agency would be able to enforce actions against a member agency, regardless of the fiscal or economic impact on the jurisdiction. Solutions that work in a City of 75,000 may be equally applied in a Town of less than 4,000, or a rural community where they may not be effective or relevant. Residents and businesses who may be disproportionately and adversely affected by new regulations would not have a place to appeal any decision and would not be able to directly vote for the decision makers. If this model were the most effective approach, it seems that the State would have created a centralized regulatory agency to administer climate change requirements throughout California, but that has not occurred. The sources of greenhouse gas emissions, patterns of community development, demographics, and lifestyles of communities in Napa County are very diverse. A uniform, top-down strategy to expedite action on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can lead to oversimplification and may instead impede progress by focusing scarce resources enforcing a “one-size-fits-all” solution. Moreover, City staff are unaware of any region within the State of California that has adopted such a model. The Sonoma County process referred to in the Grand Jury report is not binding on member jurisdictions. The countywide plan is made available for each municipality to consider on its own. It should be noted that an appeal of the Superior Court decision regarding the California Environmental Quality Act document for the Sonoma countywide climate action plan was not pursued because member agencies did not unanimously support continued action. As a result, an Environmental Impact Report for the Sonoma countywide climate plan was never certified. The other examples of regional climate agencies that staff are familiar with are also advisory; none have legal authority over the participating jurisdictions. The Grand Jury is advocating for a new agency with powers over climate action planning and implementation that has not been attempted anywhere in California. At a minimum, a great deal more thought and consideration should be applied to the question, rather the casual support given to such a radical idea by the Grand Jury. RS: To benefit its work, the CAC should consider the following actions: (A) Reducing the number of CAC members, currently from 12 (2 per jurisdiction), to 6 (1 per jurisdiction) to facilitate faster action, use of advisors and plan development; and (B) Utilize county citizens familiar with GHG emission reduction strategies to assist the CAC in the preparation of recommended actions. This recommendation will not be implemented by the City, as it is not warranted or reasonable. The Grand Jury does not point to any evidence in their report to demonstrate that a smaller Committee would be more effective. The two examples cited in their report do not support this conclusion. The Sonoma County Climate Action Committee is similar to Napa County and has two representatives from each jurisdiction for a total of 24 members (compared to Napa’s 12 members). It should be noted that the Sonoma Regional Climate Authority, which the Sonoma Climate Action Committee advises, also has 12 members. There is no reference to a Contra Costa Climate Action Committee. Jt is assumed the reference in the Grand Jury report is to the Contra Costa County Sustainability Commission, which has 17 members. In addition, the Mendocino County Climate Action Advisory Committee has 15 members. Other than a passing reference by the Grand Jury to “...an ungainly body of mostly elected officials...,” the report offers no constructive criticism or facts to support their unsubstantiated recommendation. The Committee has an extensive history of considering input from county residents and interested parties regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. On August 28, 2020, the Committee heard a presentation from Napa Climate Now! regarding budget conscious climate actions. On February 26, 2021, the Committee heard a presentation from the California Hydrogen Business Council, on hydrogen vehicles and fueling stations for local governments. On March 26, 2021, the Committee heard a presentation on the Napa Green program. On April 23, 2021, the Committee heard a presentation on forest health from the Napa County Resource Conservation District. On May 28, 2021, the California Land Stewardship Institute gave a presentation to the Committee on the Climate Adaptation Certification, a comprehensive science and winegrower collaboration to benefit agriculture and the environment. On June 25, 2021, the Committee heard a presentation from the Napa County Bicycle Coalition regarding Safe Routes to School: Parent Perception Research. On July 23, 2021, Napa Climate Now! made a second presentation to the Committee on a Reusable Foodware and Waste Reduction Ordinance. On October 22, 2021, Napa Schools gave a presentation to the Committee. On April 22, 2022, the Committee heard from City of Napa staff regarding solid waste and recycling programs and potential projects. On July 26, 2022, Community Climate Solutions gave a presentation on the Napa County Climate Challenge website. The Committee will continue to seek out and encourage ideas from local residents and organizations and will welcome public comment on the proposed greenhouse gas reduction action items that will be included with the updated regional inventory. The City welcomes and appreciates the Grand Jury’s interest in the City’s operations, as well as the opportunity to respond to the findings and recommendations contained in the report. Sincerely, Geoff Ellsworth+Mayor \ On Behalf of the City Council City of St. Helena

R5

To benefit its work, the CAC should consider the following actions: (A) Reducing the number of CAC members, currently from 12 (2 per jurisdiction), to 6 (1 per jurisdiction) to facilitate faster action, use of advisors and plan development; and (B) Utilize county citizens familiar with GHG emission reduction strategies to assist the CAC in the preparation of recommended actions. This recommendation will not be implemented by the City, as it is not warranted or reasonable. The Grand Jury does not point to any evidence in their report to demonstrate that a smaller Committee would be more effective. The two examples cited in their report do not support this conclusion. The Sonoma County Climate Action Committee is similar to Napa County and has two representatives from each jurisdiction for a total of 24 members (compared to Napa's 12 members). It should be noted that the Sonoma Regional Climate Authority, which the Sonoma Climate Action Committee advises, also has 12 members. There is no reference to a Contra Costa Climate Action Committee. It is assumed the reference in the Grand Jury report is to the Contra Costa County Sustainability Commission, which has 17 members. In addition, the Mendocino County Climate Action Advisory Committee has 15 members. Other than a passing reference by the Grand Jury to "...an ungainly body of mostly elected officials...," the report offers no constructive criticism or facts to support their unsubstantiated recommendation. The Committee has an extensive history of considering input from county residents and interested parties regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. On August 28, 2020, the Committee heard a presentation from Napa Climate Now! regarding budget conscious climate actions. On February 26, 2021, the Committee heard a presentation from the California Hydrogen Business Council, on hydrogen vehicles and fueling stations for local governments. On March 26, 2021, the Committee heard a presentation on the Napa Green program. On April 23, 2021, the Committee heard a presentation on forest health from the Napa County Resource Conservation District. On May 28, 2021, the California Land Stewardship Institute gave a presentation to the Committee on the Climate Adaptation Certification, a comprehensive science and winegrower collaboration to benefit agriculture and the environment. On June 25, 2021, the Committee heard a presentation from the Napa County Bicycle Coalition regarding Safe Routes to School: Parent Perception Research. On July 23, 2021, Napa Climate Now! made a second presentation to the Committee on a Reusable Foodware and Waste Reduction Ordinance. On October 22, 2021, Napa Schools gave a presentation to the Committee. On April 22, 2022, the Committee heard from City of Napa staff regarding solid waste and recycling programs and potential projects. On July 26, 2022, Community Climate Solutions gave a presentation on the Napa County Climate Challenge website. The Committee will continue to seek out and encourage ideas from local residents and organizations and will welcome public comment on the proposed greenhouse gas reduction action items that will be included with the updated regional inventory. The City welcomes and appreciates the Grand Jury's interest in the City's operations, as well as the opportunity to respond to the findings and recommendations contained in the report. • . . Sincerely, Geoff Ellsworth, Mayor<br>On Behalf of the City Council<br>City of St. Helena