State of the States (current to 2001)
II. Green Plan Capacity Across the Fifty States

Featured in this section is the 100-point, 65-indicator Green Plan Capacity Index. Contributing elements of the Index are dissected and the performance of individual states is analyzed. This assessment is the result of original research as well as secondary analyses, mainly of the work done by other nonprofit research organizations.

In creating the GPC Index, RRI’s objective was to establish a systematic process for gauging state progress in advancing the goals of sustainable development. The Index can inform the actions of any state wishing to improve its management of the environment by providing both a 50-state overview of policies and practices and an evaluation of how these activities are contributing to the pursuit of a sustainable future.

The GPC Index is comprised of the following four sub-indices:

• comprehensiveness of the environmental management framework;
• level of environmental policy innovation;
• fiscal and program commitment; and
• quality of governance.

The environmental management framework provides the essential structure for establishing a successful green plan. Analysis of a state’s framework reveals whether the state has the institutional capacity to develop and implement the multi-tiered, multimedia provisions of green planning. Indicators employed in making this determination include: the existence of a state sustainability plan and a high quality, up-to-date State of the Environment (SoE) report; availability and scope of environmental information; and the existence of modern state land use planning legislation. Also considered is the presence of strategic entities such as a state planning office or progress board that conducts long range planning. RRI’s review of state agency websites offers a snapshot of how states are capitalizing on the opportunities provided by the Internet, a powerful medium that can foster the accessible, cross-sector interchange required for effective green planning. Also included in this analysis is the proportion of federally delegable programs actually delegated to state environmental agencies —a useful indicator of states that are willing to develop strong environmental programs.

The level of environmental policy innovation indicates the degree to which a state seeks continuous improvement of its environmental programs. The success of any green plan hinges on the power of the innovations brought to the process. Thus, innovation is the most heavily weighted of the four attributes surveyed in this report—accounting for 40 of the 100- point GPC Index. There are a total of 11 indicators of innovation, which encompass a range of environmental concerns contributing to a strategic management approach. The GPC analysis included an assessment of policies on air quality, pollution prevention, energy, climate change, waste management, land use planning, cooperative agreements, and public disclosure. There were other important indicators of innovation for which data from all 50 states were not available, including the existence of watershed-based planning programs, that RRI will seek to include in future surveys. The current ability of states to innovate is constrained by the generally inflexible nature of federal environmental statutes that are the basis for many state policies. Notable efforts to encourage innovation and overcome existing limitations include a bipartisan measure in Congress (H.R.3448, “Second Generation of Environmental Improvement Act”) that calls for “new approaches to address remaining and emerging environmental problems ... ” and fosters “innovation in the pursuit of enhanced environmental quality.”

Fiscal and program commitment reflects the priority a state places on environmental quality. The indicators employed to assess this third core component of green plan capacity include environmental agency budgets, funding for open space protection, funding for public transit, and commitment to recycling programs. With regard to agency budgets it should be noted that in some states environmental agencies are subsidiary to larger health agencies, therefore making it difficult to precisely determine in all cases the level of fiscal investment earmarked for environmental programs. Overall, a state’s commitment in these areas demonstrates a longterm investment supportive of green planning.

Quality of governance, the fourth and final attribute assessed in this report, indicates the functionality (or dysfunctionality) of a state’s governing bodies. It also reflects internal government capacity to conduct long-term planning and involve the public in the planning process. Presented here is an overall analysis of governance, state by state, that considers numerous factors including the soundness of accounting practices, public accountability, and willingness to plan strategically and long-term. Data for these factors were drawn from a comprehensive study of state-level governance periodically undertaken by Governing magazine. Two additional indicators used were the existence of “green procurement” programs for state government purchasing and operations, and the level of voter participation in the 1996 elections, a general, but useful, indicator of involvement in the democratic process.

Together, the four core attributes of the GPC Index present an aggregate measure of internal state government capacity for green planning.

The weighting of the sub-indices and indicators was not an exact science and it required interpretation of the data. As exhibited in Appendix A, substantial effort was made to standardize data analysis and the general scoring system to create a consistent methodology that would enable meaningful state comparisons to be made. Framework and innovation sub-indices account for three-quarters of the total GPC Index points (75 of 100). This is primarily a function of their relative importance to green plan implementation, hence, the reason these two subindices comprise the bulk of the indicators used in determining green plan capacity. It was also felt that limiting the weight of the commitment and governance sub-indices would lessen the skewing of results that might occur when attempting to compare states with vastly different demographics. Moreover, doing so served to circumscribe the significance of the Governing magazine survey, which was not focused on environmental policy but rather on the overall management efforts of states.

Finally, due to a lack of available qualitative data for some indicators, the GPC Index relies more on quantitative than qualitative measures (e.g., existence of programs as opposed to their actual effectiveness). RRI believes that the research results do, however, provide a good initial picture of where each of the 50 states lie on the sustainable development continuum. A more thorough accounting of state performance in the future could be achieved by using standardized measures/ indicators that apply equally for all 50 states.

As determined from the overview of research results presented in Table 1 (and Appendix A), RRI finds state environmental policy at an important crossroads. A select group of states is leading the way in creating effective frameworks for environmental management and establishing progressive policies that, in many cases, take statelevel environmental action beyond federal mandates. At the same time, however, numerous states lag well behind in developing strategies that can solve a new generation of environmental problems. A more extensive explanation of the indicators that make up the GPC Index can be found in a separate technical volume, Detailed Results of the Green Plan Capacity Analysis, which is available upon request.

A. Overview Of Research Results, By State

Seven states emerge as national leaders in possessing the capacity for green planning—the only states to receive more than half of the 100 GPC Index points (see Appendix A for designation of points by indicator). These seven states are remarkable for their diversity and their distribution across the U.S. Leading the nation is Oregon, followed by New Jersey, Minnesota, Maine, Washington, Massachusetts, and Vermont. These states share a strong commitment to environmental protection and innovation that creates the potential for successful green planning. Worth noting is the nonpartisan nature of their achievements. Of these seven states, three of the governors are Democrats, two are Republicans, and two are Independents. It should also be emphasized that if the GPC results were test scores the highest grade given would be a C, as the highest score was 73 out of 100. Thus, according to RRI’s analysis, even among leading states there is still much room for improvement in developing the capacity to implement the green plan model.

Seven States for Sustainable Development

1. Oregon (73 points/100)
Oregon’s long history of environmental leadership on such issues as regional planning and recycling was recently broadened with an Executive Order from Governor John Kitzhaber that promotes sustainability in state government operations (see Appendix C). The Beaver State also completed a comprehensive state of the environment report to help guide the green planning process. In addition, Oregon developed legislation for investigating the potential of a statewide green plan, which has yet to be adopted. This same measure is now being actively pursued in New York (see Appendix C).

2. New Jersey (71 points/100)
With a comprehensive land use plan and a Sustainable State initiative in place, New Jersey is a national leader and innovator in environmental management. Especially encouraging is the collaboration between business and community interests that is embodied in New Jersey Future, a nonprofit group working with state government to guide the Garden State’s “smart growth” and sustainability programs (see www.njfuture.org).

3. Minnesota (64 points/100)
Through programs such as Minnesota Milestones, the Sustainable Development Initiative, and an innovative pollution prevention program, Minnesota is a clear leader in implementing the sustainability agenda. Indeed, if it had been possible to include such factors as statewide watershed planning, existence of a statewide planning agency, and an environmental data clearinghouse, the North Star State would have ranked even higher in this assessment.

4. Maine (59 points/100)
With a governor strongly supportive of environmental sustainability, Maine scores well across the board and appears poised to formally pursue green planning.

5. Washington (57 points/100)
Washington has a solid state of the environment report and scores particularly well on governance and long-term strategic planning. A good example of innovation is the state’s Watershed Management Act of 1998 that established a framework for addressing water resource and water quality issues as well as salmon habitat needs.

6. Massachusetts (57 points/100)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts released a comprehensive state of the environment report on Earth Day 2000 and rates well across a wide range of capacity and innovation indicators. In particular, the state’s pollution prevention legislation—the Toxics Use Reduction Acts—has been lauded for its innovation in requiring more than 500 firms to submit plans for curbing their use of toxic substances.

7. Vermont (55 points/100)
Vermont annually reports on its state of the environment with a topical discussion on a new set of issues each year. Even though small and rural, Vermont is a significant innovator, having adopted California’s tailpipe standards and having put in place pollution prevention and recycling programs.

Notable Actions of Other States

Of the 43 remaining states that received fewer than 50 points on the GPC Index, there are a range of promising initiatives worth mentioning, especially on the policy innovation front. For example:

• Illinois has a community-based environmental monitoring program, EcoWatch, which was recently re-energized with the signing of two Executive Orders establishing the Green Illinois initiative, an ambitious program designed to encourage local communities to preserve and protect the state’s environmental resources.
• Connecticut passed legislation in 1999 encouraging sustainable business practices (see Appendix C). The measure allows greater flexibility for businesses to establish new environmental management systems and encourages companies to adopt practices guided by the CERES Principles and The Natural Step.
• Wisconsin’s Green Tier program, based in part on the Dutch management model, is a voluntary, “beyond compliance” approach designed to produce greater environmental results by businesses.
• California, the only state with air quality legislation in existence prior to the passing of the Clean Air Act in 1972, continues to be a leader in such areas as habitat and species conservation planning, tailpipe emission controls, and the provision of public information on toxic substances. California EPA’s Innovation Initiative represents an important step toward implementing strategic environmental management (see Appendix C).
• Maryland’s smart growth legislation is a blueprint for environmental protection and sprawl reduction that numerous other states have moved to adopt. The state is also a focus of the Chesapeake Bay Program, a unique regional partnership that has been directing the restoration of Chesapeake Bay since the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
• Pennsylvania’s 21st Century Commission recommends strategies to meet targeted environmental priorities and measures progress toward environmental goals. The Commission’s work has led to a number of significant actions including enactment of land use legislation in 2000.
• Though New York lacks an overall vision for sustainable development, the state legislature is taking up landmark legislation that would create a sustainable development task force to assess the feasibility of “adopting a goal-oriented, performance- based regulatory system”—a green plan. The measure has generated uniquely broad and influential support and could provide a model process for other states (see Appendix C).
• Utah possesses solid strategic planning policies and has begun to combat sprawl along the Wasatch Range through the Utah Tomorrow initiative. The next section identifies the top-ranking states in each of the four sub-indices of the GPC Index. It also provides a brief analysis of each of the indicators employed.

B. Overview of Research Results, By Factor

Environmental Management Framework

In descending order, the top 10 states in the Environmental Management Framework sub-index are Oregon, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington, Florida, Maine, Vermont, Utah, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. Not surprisingly, the top three performers are the only states nationally with strategies in place that resemble green plans. All 10 of the top states have strong SoE reports. Over half have state planning offices, either focused on land use (such as New Jersey) or inclusive of broader environmental sustainability objectives (such as Minnesota). Most have excellent environmental agency websites, with many, such as Minnesota, providing comprehensive environmental databases. Almost all have strong state planning roles with supporting legislation.

State Sustainability Planning

Only three states—Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon—have documents and strategies in place that possess major elements of a green plan. These include New Jersey’s cross-sector Sustainable State strategy and Oregon’s Environmental Stewardship Plan supported by the recently released state of the environment report. Minnesota’s sustainability plan is somewhat out of date, having been prepared in 1998 by the Governor’s Sustainability Roundtable, which is no longer in existence.

State of the Environment Reports

As of May 2000, 31 states had comprehensive and recently published state of the environment reports. Defined in this study as a comprehensive assessment of a state’s environmental resources, state of the environment reports provide the foundation for a well-informed green planning process and are a vehicle for ongoing monitoring of and reporting on progress. Four states—Iowa, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Illinois— marked Earth Day 2000 with the release of SoE reports (see Table 2). Oregon and Michigan are notable for their recent creation of science boards to inform the content of their SoE reports.

Availability of Information to the Public

Through the Internet, a new level of information is now readily available to the public across all 50 states. The Internet promises to transform how environmental information is disseminated. In a growing number of states, signs of this transformation are already being seen; new mechanisms for public feedback and input on policy and issues are being provided, such as online response forms, online permitting that makes the regulatory process less cumbersome for businesses, and cross-linked websites that allow access to a wide range of environmental data.

State Planning Office

Twenty-five states have offices with a statewide planning function. Of these, the majority (15) are focused primarily on long-term budget strategy and development of performance measures for state operations. Some of the budget-focused offices are demonstrating noteworthy leadership, such as Missouri’s Center for Performance Innovation with its online Show Me Results indicators program. Six states have state planning offices focused on land use and transportation planning, grappling with the issues of sprawl and smart growth. Five states (Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania) have organizations addressing statewide sustainability planning. The Minnesota Planning agency warrants special mention; it has the most comprehensive forecasting, planning, and sustainability research operation of any state.

Strength of State Planning

Land use and transportation planning is another area of dynamic change and transformation. A recent report by the American Planning Association cites literally thousands of legislative initiatives underway to support the principles of “smart growth” and integrated land use planning. Yet only a dozen states have comprehensive land use planning systems in place.

Federally Delegable Programs Delegated to States

States have expanded their environmental management role through federally delegable programs under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. All but six states have over half of the eligible programs specified under these Acts delegated to them, with 31 states having over two-thirds of such programs delegated. This indicator reflects, in part, a state’s commitment to managing their environment and strengthening the ability of their environmental agencies.

Environmental Policy Innovation

For the indicators selected (including policies on air quality, pollution prevention, energy, climate change, waste management, land use planning, cooperative agreements, and public disclosure), the top 10 states are Massachusetts, Maine, New York, California, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Minnesota, Connecticut, and Washington. The following indicator-byindicator discussion details the relative standings for the environmental policy innovation sub-index.

Air Quality Controls

California, which since the middle of this century has faced enormous air pollution problems, has long been a leader in air quality policy and remains so today. It was the first state to mandate air quality and tailpipe standards above the federal standards of the Clean Air Act. The United States EPA has followed the lead of California in setting national air quality policy. Since 1990, states have been able to join California by adopting their tailpipe emission standards. To date, four states—New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine—have elected to do so.

Pollution Prevention

All 50 states have a pollution prevention (P2) program in place, with 38 states having specific legislation to support them. Of these, only 17 have reporting requirements for industry and only in 14 states does the legislation provide funding specifically for P2 programs. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Minnesota have noteworthy pollution prevention programs.

Renewable Energy

Energy policy supportive of renewables throughout the 50 states was the focus of an April 2000 research report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The study found that a number of states, usually in tandem with ongoing electricity market restructuring programs, are integrating support for renewable energy into their new policy frameworks. The report cites special standards and funds that encourage renewable electricity development as the two policy strategies that will have the greatest effect in moving states toward more sustainable energy sources. To date, six states—Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—have adopted both of these strategies. This is an important development. As the UCS report notes, “these policies create renewable energy markets and provide measurable commitments to renewables development.”

NEPPS Program

Thirty-eight states have signed National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) agreements. Set up in 1995 by the United States EPA and the Environmental Council of the States, this program is intended to grant states increased flexibility in administering federal environmental statutes. NEPPS possesses features actually derived from the green plan model. Most important, like green plans, the program emphasizes management for results through its use of long-term goals and indicators to measure progress. States possessing strong green plan capacity, in particular New Jersey, have benefited most from the NEPPS program.

Environmental Leadership Programs

An environmental leadership programs (ELP) is defined by the Tellus Institute as a “voluntary program that offers incentives to facilities for striving to achieve environmental performance beyond that required by law or by regulation.” In their recent review of ELPs across the U.S., the Institute found a total of 12 active ELPs, with nine of these authorized by statute. These nine states were Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Texas.

Greenhouse Gas Inventories and Climate Change Action Plans

Global climate change is emerging as a topic of major concern across the 50 states. Through the support of the EPA, 34 states have developed inventories of greenhouse gas emissions and 25 have climate change action plans. Although these reports are important indicators of potential climate change awareness, the substantive response varies from state to state. According to the reports of several nonprofit groups, in some states, such as New Jersey, state agencies have done an impressive job of implementing their plans; while in other states, including New York, California, and Minnesota, leadership is instead coming from researchers in the nonprofit sector.

Disclosure Mandates

The federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act has been a significant success in enabling public disclosure of toxic emissions by industry, as is currently available through the Toxic Release Inventory administered by the EPA. To date, only one state, California, has expanded this mandate to the state level. According to Barry Rabe, “the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 ... supplements existing right-to-know programs through mandatory disclosure of exposure to chemicals known by the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Interestingly, no other state has followed California’s path in this area to date.”

Beverage Container Refund Laws

The first “bottle bills” were created in the 1970s and 1980s by the states of Oregon and Michigan. State beverage container refund laws are now also in existence in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont. States providing deposits on beverage containers are innovators in waste management and have improved recycling and reuse rates dramatically.

Environmental Assessment Requirements

According to a recent article in Environmental Planning and Management a total of 17 states have state-mandated environmental assessment requirements based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Of these, only four—California, Hawaii, Minnesota, and New York—have delegated these requirements to the local government level.

Comprehensive Plan Requirements

Information for this indicator comes from the same American Planning Association report that is used for the indicator on strength of state planning (within the Environmental Management Framework sub-index). Here, the emphasis is on state mandates for local plans to include a select group of innovative elements: awareness of the need for urban growth boundaries, planning ahead for natural hazards, protecting critical and sensitive natural areas, and providing for community input through visioning and public participation. According to the APA report, only four states show a strong commitment to innovation—Arizona, California, Florida, and Washington—each having three or more of the innovative elements as local plan requirements.

Fiscal and Program Commitment

The 10 leaders in the Fiscal and Program Commitment Sub-Index are Oregon, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, New York, California, Washington, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Florida.

Fiscal Commitment: Environmental Programs, Open Space, and Public Transport

States with high per capita spending on environmental programs are Illinois, Oregon, Utah, Delaware, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. Looking at the sub-category of open space protection, strong commitment has been demonstrated by Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont. States with strong commitment to public transit funding include New Jersey, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and Illinois.

Recycling

Each year, Biocycle magazine undertakes its annual “State of Garbage in America” survey. States leading the way on recycling and waste management include Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and South Dakota, all of which have set high recycling targets (over 50%) and are well on the way to achieving them (above 40%).

Quality of Governance

Leading states on the Quality of Governance Sub-Index are Missouri, Washington, Virginia, Utah, and Michigan.

Governance

This indicator is drawn from a state governance survey done by Governing magazine. The survey examined a broad range of state government factors, including financial management, capital management, and managing for results, which are important in assessing green planning capacity as it considers the broader context of effective state governance. For our purposes, the most important of these factors is managing for results, which indicates adoption and implementation of strategic planning by state governments. According to the survey, Missouri, Virginia, Washington, South Carolina, Oregon, and Arizona are leading the way on this front.

Green Procurement Programs

A total of six states have comprehensive plans in place for “environmentally friendly” state government purchasing and operations. In New Jersey and Oregon, these initiatives are supported by executive order. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, and Minnesota also have comprehensive green procurement plans.

Voter Participation Rate

Though not strictly an indicator of internal state government capacity, voter participation is an important reflector of community participation, which often results from good government performance and governance. In the 1996 presidential and state elections, states with high voter participation rates included Maine and Minnesota, both top 10 states on the GPC Index. Other states with high participation rates included Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota.