State of the States (current to 2001)
Introduction

Preface
Introduction
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements

Preface

The purpose of this report is to bring greater attention to the important and evolving role of states in safeguarding the nation’s environmental health and in determining how society will develop in the future. It is intended to help policy makers and opinion leaders develop solutions to increasingly complex environmental, social, and economic problems. Provided is an overview of the policies and programs now being employed in each of the 50 states and an assessment of how these actions are contributing to the ability of states to pursue sustainable development. The State of the States offers a composite picture of the present and a lighted view of the path leading toward a sustainable future.

In order to compare the performance of individual states, we have developed the Green Plan Capacity Index (GPC Index), a multi-faceted measure that uses 65 indicators to examine four fundamental components of sustainable development: 1) the environmental management framework, 2) environmental policy innovation, 3) fiscal and program commitment, and 4) quality of governance.

Accompanying this state-by-state analysis are detailed case studies of Oregon, New Jersey, and Minnesota—three leaders nationally in applying the sustainable principles of green planning. Resource Renewal Institute (RRI) has served as a catalyst for the progress being made in each of these states.

Green plans are long-term, comprehensive environmental management strategies aimed at achieving environmental and economic sustainability. Their effectiveness is being demonstrated in a growing number of locations worldwide, including the Netherlands and New Zealand. In fact, the success of green planning abroad has been a primary source of inspiration for sustainability initiatives in this country, particularly at the state level. As an established strategy with quantifiable attributes, green planning provides a stable foundation for this study.

A key tenet of sustainable development is the integration of economic, environmental, and social issues. Although the overarching goal of both RRI and this report is to advance sustainable development, green plans and the GPC Index are weighted toward the environment. This reflects both history and practical reality. While modern thinking has expanded to encompass the concept of sustainability, our capacity to manage for it is just beginning to take shape. Because of the complex nature of environmental issues, the integrated and long-term strategies required for green planning are best developed in the environmental arena. This reality is reflected in the current parameters of the GPC Index.

In the vanguard of green planning, many countries in the European Union, and some U.S. states, are beginning to develop integrated sustainability programs—simultaneously managing economic, environmental, and social systems. As these programs become established, we anticipate the advent of new indices that provide an even fuller account of where governments are and where they need to be.

The development of this report required the creation of an entirely new methodology. In designing the GPC Index, we were confronted with various limitations that ranged from inconsistent data quality to a lack of information for all 50 states. For a number of relevant factors—such as the existence of watershed-based planning—reliable data for every state was not readily available. While this may have diminished the diversity of indicators used, it did not prevent us from achieving our research goals for each of the four components examined. A more detailed discussion of the data limitations is provided in Section II.

Another significant challenge was accounting for the very real differences that exist among states. Wide variations in size, demographics, economics, and other characteristics made direct comparison difficult. As Steve Brown of the Environmental Council of the States points out, “States with less environmental degradation are less pressed to conduct the sorts of policy initiatives they are being graded on” and therefore may be ranked lower than deserved. This fundamental concern was addressed by not pinning a state’s ranking on a single measure, but rather on a range of factors that together provide a fair representation of individual state actions and performance. In addition, a separate analysis of state environmental quality is presented in Appendix B, to distinguish green plan capacity from current environmental conditions.

While RRI has made every effort to conduct a rigorous GPC analysis, certain subjective interpretations were necessary, as conveyed in the description of our methodology (Appendix A). Methodological refinements may be required in subsequent editions of this report.

It was clear when we began this project that significant hurdles would be encountered along the way. In addition to limitations in the availability and comparability of data, there were also limitations in the means for measuring the capacity to achieve sustainability, and in the resources that our small organization could devote to this venture. Paul Burnet of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality summed up the formidable nature of this task in his review of the report, noting that “Trying to understand, let alone quantify, the factors that make a state or community the way it is can be very difficult. I applaud your efforts ... and commend you on an ambitious piece of work.”

Ultimately, The State of the States presents the best information available for determining the readiness of states to address and attain sustainable development. We offer this initial analysis not as a finished product, but as a work in progress, a first step toward understanding the crucial role states can play in securing the nation’s quality of life into the 21st century. As the report makes clear, the path to a sustainable future is fraught with ups and downs and twists and turns, but it is one that more and more states seek to travel. It is our hope that this report will stimulate a state-to-state interchange that leads to the deliberate and shared pursuit of sustainable states and a sustainable nation.

The State of the States: Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning provides the most comprehensive appraisal yet undertaken of individual state preparedness to implement sustainability as integral public policy. It does so through the lens of green planning, a widely applied sustainable development strategy. The report is part of Resource Renewal Institute’s (RRI’s) Campaign for a Sustainable Future, an education and advocacy effort aimed at ushering in a new generation of environmental achievement.

Green plans engage all sectors—business, government, non-governmental organizations, and the general public—in a deliberate process to solve the complex environmental, economic, and social problems that threaten future quality of life. Green planning represents an evolution of environmental management practices that go beyond regulatory compliance to make sustainable development the driving objective. Green plans are being instituted in a growing number of nations worldwide, most notably the Netherlands and New Zealand, with remarkable results. Inspired by these international examples, a handful of states in this country have been developing green plan initiatives of their own.

Acute recognition of the need for more effective environmental policies—as well as increased awareness of the interconnected nature of economic, environmental, and social problems—are accelerating the push for public policy and public decision-making systems that are grounded in the cooperative and integrated principles of green planning. In the United States, nowhere is this activity more apparent than in the growing number of state governments that are setting the pace for lasting change, an encouraging trend that carries with it the promise of a sustainable future.

Never have states played a more central role than they do today in safeguarding the nation’s environmental health, yet little has been done to assess whether existing state policies and programs are adequate to achieve sustainable development—“meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” In an effort to fill this void, RRI, with technical guidance from the Tellus Institute, has developed the Green Plan Capacity Index, a tool that measures four core attributes of effective environmental management and successful green planning:

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

Although sustainability is broader than these four attributes, proficiency in these areas provides a good indication of a state’s ability to develop and institute working strategies to realize sustainable development. The programs assessed in this report generally require states to evaluate public issues from a systems perspective, adopt a long time horizon, and integrate solutions over a wide range of issues. In essence, the report analyzes states’ capacity to understand and act on sustainable development. Comprising the Green Plan Capacity Index are 65 factors that cover a broad range of available information, from the existence of climate change action plans and state of the environment reports to the quality of pollution prevention and recycling programs, levels of environmental funding, and caliber of management. Each of these factors contributes to a state’s overall environmental performance. Together, they paint a clearer picture of how far states have come and how much further they must go to secure lasting protection of the environment.

Overall, the report finds that:

• State environmental policy in the United States is at a crossroads. A select group of states is leading the way in creating effective environmental management models and establishing policies that, in many cases, take state environmental programs beyond federal mandates. At the same time, however, most states lag well behind in preparing themselves for increasingly complex environmental problems that can only be solved with new strategies.
• Despite their expanding role as stewards of the environment, the vast majority of states lack the necessary capacity to implement green plans and actively pursue sustainable development. Only seven states received more than half of the 100 points possible in the Green Plan Capacity Index. Oregon ranked number one with 73 points, followed by New Jersey (71), Minnesota (64), Maine (59), Washington (57), Massachusetts (57), and Vermont (55). Worth noting is the nonpartisan nature of their achievements. Of the top seven states, three of the governors are Democrats, two are Republicans, and two are Independents.
• States that have made the greatest progress in developing sustainability strategies have derived major aspects of their programs from the examples provided by countries with established green plans. For example, leaders in Oregon, New Jersey, and Minnesota have visited either the Netherlands or New Zealand and have hosted Dutch delegations in their states. In the case of New Jersey, a working relationship has been established with the Dutch government that has, among other collaborations, resulted in joint action on climate change.
• Most states are working to improve their environmental performance on specific fronts—smart growth, water quality, brownfields clean-up, land acquisition, etc.— but few have worked to integrate these efforts as pieces of the larger sustainability puzzle that needs to be assembled. Moreover, nearly all states have failed to link environmental protection efforts to the other defining elements of sustainable development—economic security and social equity.
• While there is much room for improvement and cause for concern, there is also good reason to be optimistic. States have become incubators for an array of innovative new strategies, often self-funded, to address pressing environmental needs. Pollution prevention, regulatory integration, and economic incentives for improved environmental performance are three areas in which states are making meaningful strides to increase their effectiveness—with or without help from the federal government. They are also key features of green planning. As the compelling benefits of these and other innovations become clear, it can be expected that many more states will act to adopt improved policies of their own and, for optimal results, to do so within the context of green planning.

The following are some of the report’s specific findings:

1. On the strength of a state’s environmental management framework

• A variety of indicators of adequate infrastructure and institutional capacity were considered. In descending order, the top 10 states are Oregon, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington, Florida, Maine, Vermont, Utah, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. 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.
• As of the release of this report, only Oregon, New Jersey, and Minnesota had documents and strategies in place that encompass major elements of green planning. These include New Jersey’s cross-sector Sustainable State strategy and Oregon’s Environmental Stewardship Plan. 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.
• As of May 2000, 31 states had comprehensive and recently-published state of the environment reports (SoE’s), with a number of these states weaving their reporting into broader sustainability initiatives. 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 a vehicle for ongoing monitoring of and reporting on progress. Each of the 10 highest ranking states have strong SoE reports. Four states—Iowa, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Illinois—marked Earth Day 2000 with the release of SoE reports. Oregon and Michigan are notable for their creation of science boards to inform the content of their state of the environment reports.
• 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 that are grappling with 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 as it has the most comprehensive forecasting, planning, and sustainability research operation of any state.
• 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 in the U.S. 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.

2. On the level of 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.
• All 50 states have some form of pollution prevention program in place, with 38 states having specific supporting legislation in place. Of these, only 17 have reporting requirements for industry and only in 14 states does the legislation provide funding specifically for the P2 programs. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Minnesota have noteworthy pollution prevention programs. Moving from pollution control to pollution prevention is a guiding tenet of green planning.
• A number of states, usually in tandem with ongoing electricity market restructuring programs, are integrating support for renewable energy into their 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.
• Thirty-eight states have signed National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) agreements. Set up in 1995 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (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.
• Global climate change is emerging as a topic of major concern across the 50 states and, 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 climate change awareness, the substantive response varies from state to state. In some states, such as New Jersey, state agencies have done an impressive job of implementing their plans; while in others, including New York, California, and Minnesota, leadership is instead coming from researchers in the nonprofit sector.

3. On fiscal and program commitment

• The 10 leaders in this sub-index are Oregon, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, New York, California, Washington, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Florida. Measures considered include environmental agency budgets, funding for public transit, and commitment to open space protection and to recycling. States with high per capita spending on environmental programs are Illinois, Oregon, Utah, Delaware, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. States with strong commitment to public transit funding include Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and Illinois. 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% of solid waste recycled) and are well on the way to achieving them (recycling more than 40%).

4. On the quality of governance

• The top states in this sub-index are Missouri, Virginia, Washington, Oregon, and Utah. Used here are the results of 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. For our purposes, the most important of these is managing for results, which indicates adoption and implementation of strategic planning within state governments. On green procurement programs, another indicator employed in this category, 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

In assessing state environmental activities in the above four areas, The State of the States endeavors to provide a common baseline of where the country stands in employing strategies that can ultimately lead to sustainable development. According to the report, arriving at this goal is a threefold proposition:

• First, efforts must be made to expedite expanding interest and initiative by establishing an interstate communication network that informs states of ongoing progress in every region of the country. The network should function as an organizing vehicle for regional and national interchange. Participating entities should include, among others, the Environmental Council of the States, the Multi-State Working Group, the Council of State Governments, the National Council of State Legislatures, and the National Governors Association.
• Second, to optimize the potential of these activities, green planning should be the common thread that weaves them together, ensuring consistency and coordination of sustainable development programs across state lines. High priority should therefore be placed on equipping state leaders with the knowledge and skills required to apply the green plan methodology.
• Third, the federal government must serve as chief facilitator of the transition to a regulatory system that applies the green plan model. Working with states and the private sector, a system of national environmental targets and long-term goals needs to be established that provide the basis for coordinated and efficient action.

The report’s final section, on “Stepping Stones Toward a Sustainable State,” provides a practical plan of action that fuses the major features of green planning with applied examples drawn from highlighted state initiatives. These steps can help any state begin the determined pursuit of a sustainable future.

Providing the impetus for this report is the pressing need to better understand the contributions being made by states in developing and implementing sustainable environmental policies. Increasingly, states are at the forefront in seeking solutions to complex environmental problems, yet little focus has been given to how well states are doing and what more needs to be done. The State of the States seeks to fill this void with a 50-state survey that begins the process of achieving a collective view of state actions and their overall impact on the nation’s environmental health.

The State of the States builds upon the findings and methodologies of a number of earlier studies, including the Green Index and the Gold and Green 2000, which provided at least some comparisons of state environmental policies.

The State of the States provides an updated and expanded view of state policies and their shifting emphasis toward sustainability. To assess the state of the states, RRI has investigated the preparedness of states to embrace the goals of sustainable development and implement green planning, a strategy conceived with sustainability as its overarching purpose. Green plans are proving their effectiveness in a growing number of locations, including the Netherlands and New Zealand whose plans are highlighted in this report.

In the course of this study, we endeavored to develop new analytical measures that enable meaningful comparisons to be made across state boundaries. The centerpiece of this work is the Green Plan Capacity Index (GPC Index), which evaluates the relative ability of states to pursue sustainable development using the established principles of green planning as its basis. A description of the GPC Index is provided in Section II of this report, and details on the research methodology are provided in Appendix A. (A more extensive review of the indicators comprising the GPC Index can be found in a supplemental technical volume, Detailed Results of the Green Plan Capacity Analysis, which is available upon request.)

The GPC Index is complemented by the Institute for Southern Studies’ Gold and Green indices, which rank the 50 states according to socio-economic performance and environmental quality. The Gold and Green rankings indicate that there is a positive relationship between high socio-economic performance and high environmental quality. Furthermore, a comparison of these rankings with the GPC Index shows some overlap between states that perform well socio-economically and environmentally and states that have a significant level of green planning capacity. (See Appendix B.)

RRI first thanks the institutions and individuals whose generous support of RRI’s state advocacy and education efforts made this report possible. They include: Bank of America; Columbia Foundation; G.A.G. Charitable Corporation; the Fred Gellert Family Foundation; The Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, Inc.; Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund; The Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation; the Ittleson Foundation, Inc.; the New York Community Trust, Bob and Blaikie Worth; the New York Times Company Foundation; Patagonia, Inc.; the Rockefeller Family Fund, Inc.; the San Francisco Foundation, Green Tomorrow Fund; Seven Springs Foundation; Springcreek Foundation; and the Surdna Foundation.

We are also grateful to our friends at the Tellus Institute—James Goldstein, Jeanne Herb, and Allen White—for their instrumental role in developing the methodology to assess state Green Plan Capacity. Their gracious contribution of time and talent enabled RRI’s small staff to take on this enormous project.

Special thanks to our esteemed group of reviewers. Their thoughtful comments greatly enhanced the content and relevance of this report. The reviewers are: R. Steven Brown (Deputy Executive Director, Environmental Council of the States); Paul Burnet (Manager, Special Projects, Office of the Director, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality); Ira Feldman (President, Greentrack Strategies, Inc.); James Goldstein (Director, Sustainable Communities Group, Tellus Institute); Jeanne Herb (Senior Scientist and Manager, Public Policy Program, Business and Sustainability Group, Tellus Institute); Diana M. Hinchcliff , Esq. (President, New York State Chemical Alliance); Ken Jones (Executive Director, Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy); Peggy Lauer (Executive Director, The Fred Gellert Family Foundation); David Moore (RRI advisor and former Executive Director of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation); Kenneth Pokalsky (Director, Environmental and Regulatory Programs, New York Business Council); Jerry Speir (Director, Tulane Institute for Environmental Law and Policy); Paul Templet (Professor, Environmental Studies Program, Louisiana State University); John Wells (Sustainable Development Director, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board and Sustainable Development Initiative); and Allen L. White, Ph.D. (Vice President and Director, Business and Sustainability Group, Tellus Institute). (The Resource Renewal Institute is solely responsible for the report’s accuracy and content.) Also, many thanks to Miriam Landman for her deft editing and handling of the countless details involved in finalizing the document and to Kathy Woodruff and Jennifer Broughton for design and layout.

Finally, we pay tribute to the visionary leaders of the Netherlands, New Zealand, and other green plan nations. Their remarkable achievements are inspiring action globally and, RRI first thanks the institutions and individuals whose generous support of RRI’s state advocacy and education efforts made this report possible. They include: Bank of America; Columbia Foundation; G.A.G. Charitable Corporation; the Fred Gellert Family Foundation; The Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, Inc.; Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund; The Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation; the Ittleson Foundation, Inc.; the New York Community Trust, Bob and Blaikie Worth; the New York Times Company Foundation; Patagonia, Inc.; the Rockefeller Family Fund, Inc.; the San Francisco Foundation, Green Tomorrow Fund; Seven Springs Foundation; Springcreek Foundation; and the Surdna Foundation.

We are also grateful to our friends at the Tellus Institute—James Goldstein, Jeanne Herb, and Allen White—for their instrumental role in developing the methodology to assess state Green Plan Capacity. Their gracious contribution of time and talent enabled RRI’s small staff to take on this enormous project.

Special thanks to our esteemed group of reviewers. Their thoughtful comments greatly enhanced the content and relevance of this report. The reviewers are: R. Steven Brown (Deputy Executive Director, Environmental Council of the States); Paul Burnet (Manager, Special Projects, Office of the Director, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality); Ira Feldman (President, Greentrack Strategies, Inc.); James Goldstein (Director, Sustainable Communities Group, Tellus Institute); Jeanne Herb (Senior Scientist and Manager, Public Policy Program, Business and Sustainability Group, Tellus Institute); Diana M. Hinchcliff , Esq. (President, New York State Chemical Alliance); Ken Jones (Executive Director, Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy); Peggy Lauer (Executive Director, The Fred Gellert Family Foundation); David Moore (RRI advisor and former Executive Director of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation); Kenneth Pokalsky (Director, Environmental and Regulatory Programs, New York Business Council); Jerry Speir (Director, Tulane Institute for Environmental Law and Policy); Paul Templet (Professor, Environmental Studies Program, Louisiana State University); John Wells (Sustainable Development Director, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board and Sustainable Development Initiative); and Allen L. White, Ph.D. (Vice President and Director, Business and Sustainability Group, Tellus Institute). (The Resource Renewal Institute is solely responsible for the report’s accuracy and content.)

Also, many thanks to Miriam Landman for her deft editing and handling of the countless details involved in finalizing the document and to Kathy Woodruff and Jennifer Broughton for design and layout.

Finally, we pay tribute to the visionary leaders of the Netherlands, New Zealand, and other green plan nations. Their remarkable achievements are inspiring action globally and, as reported here, in a number of U.S. states. It is our hope that the strides being made by these states can do for the country what green plan nations are doing for the world. as reported here, in a number of U.S. states. It is our hope that the strides being made by these states can do for the country what green plan nations are doing for the world.