Recent funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) offers opportunities for communities to jointly and equitably pursue local climate action and economic development. Though these goals have a mutually reinforcing relationship, current work at their intersection is still nascent and needs an explicit equity lens.

In a discussion with organizations in Fresno, California, and Rochester, New York, that are pursuing local community and climate goals, we identified three ways cities can advance equitable climate and economic development actions.

1. In planning documents, align short-term and long-term climate action, economic development, and equity goals.
   
   Planning processes are an important vehicle through which local communities can jointly address climate action, economic health, and equity. There is funding available for communities to develop climate resilience plans for addressing the growing impacts of climate change. However, according to a forthcoming report by Urban Institute researchers, equity has not been consistently evaluated or operationalized in local climate action plans, and community and economic development plans have not consistently integrated climate action.
   
   When pursued with no limits, economic growth is often extractive and unsustainable (PDF). According to a local partner, growth often occurs without plans in place to ensure its benefits reach the families most affected by climate change or to mitigate future environmental harms. One discussion participant noted that climate goals can sometimes be in tension with economic growth, such as industry growth that increases airborne pollution and carcinogens by building more petrochemical plants or infrastructure expansions that remove trees with climate benefits.
   
   But cities can prioritize economic health over growth by intentionally embedding short-term and long-term economic goals in climate action plans (and vice versa) in ways that ensure essential needs can be met within earth’s ecological boundaries. Climate action plans could promote circular economy practices of resource efficiency and reuse so new buildings are constructed with low-carbon materials and are energy-efficient, or so food systems are less wasteful and reach underserved communities.
   
   Local planning bodies can address silos between climate and economic plans by opening communication and pursuing joint implementation across government departments—including economic development, sustainability, environment, transportation, public works, parks, housing, and others—and by consulting early and often with local stakeholders with technical expertise and relevant lived experiences. Coordination across state, county, and jurisdictional planning bodies can also deliver equitable outcomes. Vertical integration of plans can lead to involvement of higher levels of authority, encourage progressive planning on a broader scale, enable access to more funding sources, and ensure funding earmarked for states or counties is equitably distributed across jurisdictions.
2. Meaningfully incorporate community input throughout planning processes and move beyond community engagement to community ownership.
   
   Local partners shared that effective community engagement is easier said than done, in part because of challenging funding timelines and local bureaucratic systems. Although there are many methods for authentic community engagement, one approach to building trust and elevating community voice is to identify where community input can actually shape outcomes. Discussion participants suggested that planning bodies should ask themselves: “In what areas can community representatives hold decisionmaking power, and how do we make that happen?”
   
   As a partner from Rochester highlighted, local leaders should be willing to adjust plans to be responsive to community needs. Flexibility and feedback loops allow communities to move forward with good plans knowing that ongoing community involvement can offer continuous improvement.
   
   Redefining who owns plans, property, and infrastructure can help address the power gaps that often exclude communities of color and low-income communities and that are sustained by the dearth of legacy wealth. Community-based organizations and cooperatives can own planning processes and local assets—including climate resilient and perpetually affordable housing, energy systems, and open space—to increase direct benefits for the communities they serve. Investing in entrepreneurs who have historically been locked out of access to capital and economic opportunities can also go a long way toward redistributing wealth, power, and ownership. 
3. Leverage multiple funding streams to equitably advance local and regional work.
   
   Federal funding is available at unprecedented levels—including funding for climate resilience and greening the electric grid, as well as investments in job training and building sustainable transportation infrastructure. Several programs support the flow of resources to local entities. The Community, Equity & Resiliency Initiative can help communities navigate IRA investments, and the Local Infrastructure Hub can help communities apply for infrastructure funding.
   
   Despite the influx of federal funding, it’s still not easy to access. Tracking, applying for, and meeting reporting requirements for federal funds requires capacity many local organizations may not have. Local organizations seeking to leverage IIJA and IRA funding for climate action can consider partnering with local governments on applications or can seek funding with flexible uses—grants without explicit climate or equitable development purposes whose parameters allow for climate activities. Nongovernmental organizations such as the Communities First Infrastructure Alliance and the Justice 40 Accelerator also work with communities to secure federal funding and align it with community-centered capital plans, infrastructure projects, and climate solutions. But federal policymakers may need to improve how they engage with eligible communities, reduce reporting requirements, adopt more flexible deadlines and funding structures, and reform permitting and procurement policy to ensure equitable distribution of funds.
   
   Competitive federal grants aren’t the only option for communities seeking funding for climate initiatives. States and localities receive federal formula funds and can pursue tax credits that sometimes amount to more funding than competitive grants, according to a discussion participant. Plus, federal funding can activate private investment in public-private partnerships and be blended with funding from philanthropic and financial institutions.

While every locality has its own set of contexts and needs, these three strategies can help communities nationwide embed equity in their climate action and economic development planning processes, ensuring that available funding meets the most pressing climate and community goals.