Sustainable Development Through Green

Planning Assessing the Capacity of States

to Achieve Sustainable Development
Through Green Planning Assessing
the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable
Development Through Green Planning
Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve
Sustainable Development Through Green
Planning Assessing the Capacity of
States to Achieve Sustainable
T H E S TAT E O F
Development Through Green Planning T H E S TAT E S
Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve
Sustainable Development Through Green Assessing the Capacity of States to
Achieve Sustainable Development
Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Through Green Planning

Sustainable Development Through

Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of
States to Achieve Sustainable Development
Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity
of States to Achieve Sustainable Development
Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity
of States to Achieve Sustainable Development
$
Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of

Resource Renewal Institute

 I believe that we are entering a new era of environmental politics—an era where
the very nature of the problems we face challenges us to seek new strategies for success—
particularly those that call for, and result in, greater individual responsibility and
accountability for our air, land, and water. You cannot achieve that through regulation;
you cannot achieve that through confrontation; you cannot achieve that through the
courts. You can only achieve that through a collaborative and cooperative process that
engages thousands of Oregonians and gives them a stake in the problem and some degree
of ownership in the solution.

-Oregon Governor
John Kitzhaber

Government must go beyond regulation and offer the vision, create the incentives,
provide the tools, and support those who embrace the vision.

-Former New Jersey

Governor Christine
Todd Whitman

Let this generation in Maine be the one where we achieve a new model for our
economy and our environment—one that is based on sustainability—in which we
utilize resources for people today without comprising their availability and viability for
our children and grandchildren.

-Maine Governor
Angus King
Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve
Sustainable Development Through Green
Planning Assessing the Capacity of States
to Achieve Sustainable Development
Through Green Planning Assessing
the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable
Development Through Green Planning
Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve
Sustainable Development Through Green
Planning Assessing the Capacity of
States to Achieve Sustainable
T H E S TAT E O F
Development Through Green Planning T H E S TAT E S
Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve
Sustainable Development Through Green Planning
Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve
Sustainable Development Through
Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of by Eric Siy
Leo Koziol
States to Achieve Sustainable Development
Darcy Rollins
Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity
of States to Achieve Sustainable Development
Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity
of States to Achieve Sustainable Development
Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity
A report of the Resource
Resource Renewal Institute
Renewal Institute
August 2001
 © Copyright 2001

by the Resource Renewal Institute

All rights reserved

Resource Renewal Institute

Fort Mason Center, Pier One
San Francisco, CA 94123
415.928.3774 (phone) 415.928.6529 (fax)
www.rri.org

If you have any questions or comments on the substance of this report, or

if you would like to receive a copy of the supplemental technical volume—
Detailed Results of the Green Plan Capacity Analysis—please contact us. An
important resource for all green plan practitioners is our website, where
this report is posted, along with internet resources for all fifty states.

Resource Renewal Institute

 $
Table of Contents

Preface .............................................................................................................................................. i.
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. iii.
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ iv.

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1

I. The Imperative for State Leadership on Sustainability ...................................................................... 3

A. The Green Plan Model ...................................................................................................... 4
B. The Challenge of Achieving Sustainability in the United States ......................................... 7

II. Green Plan Capacity Across the Fifty States .................................................................................... 13

A. Overview of Research Results, By State ............................................................................. 20
B. Overview of Research Results, By Factor ........................................................................... 22

III. States on the Green Plan Path ....................................................................................................... 35

A. Oregon: Sowing the Seeds of a Green Plan ........................................................................ 35
B. New Jersey: Translating the Dutch Model .......................................................................... 37
C. Minnesota: The First U.S. Green Plan? ............................................................................. 40

IV. Guiding States Along the Green Plan Path .................................................................................... 45

A. Elements of a Sustainable State .......................................................................................... 48
B. Stepping Stones Toward a Sustainable State ....................................................................... 49

Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix A: GPC Index Methodology and Data Tables .............................................................. 55
Appendix B: A Comparison of GPC Index Rankings with Existing Measures
of State Environmental Quality and Socio-Economic Quality ...................................................... 67
Appendix C: State Legislation and Administrative Action
Related to Sustainable Development............................................................................................. 71

Endnotes ............................................................................................................................................. 93

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 97

Online Resources ................................................................................................................................ 103

Resource Renewal Institute

List of Figures

Figure 1. Previous State-Level Comparative Studies ............................................................................ 1

Figure 2. Sustainable Development as a Global Priority ...................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Structure of GPC Index Methodology.................................................................................. 2
Figure 4. Ten Defining Characteristics of Green Planning ................................................................... 5
Figure 5. Examples of U.S. Sustainability Initiatives ............................................................................ 8
Figure 6a. Green Plan Capacity Index Methodology Overview ........................................................... 14
Figure 6b. Green Plan Capacity Index: Distribution & Weighting ...................................................... 14
Figure 7. Green Plan Capacity (GPC) Index (map) ............................................................................. 23
Figure 8. Leading State Environmental Agency Websites ..................................................................... 25
Figure 9. Pollution Prevention Programs (map) ................................................................................... 27
Figure 10. Energy Policy Supportive of Renewables (map) .................................................................. 27
Figure 11. National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) (map) ........................ 29
Figure 12. Climate Change Action Plans and Greenhouse Gas Inventories (map) ............................... 29
Figure 13. Governance Grade (map) ................................................................................................... 30
Figure 14. Environmental Management Framework Sub-Index (map) ............................................... 32
Figure 15. Fiscal & Program Commitment Sub-Index (map) .............................................................. 32
Figure 16. Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-Index (map) ............................................................ 33
Figure 17. Governance Sub-Index (map) ............................................................................................. 33
Figure 18. New Jersey’s Sustainability Accomplishments ..................................................................... 39
Figure 19. Environmental Threats and Challenges .............................................................................. 46
Figure 20. State of the World Environment 1950-1997 (World Resources Institute) ........................... 47
Figure 21. Vision Statement & Principles of the Minnesota Sustainable
Development Initiative ...................................................................................................... 52

List of Tables

Table 1. Overview Of Research Results – Selected Indicators, GPC Index .......................................... 16

Table 2. Sustainability Plans and State of the Environment Reports, An Overview.............................. 26

Appendix A
Table 3. Environmental Management Framework Sub-Index .............................................................. 60
Table 4. Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-Index ......................................................................... 61
Table 5. Fiscal and Program Commitment Sub-Index ......................................................................... 62
Table 6. Governance Sub-Index .......................................................................................................... 63
Table 7. GPC Index, Final Results I, Ranked ...................................................................................... 64
Table 8. GPC Index, Final Results II, Ranked ..................................................................................... 65

Appendix B
Table 9. Comparison o f GPC Index and Supplemental Index Rankings ............................................. 68

Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

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 environ-
mental 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 Nether-
lands 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, environmen-
tal, 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—simulta-
neously 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.

Resource Renewal Institute i

 The development of this report required the creation of an entirely new methodol-
ogy. 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 limita-
tions 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 characteris-
tics 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 method-
ology (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 compa-
rability 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 determin-
ing 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.

ii Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

Acknowledgements
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.

Resource Renewal Institute iii

 Executive Summary
The State of the States: Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Develop-
ment 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 genera-
tion of environmental achievement.

This report is divided into four sections:

I. The Imperative for State Leadership on Sustainability

Includes an introductory overview of green planning, focusing on the Netherlands and
New Zealand. Discusses the potential for national green planning in the U.S., limita-
tions in progress to date, and future barriers to progress. Sets out why action at the state
level is now key to advancing the sustainable development agenda.
II. A Survey of Green Plan Capacity Across the 50 States
Analysis of the capacity of states to achieve sustainability through green planning,
applying the multi-faceted Green Plan Capacity Index. Provides the GPC Index rankings
of states and descriptions of the individual indicators that together make up the Index.
Numerous graphics included to illustrate the standing of states and the geographic
distribution of indicators.
III. States on the Green Plan Path
Individual profiles of three states making progress along the green plan path—Oregon,
New Jersey, and Minnesota.
IV. Guiding States Along the Green Plan Path
Provides a summary of the essential elements of a sustainable state and a guiding set of
actions and examples for states wishing to embark on the green plan path.

Following these sections are extensive appendices where more detailed information
can be found on the GPC Index and on the strategies being undertaken by states to
address sustainable development.
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.

iv Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

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 prepar-
ing themselves for increasingly complex environmental problems that can only be
solved with new strategies.

Resource Renewal Institute v

 • 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 coun-
tries 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 collabora-
tions, 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 innova-
tive 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 govern-
ment. 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, Minne-
sota, Washington, Florida, Maine, Vermont, Utah, Pennsylvania, and North Caro-
lina. 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

vi Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

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.

Three States Sowing the Seeds of Green Planning

Oregon: As the top ranking state for green plan capacity, Oregon has long been a
national leader on environmental issues. It was the first state to introduce a bottle bill; the first
to institute statewide urban growth management legislation; and the first to create a regional
metropolitan planning agency (Portland Metro). With the work of its Environmental Steward-
ship Plan Committee, Governor Kitzhaber’s executive order on making state operations
sustainable, and a comprehensive state of the environment report, Oregon is poised to lead the
nation to a new level of management capacity that promises to bring sustainable development
within reach. Most encouraging is the fact that these efforts enjoy strong support from the
state’s residents. According to a poll of registered voters conducted in March 2000, a clear
majority of Oregonians—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike—believe that now
is the time to act decisively on behalf of sustainable development.
New Jersey: Two initiatives in particular demonstrate New Jersey’s leadership in
working to shape a sustainable future. First is the state’s Development and Redevelopment Plan,
prepared in 1992, which provides a widely supported blueprint for smart growth. Complement-
ing this effort is the Sustainable State Project, launched in 1999 to guide public and private leaders
in developing new policies that meet the state’s long-term socio-economic and environmental
needs. Both endeavors are products of extensive public outreach. New Jersey does not yet have an
official green plan, but no other state has done more to learn about and incorporate green
planning principles, especially in the areas of flexible, goal-oriented environmental regulation and
statewide land use and transportation planning. Yet, despite these advances, the Sustainable State
Project report rightly concludes that “much work remains to be done if we are to see this project
bear sustainable fruit.”
Minnesota: Like New Jersey, by scrutinizing the ways in which the environment, the
economy, and human communities are interrelated, Minnesota has moved forward on the path
to a sustainable future. The state offers a good model of how to secure the broad participation
necessary to make sustainable development policies a reality. Minnesota has used administrative
and legislative action to establish an impressive framework for sustainable development. In
keeping with the state’s clear vision and principles, the Sustainable Forest Resources Act,
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, and Environmental Regulatory Improvement Act are
examples of Minnesota’s commitment to the three E’s of sustainable development—a healthy
Environment, social Equity, and Economic security. Success in bringing about the changes
called for in the state’s strategic plan, “Challenges for a Sustainable Minnesota,” will require
continued leadership from the public and private interests that have been responsible for the
important strides already made.

Resource Renewal Institute vii

 • 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 comprehen-
sive 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 preven-
tion, 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 report-
ing 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.

viii Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

• 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 environmen-
tal 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 possess-
ing 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 consid-
ered include environmental agency budgets, funding for public transit, and commit-
ment 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

Resource Renewal Institute ix

 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 establish-
ing 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 there-
fore 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.

x Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

Introduction
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 Index1 and the Gold and Green 2000, 2 which
provided at least some comparisons of state environ-
mental policies. (See Figure 1.)
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

Figure 1. Previous State-Level Comparative Studies

• In 2000, the Institute for Southern Studies in Durham, North Carolina, released its second Gold and Green report.
This study compiles 20 indicators of economic performance and 20 indicators of environmental performance and
finds a significant correlation between the two factors.

• The Sierra Club developed a Sprawl Index for the 50 states that was released in a 1999 report titled Solving Sprawl.1
The report ranks states according to their relative progress on four factors: open space protection, land use planning,
transportation planning, and community revitalization. It also inventories the existence of statewide comprehensive
planning and open space protection legislation, two factors that are incorporated into the GPC Index.

• There are numerous studies that focus on economic and social indicators across the states. One of the more compre-
hensive of these was the Development Report Card undertaken by the Corporation for Enterprise Development, an
entity that recognizes the need to incorporate the principles of sustainability into economic indicators.2 Their index
for 1999 measures development capacity, business vitality, and performance in all 50 states, and clearly denotes how
these measures are linked to and affected by state policy. In particular, the index attempts to integrate sustainability
and environmental factors with the economic and social factors examined.3

• A comprehensive study of state-level governance is undertaken annually by Governing magazine. This study, which is
based on hundreds of state agency interviews, ranks states according to the following factors: financial management,
capital management, human resources, information technology, and managing for results. Of these, the measure of
greatest relevance to green planning is managing for results. States that are already instituting goal-oriented planning
may be the most receptive to the green planning approach.4

1. Solving Sprawl: The Sierra Club Rates the States, Sierra Club, Washington, D.C., 1999.
2. Development Report Card for the States: Economic Benchmarks for State and Corporate Decision Makers. Corporation for Enterprise Development,
Washington D.C., 1999. Also see: The State New Economy Index: Benchmarking Economic Transformation in the States, Progressive Policy Institute,
Technology and New Economy Project, Washington, D.C., 1999.
3. The Report Card included “resource efficiency and quality of life [sub-indices]… to reflect [our] view that economic development in the new
millennium must be sustainable development.”
4. Another survey of goal-oriented planning within states focuses upon environmental planning: the State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project.
This study has not been updated since 1995. Website: http://www.fcpm.fsu.edu/segip.html

Resource Renewal Institute 1

 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.
Figure 2.
Sustainable Development as
a Global Priority
• Since the 1987 publication of “Our Common
Future,” the report of the UN World Commission
on Environment and Development, nations around
the world have been contemplating how they might
achieve the goal of sustainable development, not just
for their own citizens but for the world as a whole.
This document, better known as the Brundtland
Report, defined sustainable development as “devel-
opment that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs.”
• The need for international action on sustainable
development was formally recognized at the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Develop-
ment in 1992—the Earth Summit. The defining
work of the conference, the Agenda 21 action plan,
was adopted by 179 nations, including the United
States, and declared that: “Governments should adopt
a national strategy for sustainable development... Its
goals should be to insure socially responsible eco-
nomic development while protecting the resource
base and the environment for the
benefit of future generations.” The goals
of sustainable development are
sometimes described as the “Three E’s” Figure
of Environmental quality, Economic
development, and social Equity.
Index
• Leading the world in the effort to apply
these words in spirit and in deed are
nations that have developed and
instituted green plans. The substantive
results of green planning in the Nether-
lands, New Zealand, and other locations,
are inspiring nations, states, and
Sub Indices
(“attributes”)
communities to forge green plan
strategies of their own. The most Indicators
promising state initiatives in the U.S. are
featured in this report.
2 Resource Renewal Institute
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 or at
www.rri.org.) Figure 3 shows the basic structure of the
GPC Index.
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 perfor-
mance and high environmental quality. Further-
more, a comparison of these rankings with the GPC
Index shows some overlap between states that
perform well socio-economically and environmen-
tally and states that have a significant level of green
planning capacity. (See Appendix B.)
3. Structure of GPC Index Methodology
GREEN PLAN CAPACITY INDEX
$
Framework Innovation Commitment Governance
25 Indicators 25 Indicators 8 Indicators 7 Indicators
Note: See Figure 6 and Appendix A for further details on research methodology

I The Imperative for State
Leadership on Sustainability
Among the numerous papers presented at the 1999
National Town Meeting on Sustainable Development in
Detroit was a report describing how the United States
can successfully implement the principles of sustainable
development—not in Washington, D.C., but in each of
the 50 states.3 The study concludes, “if the U.S. is going
to take sustainable development seriously, states will have
to be key players.” The report, which features the
sustainability efforts of five leading states,4 explains why
this is so: “States have major control over land use,
transportation, energy regulation, and economic devel-
opment, while they are the front-line implementers of
most federal and state environmental laws.”
Amplifying the importance of these basic facts is a
well-documented devolution of environmental respon-
sibility from federal to state and local governments that
has states shouldering an unprecedented share of the
work being done to protect the nation’s environment.5
This shift is being viewed as both a threat to the status
quo and an opportunity for much needed reform of a
regulatory system that is realizing its limits. In either
case, without decisive action, the changes underway
stand to undermine our collective ability to safeguard
the nation’s environment.
As a leading advocate for sustainable development,
the Resource Renewal Institute (RRI) has recognized
the opportunity of this propitious moment and, in
these pages, offers the basis for a fresh approach that
capitalizes on the ascendancy of states and the steadily
expanding interest in applying the principles of sustain-
able development. The State of the States provides the
most comprehensive appraisal yet attempted of states’
capacity for achieving sustainability. It does so through
the lens of an innovative environmental management
strategy that is proving its value in a growing number of
places worldwide. Known as “green planning,” this
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
approach offers the promise of transforming environ-
mental policy in the U.S.—from the short-term, single-
issue, conflict-based measures that typify conventional
protection efforts to the long-term, integrated, and
cooperative policies required for sustainable develop-
ment to be achieved.
Green plans are long-term environmental manage-
ment strategies that have the ultimate aim of achieving
environmental and economic sustainability—whether
for a city, state, region, or nation. Like business plans,
green plans guide the efficient use and intelligent
investment of resources into the future. Those places
with established green plans are demonstrating that a
healthy environment, enhanced quality of life, and a
vibrant economy not only can coexist, but must coexist
to remain viable over time.
Common to all successful green plans are four
core attributes:
• a strong management framework;
• the continuous pursuit of innovation;
• an unwavering commitment to the goals of
sustainable development; and
• effective governance and leadership.
Indeed, it is these four factors that RRI has inven-
toried in assessing the capacity of states to develop and
implement the green plan model. The details of how
this has been done and why these elements are essential
to the process follow in the next section.
The State of the States underscores the compelling
need for a new generation of environmental policies in
the United States that are expressly created to achieve
sustainable development. Green planning is the vehicle
for getting us there and states are well positioned to
take the wheel.
3
 A. THE GREEN PLAN MODEL
Accelerating environmental decline, in this country
and around the world, poses one of the greatest prob-
lems of our time. Today, despite growing environmental
awareness, the United States has become the least
sustainable society on Earth. Each year, each one of us
generates more than one million pounds of waste—
from land-filled carpeting to carbon dioxide. Discarded
food alone amounts to 28 billion pounds annually. If
everyone in the world lived and consumed as we do, it
would take the resources of three planet Earths to
support all of us.6
In response to the problem—and in growing
recognition of the fact that conventional strategies are
inadequate to the task—the principles of sustainable
development are being learned and spoken like a new
language: by communities seeking to improve their
quality of life, by companies pursuing benefits to their
bottom lines, by entire countries trying to follow
through on commitments made at the United Nations’
Earth Summit in 1992, and, indeed, by states trying to
solve increasingly complex problems. The momentum
created by all of this activity offers extraordinary
potential for resolving our environmental dilemma. Yet,
without a unifying vision and sense of purpose, the
sum of these efforts will not be enough for an enduring
recovery. Green plans provide the framework needed to
harness the potential that now exists and channel it
toward development of a sustainable future.7
Green plans are comprehensive and integrated
strategies for the deliberate pursuit of sustainable
development that involve each sector—government,
business, and the NGO community—as partners in
developing and implementing a plan’s provisions. Also
known as strategic environmental management, green
planning applies the business model of “managing for
results” to achieve long-term environmental and
economic goals and to secure a high quality of life for
present and future generations.
The green plan model is comprehensive because it
embraces integrated problem-solving for all environ-
4 Resource Renewal Institute
mental and resource issues, across media and across
geographical boundaries. Green plans also integrate
environmental efforts across institutional and jurisdic-
tional boundaries, providing a framework to coordinate
activities among, for example, competing government
agencies or industries. Success is not measured by
imposing one agenda over another, but by finding
solutions that integrate many needs and concerns.
Green plans accomplish this complicated task
through the use of systems analysis, a discipline that
dissects complex problems into basic elements and
subsystems. Only in this way can the underlying
interrelationships and patterns of change at the root of
a problem be properly evaluated for the development of
an effective response. Systems analysis sets the stage for
crafting a strategic environmental management plan
that enables a city, state, region, or nation to move
toward a shared vision of the future.
Green plans represent the next generation of
environmental policy, a necessary evolution that picks
up where conventional measures leave off. Hence, green
planning is not an avenue for getting around existing
rules and regulations. Fundamental to any green plan is
the stand-still principle, meaning that environmental
quality must not deteriorate below current levels.
Standards that have already been established by regula-
tion should thus be viewed as the floor. Green plans
seek to redefine the ceiling by offering the regulated
community meaningful incentives for moving beyond
compliance. These include streamlining the permitting
process, allowing for flexibility in achieving targeted
objectives, and creating a long-term—and therefore
predictable—regulatory environment. Rather than
rejecting the benefits of traditional regulatory ap-
proaches, green planning strikes an important balance
that better serves all parties involved.
Two nations, the Netherlands and New Zealand,
offer compelling examples of how green planning can be
applied for the benefit of the economy and the environ-
ment alike. Improved governance, environmental
protection, and economic performance are being realized
in both countries. Their groundbreaking efforts have
 The State of the States

inspired other nations along with a number of U.S. states
to actively develop green plan initiatives of their own.
Indeed, the small scale of the Netherlands and New
Zealand makes their progress especially relevant to states.
As is made clear in the descriptions of the Dutch
and New Zealand models below, no two green plans are
alike. Replicating the green plan of one nation (or state)
for application in another is simply not possible.
Individual environmental, economic, political, cultural,
and social needs require distinct application of the
general characteristics outlined in Figure 4.
The Netherlands:
Achieving Environmental and Economic Progress
With life-threatening environmental problems
brought on by congestion and heavy industry, the
Netherlands is a microcosm of the threats facing
much of the planet. Home of the world’s busiest port
(Rotterdam) and a $30 billion a year chemical
industry, all sectors of Dutch society are pulling
together to achieve environmental recovery within
one generation: 25 years.

Figure 4. Ten Defining Characteristics of Green Plans

1. Long-term. All green plans represent a society’s ongoing commitment to the goal of sustainable development, as
defined in the Brundtland Report of 1987.

2. Comprehensive. Green plans are management solutions that address the full array of priority issues, across media (e.g.,
air, water, land) and their impacts on the environment, economy, and society as a whole.

3. Dynamic. Green plans are capable of adapting to evolving problems, ideas, goals, and information without radical
changes to their structure and function.

4. Cooperative. To develop a green plan, all facets of the community, all types of businesses, and all branches of government
participate in a process of developing trust, identifying common values, and working toward a shared vision of the future.

5. Integrated. Green planning enables a fusion of economic, environmental, and societal needs by accounting for the
many complex interrelationships that together determine quality of life. This process is made possible through systems
analysis, a discipline that dissects complicated problems into basic elements and subsystems that form the basis for
successful solutions.

6. Informed. Policy decisions are guided by a reliable information base that aggregates environmental, economic, and
societal conditions in order to accurately depict significant trends (past, present, and future) and devise a responsive set
of new programs.

7. Flexible. In exchange for a commitment to realizing targeted environmental goals and objectives, green plans provide
participants with more freedom in developing the necessary technical and/or institutional improvements. The long-
term nature of this arrangement creates a more stable and predictable regulatory environment that benefits all parties.

8. Strategic. Like business plans for companies, green plans apply a strategic management approach, with a continuous
process of setting goals, developing timelines, and monitoring and reporting on results.

9. Results-Oriented. Green plans demand the level of focused and resolute initiative necessary for the deliberate pursuit
of sustainable development.

10. Investment-intensive. To be effectively implemented, green plans require adequate funding from both government
and industry, recognizing that the stakes of a sustainable future could not be higher and that success mandates a
substantial long-term investment.

Resource Renewal Institute 5

 In the Netherlands, all the elements of successful
green planning have come together to make environ-
mental recovery a reality. The Netherlands possesses the
most advanced framework for achieving sustainability
of any industrialized nation: the National Environmen-
tal Policy Plan, or NEPP, which was first adopted in
1989 and is now in its fourth incarnation. The NEPP is
supported by innovative environmental management
approaches with a reliable fiscal commitment and
strategic governance that is highly accountable to its
participatory citizenry.
It was the release of a comprehensive state of the
environment report, Concern for Tomorrow,8 that
precipitated the creation and implementation of the
NEPP. Prepared by the National Institute of Public
Health and Environmental Protection, an independent
research group, the report predicted dire conse-
quences—including loss of groundwater within one
generation—if immediate steps were not taken. At the
time, public concern was already heightened by the
death of seals in the North Sea and by the nuclear
disaster at Chernobyl. Queen Beatrix raised awareness
by making the impending environmental crisis the
topic of her annual address to the nation.9
Not only does the Dutch green plan integrate all
environmental issues into one coherent, ecosystem-
based policy, it integrates them with human factors like
public health and the economy. More than 250,000
Dutch businesses are participating in the plan through
performance-driven covenants with government. These
legally binding agreements target emissions reductions,
improved environmental quality of products, and
energy conservation. All parties agree that this arrange-
ment is proving far more effective than the command-
and-control policies of the past.
Major reductions in pollution of air, water, and
land have been achieved through the plan along with a
streamlined regulatory process that is saving both time
and money. The Dutch are reducing pressure on the
environment even as their Gross Domestic Product
climbs. They refer to this trend as “decoupling”—a
fundamental component of sustained recovery. In June
6 Resource Renewal Institute
of 2001, the Dutch parliament adopted the fourth
iteration of the NEPP; it addresses consumption
patterns and other critical quality-of-life issues, such as
transportation, health, and education.
New Zealand:
A New Legislative Structure Based on
Sustainable Management
Where the Netherlands is a model of advanced
environmental management in a highly industrialized
nation, New Zealand provides a model for many states
in the U.S. with natural resource-based economies. The
Resource Management Act (RMA) of New Zealand sets
the sustainable management of the nation’s natural
resources as a goal for all national, regional, and local
government agencies.
New Zealand is noted in particular for the radical
restructuring of its government institutions to create well-
defined environmental policy and management roles. This
included putting in place an innovative system of regional
government with boundaries based on watersheds.
Improved governance has resulted from the introduction
of greater public accountability, transparency of govern-
ment activities and decision-making processes, and annual
strategic planning at all levels of government.
The key principle driving the RMA is the sustain-
able management of New Zealand’s resources. This is
defined in the Act as managing the use, development,
and protection of natural and physical resources in a
way, or at a rate, that enables people and communities
to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-
being and for their health and safety, while:
1) sustaining the potential of natural and
physical resources (excluding minerals) to
meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of
future generations;
2) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air,
water, soil, and ecosystems; and
3) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse
effects of activities on the environment.

Any actions taken under the RMA—in effect, any
decisions that may have environmental conse-
quences—must satisfy these requirements. Of key
importance is the requirement that while social,
economic, and cultural objectives will play an impor-
tant role in decision-making, they cannot be allowed
to threaten the sustainability of ecosystems.
Primary responsibility for implementing this
vision of sustainable management lies with the
regional and territorial (district and city) councils.
Through the development and implementation of
policy statements and plans, local authorities strive to
achieve sustainable management by managing the
environmental effects of activities, rather than the
activities themselves. Decision making is integrated
across land, air, and water.
While effects-based planning conceptually prom-
ises improved environmental outcomes, the approach
relies upon good information systems. Unfortunately,
when the RMA was adopted in 1991, quality informa-
tion was not readily available. This resulted in a
difficult transition from the old laws and plans to the
new, and an inability to accurately measure environ-
mental performance. To address the problem, a na-
tional environmental performance indicators program
was launched in 1996. Its purpose is to create a stan-
dardized “tool-box” of indicators to inform the RMA
process and ultimately to track progress toward achiev-
ing the goal of sustainable management.
Ten years after its inception, the Resource Man-
agement Act is still ahead of its time. Although the
transition period has been rough, the RMA provides a
sound framework for environmental management and
the flexibility to enable program enhancements
without eroding its core purpose: the sustainability of
this island nation.
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
B. THE CHALLENGE OF ACHIEVING
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES
The federal government has never adopted a
comprehensive environmental strategy. Nor has it
published a comprehensive state of the environment
report. Numerous attempts at reinvention of the
environmental management framework have been
undertaken since the early 1970s, but despite lengthy
dialogue and extensive research, the nation’s environ-
mental management system remains fundamentally
flawed. Lacking is the forward-looking, cooperative,
and integrated process necessary for a unifying environ-
mental vision to be developed and pursued.10
A number of studies published over the past 20
years assess the gravity of our environmental predica-
ment and/or recommend specific federal policy and
program changes (see Figure 5). However, all have
failed to institute the reforms required to place
sustainability at the center of the national agenda.
In what is perhaps the most thorough assessment of
the present situation, the National Academy of Public
Administration’s recent report, environment.gov,
concludes that:
The nation’s current environmental protection
system cannot deliver the healthy and sustaining
world that Americans want. Absent significant
change in America’s environmental governance,
the accumulation of greenhouse gases will con-
tinue to threaten the stability of the global cli-
mate and all the systems that depend on it; the
uncontrolled runoff of fertilizers and other pol-
lutants will continue to choke rivers, lakes, and
estuaries with oxygen-depleting algae; smog will
continue to degrade the health of millions of
Americans. The regulatory programs in place in
this country simply cannot address those prob-
lems at a price America can afford.11
Although an overarching framework for
sustainability has yet to be developed, significant
progress on environmental quality in the U.S. over the
past 30 years deserves to be acknowledged.12 The air is
7
 Figure 5. Examples of U.S. Sustainability Initiatives

Be it under the banner of sustainability or of regulatory reinvention, in the last two decades the U.S. has attempted
to remake and strengthen its role in the management of domestic and international environmental affairs. To date,
no effort has been effectively implemented, with the President’s Council on Sustainable Development making the
most progress in the latter half of the 1990s. Provided here is a sampling of the numerous reports published:1

• The Global 2000 Report to the President, published in 1980, remains the sole effort to date by the U.S. government
to assess in a comprehensive fashion global population, environmental, and resource trends over a 20-25 year
future time frame.

• In 1981, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State jointly published Global
Future: A Time to Act. The document offered suggestions for specific federal actions in response to the Global 2000
Report. Notably, the report stressed the importance of sustainable development.

• The leaders of 10 nonprofit environmental and conservation organizations collaborated in 1985 on An Environ-
mental Agenda for the Future. The book addressed the failures of U.S. environmental policy and provided a concise
menu of necessary reforms.

• In 1987, prior to the presidential elections, a broad coalition of 18 national environmental organizations published
Blueprint for the Environment. The report included recommendations regarding a range of issues, including global
warming and ozone destruction. It also addressed the need for institutional changes in the structure of the federal
government.

• A 1993 conference held in Louisville, Kentucky focused on how states and regions of the U.S. could follow up and
build on the Earth Summit in Rio. Speeches, panel proceedings, and case studies from the conference were
published in a book called From Rio to the Capitols: State Strategies for Sustainable Development.2

• The President’s Council on Sustainable Development undertook a lengthy examination of what sustainability
might mean for the U.S. The efforts of this cross-sector group culminated in the release of Sustainable America: A
New Consensus in 1996. The report was criticized for its lack of direct support from the President, and in 1999 the
PCSD disbanded.

• The 1998 Enterprise for the Environment report was jointly produced by the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the National Academy of Public Administrators, and the Keystone Center, with cross-sector representation
similar to the PCSD. The report aimed to build upon the success of EPA-sponsored programs such as Project XL,
but its recommendations have been largely ignored and the report has been criticized for the “watered down”
results of its consensus-based process.3

• In 2000, the National Academy of Public Administration released environment.gov: Transforming Environmental
Protection for the 21st Century. The third in a series of reports commissioned by Congress, it presents a detailed
strategy for improving the nation’s environmental protection system. States figure prominently in the recom-
mended plan of action.

1 The Global 2000 Report to the President, Council on Environmental Quality and U.S. Department of State, New York: Penguin Books, 1982.
Global Future: A Time To Act, Council on Environmental Quality and U.S. Department of State, Washington D.C., 1981. Robert Cahn (ed.),
An Environmental Agenda for the Future, Washington, D.C.: Agenda Press, 1985. T. Allen Comp (ed.), Blueprint for the Environment: A Plan for
Federal Action, Salt Lake City: Howe Brothers, 1989.
2 From Rio to the Capitols: State Strategies for Sustainable Development, Conference Proceedings, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Louisville, KY,
May 1993.
3 Cary Coglianese, “The Limits of Consensus,” A review of the Enterprise for the Environment (E4E) report: “The Environmental Protection
System in Transition: Toward a More Desirable Future,” Environment, April 1999.

8 Resource Renewal Institute


cleaner, more rivers are safe for swimming, drinking
water standards have improved dramatically, the
national parks system has been expanded, and a
number of critically listed species have been brought
back from the brink of extinction. U.S. pollution
control legislation has served as a model for govern-
ments around the world, particularly in Europe. The
U.S. also continues to lead the way on other environ-
mental fronts such as environmental justice campaigns
and community “right to know” provisions on toxic
releases from industrial facilities.13
Overall, the U.S. has applied media-specific
measures to address environmental problems, a segre-
gated approach that has had the effect of shifting
problems from one medium to another. This has
created new (and often more complex) issues in need of
resolution. Having evolved from a very similar system
of environmental management, the Netherlands and
New Zealand are demonstrating the tangible benefits of
moving beyond these limitations.
As observed by Karl Hausker of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies:
The challenge for the United States and for all
nations is to protect and restore the natural envi-
ronment while providing for the economic needs
of a population that will grow by at least several
billion more people. This will require, among
other things:
• that pollution be limited not by the “best
available technology” or some variant thereof
but by limits determined by human and
ecological health;
• that industry undergo a “green revolution”
resulting in products and processes that
generate dramatically less waste and that
channel remaining wastes back into production
rather than into the environment; and
• that society find far more effective means of
reducing the environmental impact of the
day-to-day decisions of billions of people in
their roles as consumers, workers, drivers,
farmers, etc.
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
According to Hausker, “We will fail in these tasks
unless the environmental protection system evolves” in
the following ways:
• toward a more performance-based, informa-
tion-rich, technology-spurring, flexible,
accountable regulatory system;
• toward a broader array of policy tools that
promote continuous environmental improve-
ment, including environmental taxes, subsidy
reform, emissions trading, and information
disclosure; and
• toward stronger private sector management
systems that internalize the same stewardship
ethics embodied in environmental statutes.14
There are recent examples of federal progress on
governance and government efficiency that offer a
glimpse of the kind of systemic change called for. This
includes the National Performance Review,15 a
reinvention effort commenced in 1993 under the
direction of then Vice President Al Gore. Through
this program, the EPA produced more than 40
management innovations. According to Norman Vig,
who has written extensively on environmental policy
in the U.S. and abroad, “essentially these programs
invite states, industries, individual companies, and
communities to collaborate with EPA to develop new
performance-based management systems in return for
greater regulatory flexibility. Although it is too early
to evaluate their success, it appears that they have
begun to create a new, more cooperative relationship
between government and business while improving
environmental quality.”16
In the second half of the 1990s, “smart growth”
and “livable communities” emerged on the political
agenda, as states and localities joined together to battle
suburban sprawl. During this time, the President’s
Council on Sustainable Development completed its
process for pursuing sustainability nationally, but with
no legislative action and little fiscal support to propel
the effort forward.17
9
 The increasingly complex nature of environmental
problems demands a more responsive approach.
Challenging issues that will influence our future quality
of life include: climate change, the controversial
impacts of endocrine disruptors on human and animal
fertility,18 and the uncertain effects of releasing geneti-
cally modified organisms into the nation’s ecosystems.
Such problems underscore the need for strategic
environmental management (i.e., green planning) in
the U.S. with a reach that extends from local to global,
involving government, business, and community
interests as active partners in the process.
However, as observed by Vig and Kraft, “Perhaps
the greatest obstacle to more rational and effective
environmental policymaking at present is the absence
of any mechanism for coordinating and integrating
policy actions on the basis of an overall strategy or set
of priorities… To achieve sustainable development in
the future we will need to move beyond policy
coordination to policy integration—that is, to making
environmental protection an essential part of the
mission of all federal agencies”19 (original emphasis).
They are not optimistic about the near-term prospects
for change: “Policy integration on this scale will
require both more comprehensive environmental
legislation and transformation of the institutional
cultures within many agencies. Such major changes
are not likely in the near future.”
At the start of a new century, the future direction
of environmental management in the U.S. is uncertain.
While an enhanced federal role will ultimately be
required, the promise of achieving meaningful progress
in the short-term now resides with the states.
The Case for State Action
Showcased in this report are several states—New
Jersey, Minnesota, and Oregon—that have begun to
adopt the principles of green planning and, in the
process, improve upon a regulatory structure that cannot
keep pace with increasing environmental demands.
Compelling these and a growing number of other states
10 Resource Renewal Institute
to act is an acute awareness of the limitations inherent in
conventional environmental management.
As characterized by Beardsley et al., “The United
States does not really have an integrated system for
tackling environmental pollution but rather a potpourri
of ad hoc, media-specific environmental laws enforced by
the states and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. These laws overlap and frequently conflict…
Given the current state of affairs, the U.S. federal
government and almost all of the states have recently
(and understandably) begun to look for better ways of
doing business…”20 Nowhere have these problems been
more sharply felt than by the state agencies charged with
implementing federal environmental statutes.
Frustrated by the “inefficient, intrusive, and frag-
mented” nature of federal environmental laws, a growing
number of states are challenging the role they are
expected to play. Fanning the flames of discontent have
been “decreases in funding from the federal government,
political currents favoring decentralization, and actions
by EPA and Congress that impose expensive obligations
on states and localities without providing funding to
meet the obligations (‘unfunded mandates’).”21
The changing face of environmental regulation in
the United States has then, by default and not by
design, thrust states into an expanded role that will
likely have historic consequences. According to the
Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), “States
have become the primary environmental protection
agencies across the nation. Whether the yardstick is
delegation, fiscal, enforcement, information gathering
or policy making, the states are responsible for an
increasing, and perhaps surprising, amount of the work
done to protect the nation’s environment.”22
One telling indicator of an evolving state role is the
volume of state environmental legislation not tied to
federal statute. The Brookings Institution reports that
approximately 70 percent of environmental laws now
being enacted at the state level have “little or nothing to
do with federal policy.” In a similar vein, of the billions
of dollars spent by states on environmental protection
each year, only 20 percent comes from federal sources.

According to Brookings, “State and local governments
are responsible for nearly all the enforcement of
national environmental laws and continue to dominate
decisions in areas like land use and waste disposal.”23
A “Race to the Bottom” or a “Race to the Top”?
As states take on greater environmental manage-
ment responsibilities, concern has been expressed that
this may precipitate a “race to the bottom” in establish-
ing standards for environmental quality. Indeed, a
number of states have put in place laws stipulating that
state environmental standards should be no more
stringent than federal standards.24 Other states have
pursued “beyond compliance” voluntary agreements
with industry that have been criticized for lax enforce-
ment.25 Many states, however, have enacted environ-
mental laws that are “more stringent than or different
from federal laws (e.g. groundwater protection and/or
wetland statutes that go beyond the requirements of the
Clean Water Act).”26 And many of the “beyond
compliance” projects, such as those facilitated by the
Multi-State Working Group (MSWG), include non-
governmental organizations to help oversee the process
and ensure public involvement.27
Mary Graham argues that the “race to the bottom
is far too simplistic a notion to describe state environ-
mental politics in the 1990s.”28 She makes several
important observations, among them that: 1) “State
policies have been transformed by three decades of
national regulation and increased public conscious-
ness;” 2) “Evidence is by now overwhelming that
businesses rarely decide where to locate or expand based
on the strength or weakness of state environmental
laws;” and 3) “Most important, public attitudes have
changed. After 30 years of government action and
scientific progress, state officials, business executives,
and voters find that some environmental measures have
economic value.”
Graham writes of the strong link between environ-
mental protection and economic vitality—with cause
and effect flowing both ways:
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
Assuring safe drinking water, limiting growth, or
preventing sewage from polluting public
beaches…may produce benefits that residents and
businesses can appreciate and are sometimes will-
ing to pay for. More often, though, support for
environmental protection follows, rather than
precedes, state economic success…Today, states
compete to gain prosperity in a fast-changing
economy. In that race, some states lead in eco-
nomic performance and environmental protec-
tion, while others lag behind in both.29
Both the following and concluding sections of The
State of the States consider this assessment in greater detail.
State Innovation in Environmental Management:
An Initial Glance
Individual states have become incubators for an
array of innovative new strategies, often self-funded, to
address environmental priorities. Pollution prevention,
regulatory integration, and economic incentives for
improved environmental performance are three areas in
which states are making strides to increase their effec-
tiveness—with or without help from the federal
government. They are also examples of new implemen-
tation tools that are being used successfully in green
plan nations to achieve sustainable development goals.
Today, all 50 states have, to varying degrees,
implemented pollution prevention programs30 with
notable standouts including Minnesota’s Toxic Pollu-
tion Prevention Act of 1990. Moving from pollution
control to pollution prevention is a guiding tenet of
green planning.
Another necessary component of a green planning
framework is regulatory integration, a process designed
to prevent the cross-media transfer of pollutants that
too often results from standard media-specific protec-
tion efforts. By employing an integrated approach to
industrial permitting, inspection, and enforcement,
some states—New Jersey, in particular—are achieving
emissions reductions that exceed previous best efforts.
Improving environmental performance through
economic incentives is yet another component of green
11
 planning that more and more states are incorporating
into their environmental programs. This approach is
viewed as one of the best ways to transcend the limita-
tions of command-and-control regulation and enable
market forces to influence environmental outcomes. By
one recent count, states have adopted more than 250
environmental charges and tax incentives that are
intended to stimulate superior performance.31 Once
again, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Oregon have been
national leaders with successful tax programs to facili-
tate recycling and reduce solid waste.
These are just three examples of state-level innova-
tions that are contributing to a sea change in the way
protection of the nation’s environmental health is being
pursued. Highlighted in this report are many other
equally encouraging indicators of state progress.
As important as the shifting roles of federal and
state government are the wide variations of effectiveness
and commitment among the states themselves. Our
findings are consistent with other comparative analyses
that have revealed a predictable pattern of environmen-
tal achievement that ranks certain states high and
others low. Given the increasing receptivity to new
solutions by most states, there has never been a better
opportunity to break this pattern and advance the
capabilities of all states.
State-Federal Partnerships
To create consistency, balance, and a unifying
vision across state boundaries—one that fully embraces
the goals and objectives of green planning—the federal
government must be involved. Given that many of the
nation’s environmental laws are federally based, this is
in fact an inescapable priority.
To be a full-fledged partner with states, the federal
government must facilitate needed innovations and
policy improvements. One of the most promising
developments on this front was the establishment of the
National Environmental Performance Partnership
System (NEPPS) in 1995. Set up by the U.S. EPA and
ECOS, the program is an acknowledgement of current
12 Resource Renewal Institute
shortcomings and offers a major opportunity to
advance green planning state-by-state, with the federal
government serving as chief facilitator. Its aim is to
grant states flexibility in administering federal environ-
mental statues. The degree of flexibility is determined
by the strength of a state’s environmental programs,
thus creating an incentive for ongoing improvement.
The NEPPS program 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 measurable
indicators to track progress. What started as a pilot
program of six states just five years ago now involves 38
states,32 with strong interest being expressed by other
states, through both the MSWG and ECOS.
Having launched its Sustainable State initiative in
1999, New Jersey is among the leaders in taking
advantage of the program, with the year 2000 marking
its third NEPPS agreement with EPA. As is discussed in
subsequent sections of this report, New Jersey has
excelled because of its groundbreaking work to incorpo-
rate the principles of green planning. With strong
leadership and direction, the NEPPS program has the
potential to redefine the roles of federal and state
government and, in the process, foster broad public
involvement and partnerships across sectors. As facilita-
tor of this evolution, the federal government is respon-
sible for providing the necessary resources, training,
and technical support to ensure long-term success of
the program.
There has never been a more opportune time for
strengthening the capacity of states to serve as principal
stewards of the nation’s environmental heritage.
Ultimate success, however, hinges on the commitment,
framework, innovation, and governance brought to this
pursuit. It is the combined performance in all of these
areas that determines a state’s potential to achieve
sustainable development. Section II of this report
identifies the leaders and the laggards on each of these
four fronts, offering a snapshot of how far states have
come and how much further they must go.

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 perfor-
mance 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 (see Figure 6a):
• comprehensiveness of the environmental
management framework;
• level of environmental policy innovation;
• fiscal and program commitment; and
• quality of governance.
Throughout this section, symbols representing each
of these core attributes are utilized to guide the reader:
FRAMEWORK INNOVATION
$ management approach. The GPC analysis included an
GOVERNANCE
COMMITMENT
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
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, multi-
media provisions of green planning. Indicators em-
ployed 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 infor-
mation; 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 pro-
grams actually delegated to state environmental agen-
cies—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 (see Figure 6b). There are a total of
11 indicators of innovation, which encompass a range
of environmental concerns contributing to a strategic
assessment of policies on air quality, pollution preven-
tion, energy, climate change, waste management, land
13
 FIGURE 6a: GREEN PLAN CAPACITY (GPC) INDEX METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

INDEX SUB-INDEX/ATTRIBUTES INDICATORS

GREEN PLAN 1. Environmental 1.1 Existence of a State Sustainability Plan (with Legislative Support)
CAPACITY (GPC) Management 1.2 Existence (and Quality) of SoE Report
INDEX Framework 1.3 Availability of Information to the Public (Website Review)
1.4 Existence of State Planning Office/Program
1.5 State Planning/Development Act, Modernization & Strength of State Role
1.6 Proportion of Federally Delegable Programs Delegated to States

2. Environmental 2.1 Air Quality Standards (above Clean Air Act)

Policy 2.2 Pollution Prevention Programs
Innovation 2.3 Energy Policy Supportive of Renewables
2.4 Existence of NEPPS Program
2.5 Existence of Environmental Leadership Program
2.6 Existence of State Climate Change Action Plan
2.7 State Authored Inventories of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2.8 Existence of State-Level "Right-to-Know" Act
2.9 Existence of Bottle Bill
2.10 Existence of Environmental Assessment Requirements
2.11 Innovation in Comprehensive Plan Requirements

3. Fiscal & 3.1 State Budget Environmental Commitment, 1997

$ Program
Commitment
3.2
3.3
Open Space Protection
Expenditure on Public Transport
3.4 Recycling Levels, Targets, Commitment

4 . 1 Governance Index, 1999, Governing magazine

4. Governance 4 . 2 Existence of Green Procurement Program
4 . 3 Voter Participation Rate, 1996

FIGURE 6b: GREEN PLAN CAPACITY INDEX: DISTRIBUTION & WEIGHTING

Governance Framework
15%
Environmental
Management
Innovation
Fiscal & Program
Framework
Commitment 10%
35%
Commitment
Environmental
Policy
Innovation Governance
40%

14 Resource Renewal Institute


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 invest-
ment earmarked for environmental programs. Overall, a
state’s commitment in these areas demonstrates a long-
term investment supportive of green planning.
Quality of governance, the fourth and final
attribute assessed in this report, indicates the function-
ality (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 strategi-
cally and long-term. Data for these factors were drawn
from a comprehensive study of state-level governance
periodically undertaken by Governing magazine.33 Two
additional indicators used were the existence of “green
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
procurement” programs for state government purchas-
ing 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 govern-
ment capacity for green planning. Outlined in Figure
6a is a diagram of the methodology used to create the
GPC Index. Included in this graphic are the primary
indicators employed for each of the four sub-indices.
Figure 6b depicts the distribution and weighting
scheme used in determining the contribution of each
sub-index to the GPC Index.
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 methodol-
ogy that would enable meaningful state comparisons to
be made. Figure 6b shows that the 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 sub-
indices 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 environ-
mental 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
15
 TABLE 1. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH RESULTS - SELECTED INDICATORS, GPC INDEX
Environmental Management Environmental Policy
Framework Innovation

GREEN PLAN CAPACITY INDEX

GREEN PLAN CAPACITY INDEX

2.6 Climate Change Action Plan

1.4 Esixtence of State Planning

Delegable Programs Delegated

Comprehensive Restructuring
Legislation and State Support
2. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
1.2 State of the Environment

1.5.3 Proportion of Federally

1.1 State Sustainability Plan
1. ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT.

1.5.1 Modernization of State

1.5.2 Strength of State Role

Above Federal Cean Air Act

2.3.2 Renewable Electricity

2.3.3 Renewable Electricity

FRAMEWORK SUB-INDEX

2.2.1 Pollution Prevention

2.2.3 Pollution Prevention

2.1 Air/Tailpipe Standards
INNOVATION SUB-INDEX

Reporting Requirements

Leadership Program -

Leadership Program -
Planning Legislation

2.5.1 Environmental

2.5.2 Environmental
Legislative Support
1.3 Website Rating

2.3.1 Renewables:

2.4 NEPPS
Standards

Existence
Report

Funds
Office
Rank

State

50 Alabama 8

n n 1 n 1 1 79%
- - - - - - - - - Y
43 Alaska 17

n n 2 n 1 2 50%  - Y n - - - Y Y n -
31 Arizona 29 
n n 2 B 3 2 50%  - YS Y Y - - Y - - -
47 Arkansas 15

n n 1 n 2 2 71%
- Y Y Y - - Y - - -
12 California 42   n R 4 R 3 2 50%  Y YS Y Y - Y - - - Y
36 Colorado 25 
n n 2 B 1 1 71%  - Y n - - - Y Y Y Y
8 Connecticut 45   n R 1 B 2 2 79%  - Y n Y Y Y Y Y Y
16 Delaware 40   n R 4 LU 4 3 68%  - Y n Y - - Y - - Y
10 Florida 43   yp PR 4 S 4 3 64%  - Y n - - - Y - - -
13 Georgia 42   n R 2 B 4 3 82%  - Y Y - - - Y Y Y
34 Hawaii 28   n R 4 B 4 3 25%
- - - - - - Y - - Y
27 Idaho 31   n R 3 B 3 2 57%  - - - - - - Y - - -
9 Illinois 45   n R 5 n 1 1 79%  - Y n Y - Y Y Y Y Y
15 Indiana 41   n R 4 n 1 1 71%  - Y n - - - Y Y Y -
26 Iowa 34   n R 2 B 1 1 39%  - YS n - Y - - - - Y
37 Kansas 24   n R 2 n 1 1 64%
- - - - - - Y - -
23 Kentucky 36   n R 4 n 3 2 39%  - YS n - - - - - - Y
40 Louisiana 22 
n n 4 n 1 1 75%
- Y Y - - - Y - - -
4 Maine 59   n PR 3 LU 4 3 64%  Y YS Y Y Y - Y Y n D
11 Maryland 43   n R 4 LU 4 3 54%  - Y n Y - - Y - - -
6 Massachusetts 57   n R 2 n 3 2 54%  Y YS Y Y Y Y Y Y n D
25 Michigan 36   n R 4 n 1 1 68%  - Y n Y - - - Y Y -
3 Minnesota 64   Y PR 4 S 2 2 68%  - YS Y - Y Y Y Y Y D
38 Mississippi 23 
n n 1 n 2 2 68%  - YS Y - - - Y - - -
24 Missouri 36   n P 2 B 1 1 86%  - Y n - - - Y - - D
29 Montana 30   n R 1 n 1 1 50%  - - - Y - Y Y - - Y
41 Nebraska 20 
n n 3 n 1 2 75%
- Y n - - - Y - - -
42 Nevada 18 
n n 2 B 2 2 61%  - - - Y Y - - - - -
28 New Hampshire 31   n R 2 LU 3 3 50%  - Y n Y - - Y - - D
2 New Jersey 71   Y PR 5 LUS 4 2 29%  - YS Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
48 New Mexico 11

n n 1 n 1 1 68%  - - Y - Y - - - D
18 New York 39 
n n 2 n 2 2 61%  Y YS Y Y - Y Y - - D
20 North Carolina 38   yp P 4 B 1 1 79%
- - - - - - Y - - Y
45 North Dakota 17

n n 2 n 1 1 75%
- - - - - - Y - - -
35 Ohio 26   n R 2 B 1 1 79%  - Y n Y - - Y - - -
46 Oklahoma 15

n n 2 n 1 1 82%
- Y n Y - - Y - - -
1 Oregon 73   Y PR 4 S 4 3 79%  - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y
14 Pennsylvania 42   Y SP 3 S 3 2 46%  - - - Y Y Y - - - Y
32 Rhode Island 28   n n 2 LU 4 3 61%  - Y Y Y - Y Y - - -
22 South Carolina 37   n R 4 n 3 2 79%  - YS Y - - - - Y n -
39 South Dakota 22 
n n 2 n 1 2 82%  - Y n - - - Y - - -
33 Tennessee 28   n R 2 n 1 1 64%  - YS Y - - - - - - Y
17 Texas 40   n SP 2 n 1 1 61%  - Y Y Y Y - Y Y Y -
19 Utah 39   yp P 2 SB 2 2 96%
- - - - - - Y - - Y
7 Vermont 55   n R 3 n 4 3 71%  Y YS Y Y - - Y - - Y
30 Virginia 29   n P 4 B 1 1 46%
- Y n Y - - - - - -
5 Washington 57   n RR 5 B 4 3 64%  - YS Y - - - Y - - Y
44 West Virginia 17

n n 4 n 1 2 75%
- Y n - - - - - - -
21 Wisconsin 37   n R 3 n 1 1 57%  - Y n - Y Y Y - - Y
49 Wyoming 10

n n 1 n 1 1 71%
- - - - - - Y - - -

16 Resource Renewal Institute

TABLE 1. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH RESULTS - SELECTED INDICATORS, GPC INDEX The State of the States

$ Fiscal & Program Commitment Governance

3.4.1 Recycling Level (%), 1998

2.11 Innovation in Comprehen-
2.8 State-Mandated Disclosure
2.7 Greenhouse Gas Inventory

4. GOVERNANCE SUB-INDEX

4.1 Governance Grade, 1999

4.3 Voter Participation Rate

3.2 Open Space Protection
Budget per Capita ($), 1997
Assessment Requirements

COMMITMENT SUB-INDEX

3.4.2 Recycling Target (%)

3.4.4 Curbside Recycling

3.3 Transit Spending per
3.1 State Environmental
sive. Plan Requirements

3.4.3 Local Government

3. FISCAL & PROGRAM

4.2 Green Procurement

Population Reach (%)
2.10 Environmental

Recycling Mandate
2.9 Bottle Bill

Capita ($)

(%), 1996
Program

Rank
State Generalized Key

Y - - - 1  7 2 2 23 25 N 23
D - 55.6 Alabama 50  High

- - - - -  74 3 8 7 40 N 2  C - 59.5 Alaska 43  Above average
- - - - 3  29 2 7 17 50 N 39  C - 47.3 Arizona 31  Below Average
- - - - -  9 3 3 36 40 N 16
C- - 51.5 Arkansas 47
Low
Y Y Y SL 3  21 2 43 33 25 Y 55
C- - 48.4 California 12
Y - - - -  62 3 24 18 - - 18  C+ - 58.8 Colorado 36 Y Yes
Y - Y L -  28 2 29 24 40 Y 100
C- - 58.5 Connecticut 8 - No/not applicable
Y - Y - 1  109 3 9 22 25 N 1  B - 54.7 Delaware 16 nd No data
- - - - 3  35 1 13 39 30 N 74  C+ - 50.7 Florida 10 n No
Y - - L 1  6 2 34 33 25 N 52  C+ - 49.6 Georgia 13
Y - - SL -  45 3 33 24 50 N 0
C- - 43.1 Hawaii 34 See detailed key
- - - - 2
27 3 6 - 25 N 16  C - 60.1 Idaho 27 on next page
Y - - - -  77 2 58 28 25 Y 50  B- - 55.6 Illinois 9
Y - - L 1  15 3 8 23 50 N 70  C+ Y 55.8 Indiana 15
Y - Y - 1  8 3 5 34 50 N 52  B - 61.1 Iowa 26
Y - - - 0
23 3 4 13 - - -  B- - 62 Kansas 37
Y - - - 2  15 3 7 32 25 N -  B - 52.8 Kentucky 23
- - - - 0  21 3 13 19 25 N 46  B- - 61.8 Louisiana 40
Y - Y - 2  41 2 4 42 50 N 32  C - 67.7 Maine 4
Y - - L 2  12 1 56 30 20 Y 78  B - 54.4 Maryland 11
Y - Y L 0  15 2 102 34 46 N 77  B- - 56.3 Massachusetts 6
- - Y L 1  22 2 9 25 50 N 25  B+ - 58.1 Michigan 25
Y - - SL 0  19 2 10 45 50 N 76  B Y 66.9 Minnesota 3
Y - - - 0  34 3 1 14 25 N 15  C+ - 55.1 Mississippi 38
Y - - - 0  48 3 16 30 40 N 39  A- - 61.1 Missouri 24
Y - - L 2  38 3 18 5 25 N 1  B- - 67.3 Montana 29
- - - - 0  12 2 3 29 40 N 26  B - 61 Nebraska 41
Y - - - 1  33 3 17 14 25 N 23  C+ - 47.8 Nevada 42
Y - - - 0  71 3 2 26 40 N 37  C+ - 60.1 New Hampshire 28
Y - - L 0  25 1 674 43 65 Y 90  B- Y 54.7 New Jersey 2
Y - - - 0  21 3 6 10 50 N 23
C- - 51.7 New Mexico 48
Y - Y SL 1  18 2 83 43 50 N 95
C- - 50.9 New York 18
Y - - L 0  9 2 6 32 40 N 46  B Y 54 North Carolina 20
- - - - 0  17 4 26 40 N 14  B- - 65.8 North Dakota 45
- - - - 0  13 2 16 17 25 N 59  B - 58.7 Ohio 35
- - - - 0
11 2 12 - - 19  C - 58.5 Oklahoma 46
Y - Y SL 2  77 1 119 30 50 Y 56  B- Y 61.1 Oregon 1
Y - - - 1  41 2 36 26 35 N 73  B Y 55 Pennsylvania 14
Y - - - 1  73 2 6 27 70 N 71  C- - 60.6 Rhode Island 32
- - - - 0  59 3 2 42 30 N 13  B - 54.5 South Carolina 22
- - - L 0  15 7 42 50 N 21  B- - 64.3 South Dakota 39
Y - - - 0  43 3 9 35 25 Y -  B- - 53.1 Tennessee 33
- - - - 0  20 32 35 40 N 24  B - 46.2 Texas 17
Y - - - 1  36 3 20 22 - - 13  A- - 53 Utah 19
Y - Y - 2  79 1 5 30 40 N 19  B- - 59.5 Vermont 7
Y - - L 0  13 3 13 40 25 N 66  A- - 56.4 Virginia 30
Y - - - 3  23 2 63 33 50 N 88  A- - 60 Washington 5
- - - - 1  108 3 8 20 50 N 28  C+ - 50.2 West Virginia 44
Y - - L 0  25 3 10 36 - - 57  B - 62.4 Wisconsin 21
- - - - 0
nd 3 2 5 - - 5  C - 66.2 Wyoming 49

Resource Renewal Institute 17

18
KEY: DESCRIPTION OF INDICATORS, GPC INDEX
Green Plan Capacity Index: The 100-point index of green plan capacity as calculated by RRI (see methodology diagram). Scoring represented in symbol form.

1. Environmental Management Framework: A 35-point sub-index of the Green Plan Capacity Index, represented in symbol form.
1.1 State Sustainability Plan: Existence of a state government plan or strategy inclusive of the concept of sustainable development. (Y: yes; yp: Yes, but progress-board type plan only; n: none.) Source:
Resource Renewal Institute (RRI), 2000.
1.2 State of the Environment Report: n: No report available or in existence. P: "Progress Board" type report available, includes economic, social, and environmental indicators. R: Report focused on the
state of the environment, maybe summative or comprehensive, must cover a range of media (air, water, land, etc.). SP: Existence of strategic plan that includes indicators on the state of the environment.
Source: RRI research, May 2000.
1.3 Website Rating: RRI review of state environmental agency content and "user friendliness". Scored 1 (low) to 5 (high). Review undertaken in May, 2000.
1.4 Existence of State Planning Office: S: State planning office with strategies inclusive of sustainability. LU: Office focused on land use/"smart growth" programs; B: office focused on long-term
budgeting and financial planning, with some emphasis upon environmental factors. n: No state planning office. Source: RRI research, 2000.
1.5.1 Modernization of State Planning Legislation: "The degree that the statutes have been updated is described as numbers 1 through 4 meaning: 1— not updated (few or no modernizations have been
made from SCPEA [the 1928 Standard City Planning Enabling Act drafted by an advisory committee of the U.S. Department of Commerce], or similar 1920s planning laws); 2— slightly updated
(statute shows more than a few but not many significant modernizations past the 1920 planning legislation); 3— moderately updated (statute shows many significant modernizations from the 1920
planning laws but still resembles them in some significant way); and 4— substantially updated (statute contains a substantial number of modernizations and no longer resembles the 1920s planning
legislation in any significant way)." Source: American Planning Association, 1999.
1.5.2 Strength of State Role: "The numbers 1 through 3 in this column describe the strength of the state role in local planning as: 1— weak; 2— significant; and 3— strong." Source: American Planning
Association, 1999.
1.5.3 Proportion of Federally Delegable Programs Delegated to States: Proportion of federally delegable programs delegated to states 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. Note: data was also available for the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act,
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodendicide Act, and Oil Pollution Act, however the data for these three acts were not utilized as it was either (a) programs that were not delegable to states, or (b) all
programs were delegated, so there was no differentiation between states. Source: ECOS website: http://www.ecos.org/

2. Environmental Policy Innovation: A 40-point sub-index of the Green Plan Capacity Index, represented in symbol form.

Resource Renewal Institute

2.1 Air/Tailpipe Standards Above Federal Clean Air Act: Y: Yes. "The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) provides the framework for regulating emissions from motor vehicles. In 1970, it established
nationwide air quality standards to protect public health. Recognizing the large contribution motor vehicles make to air pollution, the Clean Air Act also set the first federal tailpipe standards. The CAA
granted California, which has some of the worst air quality in the nation, the authority to set its own vehicle emission standards. As of 1990, other states may adopt the California program as their own
(and several have done so), but are otherwise prohibited from setting their own emission standards. As of May 2000, four states have opted into the California program: Massachusetts, Maine, New
York, and Vermont. Texas is currently exploring the option." Source: Union of Concerned Scientists website: http://www.ucsusa.org/
2.2.1 Pollution Prevention Legislation and State Support: Y: Yes. S: Existence of state support of pollution programs through funding (fees, appropriations, penalties, etc). "Pollution Prevention (a.k.a.
P2 or source reduction) is any practice that eliminates or reduces pollution at its source. Source reduction differs from conventional regulation of pollution, which has traditionally focused on end-of-pipe,
or after the pollution is produced. States have chosen to institutionalize pollution prevention in a variety of ways. Some states pass laws that declare pollution prevention a good idea and encourage
voluntary efforts. Other mechanisms vary from the funding of voluntary programs and technical assistance programs to mandatory planning and reporting requirements." Source: National Pollution
Prevention Roundtable. http://www.p2.org/inforesources/nppr_leg.html
2.2.3 Pollution Prevention Reporting Requirements: Y: Yes. See narrative for pollution prevention legislation and state support, above. Source: National Pollution Prevention Roundtable.
2.3.1 Renewables: Comprehensive Restructuring Policies: Y: Yes. States which have commenced restructuring of electricity markets, opening them up to competition and new energy suppliers
(including green energy in some states). Source: Clean Power Surge, Ranking the States, Union of Concerned Scientists, April 2000.
2.3.2 Renewable Electricity Standards: Y: Yes. States which have set standards for definition of renewable energy. Source: as per 2.3.1, above.
 2.3.3 Renewable Electricity Funds: Y: Yes. States which have set funding mechanisms to support renewable energy sources. Source: as per 2.3.1, above.
2.4 NEPPS: Y: Yes. The National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) creates an enhanced partnership between states and EPA for protecting the environment and operating the
nation's environmental protection programs through performance based management systems. Source: US EPA website, July 2000.
2.5.1 Environmental Leadership Program - Existence: Y: Yes. An environmental leadership program (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". Source: Tellus Institute.
2.5.2 Environmental Leadership Program - Legislative Support: Y: Yes. Existence of legislation supporting an ELP. Source: Tellus Institute.
2.6 Climate Change Action Plan: Y: Yes. D: Draft. "EPA's State and Local Outreach Program partners with states to develop greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories and action plans. Each inventory
identifies the major sources of GHG emissions and creates a baseline upon which reduction strategies are based. States play a critical role in reducing GHG emissions; many states have developed State
Action Plans that draw heavily on the information in their inventories." Source: US EPA.
2.7 Greenhouse Gas Inventory: Y: Yes. See narrative for climate change action plan (above). Same source.
2.8 State-Mandated Disclosure: Y: Yes. Existence of state-level "community right-to-know" type legislation. Barry Rabe, "Power to the States: The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralization", in Vig &
Kraft, Environmental Policy, 2000.
2.9 Bottle Bill: Y: Yes. Existence of legislation mandating beverage container refund payments. Source: National Council for Science and the Environment.
2.10 Environmental Assessment Requirements: S: state level. L: local level. Environmental assessment requirements delegated to states under NEPA. Source: Journal of Environmental Management.

2.11 Innovation in Comprehensive Plan Requirements: Four comprehensive plan requirements that are innovative were chosen from the APA report on states (see 1.5.2 and 1.5.3 for source). The number
denotes how many of the selected requirements were required in each state (1 to 4).

3. Fiscal & Program Commitment: A 15-point sub-index of the Green Plan Capacity Index, represented in symbol form.
3.1 State Environmental Budget per Capita ($), 1997: Budget of environmental agencies as a proportion of state total population. Source: www.stateline.org; the Council of State Governments ECOS
Magazine, Volume IV Number 1; reprinted from CSG's The Book of the States 1998-1999.
3.2 Open Space Protection: Rating 1 (high) to 3 (low) for various factors related to open space (including policies and funding). From Sierra Club Sprawl report, 1999.
3.3 Transit Spending Per Capita ($): State transit budget as a proportion of state urban population. Data from the Federal Transportation Administration.
3.4.1 Recycling Level, 1998: Proportion of waste stream diverted to recycling processes (%). Source: BioCycle magazine, 1999.
3.4.2 Recycling Target: Statewide recyling rate target (%). (Year not specified in table, further information available from source). Source: BioCycle, 1999.

Resource Renewal Institute

3.4.3 Local Government Recycling Mandate: Is there a state government mandate for local city and county governments to reach a set recycling target? (Y: Yes. N: No.) Source: BioCycle, 1999.

3.4.4 Curbside Recycling Population Reach: Percentage of the state's population which is serviced by curbside recycling collection. Source: BioCycle Magazine, 1999.

4. Governance: A 10-point sub-index of the Green Plan Capacity Index, represented in symbol form.
4.1 Governance Grade: A comprehensive study of state-level governance is undertaken annually by Governing magazine. This study, which encompasses hundreds of interviews across agencies in all
fifty states, ranks five key factors — financial management, capital management, human resources, information technology, and "managing for results." Grades are A+ down to F. Source: Governing
magazine, 1999. http://www.governing.com/
4.2 Green Procurement Program: Y: Yes. Existence of a comprehensive green procurement program, defined as existence of plan across all state agencies (in some cases mandated through legislation).
Source: RRI research, 2000.
4.3 U. S. Voter Participation Rates (%) 1996: Indicates participation in the democratic process. Measure: Percent of people who reported voting in the 1996 November elections. Source: U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, Table 4a: Reported Voting and Registration. Washington, D.C.: 1998.
The State of the States

19
 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 estab-
lishing progressive policies that, in many cases, take state-
level 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. Table 1, along with the map
in Figure 7 (and Appendix A), summarize the results of
the GPC Index analysis, highlights of which are provided
below. 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 or by
visiting RRI’s website at www.rri.org.
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 Appen-
dix A for designation of points by indicator). These seven
states are remarkable for their diversity and their distribu-
tion across the U.S. (see Figure 7). 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.
20 Resource Renewal Institute
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 plan-
ning 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 Sustain-
able 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 innova-
tive 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 clearing-
house, the North Star State would have ranked even
higher in this assessment.
4. Maine (59 points/100)
With a governor strongly supportive of envi-
ronmental 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)34
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.35
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.
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
• 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 busi-
nesses. Details on the program are available online
at www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/green_tier/
index.htm
• California, the only state with air quality legisla-
tion 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 recom-
mends strategies to meet targeted environmental
priorities and measures progress toward environ-
mental goals. The Commission’s work has led to a
number of significant actions including enactment
of land use legislation in 2000. Pennsylvania’s
Department of Environmental Protection provides
an exceptional website: www.state.pa.us.gov/dep/
• 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
21
 feasibility of “adopting a goal-oriented, perfor-
mance-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 (see Figure 14). 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 environ-
mental 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
22 Resource Renewal Institute
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 environ-
ment reports provide the foundation for a well-in-
formed 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).36 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 (see Figure 8).
State Planning Office
Twenty-five states have offices with a statewide
planning function.37 Of these, the majority (15) are
focused primarily on long-term budget strategy and
development of performance measures for state opera-
tions. Some of the budget-focused offices are demon-
strating 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 transpor-
tation planning, grappling with the issues of sprawl and
 Figure 7. Green Plan Capacity (GPC) Index

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Map not to scale. 2000

23
 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.38 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 pro-
grams 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.39 All but six states have over half of the
eligible programs specified under these Acts del-
egated 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, coop-
erative agreements, and public disclosure), the top 10
states are Massachusetts, Maine, New York, California,
New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Minnesota, Connecti-
cut, and Washington. The following indicator-by-
indicator discussion details the relative standings for the
environmental policy innovation sub-index.
24 Resource Renewal Institute
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.40 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,41 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 (see Figure 9).
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 develop-
ment 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”42 (see Figure 10).
 The State of the States

Figure 8. Leading State Environmental Agency Websites

The following 10 websites provide examples of how some states are leading the way in presenting information on the
environment in a user-friendly and innovative manner:
Iowa 2010—The Governor’s State Planning Council: “What’s your vision of Iowa for the year 2010? Will the
economy thrive? Will our children continue to receive high quality education? Will our land, water, and sky be
pure?” So begins the website of the Iowa 2010 strategic planning initiative website, a well designed site that is
highly encouraging of public input and participation. The site includes an online feedback form for public input.
http://www.iowa2010.state.ia.us/
Illinois EcoWatch Network: The Illinois EcoWatch Network has been a tremendous success in Illinois. Through
programs such as Illinois RiverWatch, ForestWatch, PrairieWatch, WetlandWatch, and UrbanWatch, adult
volunteers and high school science teachers and students monitor a range of environmental quality indicators.
http://dnr.state.il.us/orep/inrin/ecowatch/
Save Louisiana Wetlands: A great example of a site tailored for a particular project, the Save Louisiana Wetlands
website is a clearinghouse for information on projects working to save and protect America’s largest and most
diverse wetlands region. http://www.savelawetlands.org/
Maine Department of Environmental Protection: With a well-designed website featuring a lot of content, Maine
DEP gets particular mention for its excellent online feedback form for visitors to the site.
http://janus.state.me.us/dep/feedback.htm
Minnesota Land Use and Cover 1990s Census of the Land: This well-designed website provides zoom-in maps for all
parts of the state of Minnesota, where residents can review 1990 land use maps from the entire state right down to
their local town or village. A simple interface, without the need for plug-ins. Supported by the Minnesota Planning
agency, which also has an excellent website (http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/).
http://mapserver.lmic.state.mn.us/landuse/
New Jersey Future: With a clean, simple, and well-designed website, New Jersey Future clearly presents its strategies
for “smart growth” and sustainability planning. The full report of Living with the Future in Mind is available both
for online review and PDF download. http://www.njfuture.org/
GreenWorks Channel: This Pennsylvania state-government supported website hosts environmental videos, interactive
educational programming, environmental workshops, conferences, and live events. A wealth of information on
sustainability is included, and the website has won numerous awards. http://www.greenworks.tv/
Environment 2000, An Assessment of the Quality of Vermont’s Environment, Vermont Agency of Natural Re-
sources: Of all the online state of the environment reports, Vermont’s perhaps rates best. A highly graphical and
user-friendly overview of the state’s natural environment is presented, clearly targeted to the general public. Reports
for 1996, 1997, and 1998 are also available online, with each year focusing on a particular topic.
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/env00/index.html
Watch Over Washington (WOW): Similar to Illinois Eco-Watch, WOW encourages state citizens to monitor environ-
mental quality and post this information on the Internet. “We currently know that over 11,000 people in Washing-
ton State voluntarily monitor various aspects of their environment. They want to do more. They want to do it
better.” http://www.wa.gov/ecology/wq/wow/index.html
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s Public Empowerment Program: An excellent and compre-
hensive environmental data website strongly supported by the state government. “The Public Empowerment
Program is designed to make WVDEP’s information resources available to the public by capitalizing on the
exploding popularity of the Internet. Through this initiative, citizens from home, work, or the public library can
find out about toxic chemical releases near where they live, locate superfund sites, landfills, abandoned mine lands,
and obtain other useful information.” http://www.dep.state.wv.us/pubemp.html

Resource Renewal Institute 25

 TABLE 2. SUSTAINABILITY PLANS AND STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORTS, AN OVERVIEW
SoE
State Sustainability Plan (or plan with Report
State reference to sustainability) Type Name of State of the Environment Report

Alabama None - None

Alaska None - None
Arizona None - None
Arkansas None - None
California None R CalEPA Environmental Indicators Report, 1995
Colorado None - None
Connecticut None R Environmental Quality in Connecticut, 1998
Delaware's Environment: A Report to the People of the
Delaware None R
1st State, 1997
Florida Benchmarks, 1998; Strategic Assessment of Florida's
Florida Florida Benchmarks, 1998.* PR
Environment (SAFE) Reports, 1992
Georgia None R Georgia's Environment, 1999
Hawaii None R Environmental Report Card, 2000
Idaho None R Idaho Environment, 1998
Illinois None R Annual Environmental Conditions Report, 1998
Indiana None R Indiana State of the Environment Report, 2000
Iowa None R Iowa - Portrait of the Land, 2000
Kansas None R Kansas Environment, 2000
State of Kentucky's Environment: Charting a Path of Progress,
Kentucky None R
1999
Louisiana None - None
An Assessment of the Quality of Maine's Environment, 1998;
Maine None PR
Measures of Growth, 2000
Maryland None R Maryland Environmental Indicators Status Report, 1999
Massachusetts None R Massachusetts The State of Our Environment, 2000
Michigan None R Michigan Environmental Quality Report, 1999
Minnesota Milestones, 1998; Investing in Minnesota's Minnesota Milestones, 1998; Protecting Minnesota's
Minnesota PR
Future: An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life, 1998. Environment, 1998
Mississippi None - None
Missouri None P Show Me Results Missouri
Montana None R Our Montana Environment: Where do we stand?,1996
Nebraska None - None
Nevada None - None
New None R Environmental Quality in New Hampshire, 1996
Hampshire
New Jersey Living with the Future in Mind, New Jersey Future, 1999. PR Living with the Future in Mind, New Jersey Future, 1999
New Mexico None - None
New York None - None
North Carolina Measuring Our Progress: Targets for the Year 2010, 1997.* P Measuring Our Progress: Targets for the Year 2010, 1997
North Dakota None - None
Ohio None R The Comparative Risk Project, Ohio SoE Report, 1995
Oklahoma None - None
Oregon Benchmarks, 1998; State of the Environment
Oregon Oregon Benchmarks, 1998. PR
Report, 2000
Pennsylvania Report of the PA 21st Century Commission, 1998. SP Report of the PA 21st Century Commission, 1998
Rhode Island None - None
South Carolina None R The Quality of the Environment in South Carolina, 1999
South Dakota None - None
Tennessee State of the Environment: A Legacy for
Tennessee None R
Tomorrow, 1996
Texas None SP Strategic Plan: State of the Environment, 1998
Utah Utah Tomorrow Strategic Plan, 1998 Annual Report.* P Utah Tomorrow Strategic Plan, 1998 Annual Report
Environment 1999 - An Assessment of the Quality of
Vermont None R
Vermont's Environment
Performance Measures 1999, Department of Planning
Virginia None P
and Budget
WA Env. Health 97; Our Changing Nature: Natural Resource
Washington None RP Trends 1998; Environmental Chartbook: A Collection of
Indicators on Washington's Environment, 1999

* These plans only make mention of sustainability.
R: Standard state of the environment report (focused on environment, statistical). P:
Progress-board type report, covers economic and social indicators as well as
environmental indicators. May have a sustainability focus. S: State environmental
agency strategic plan, including state of the environment reporting. Note: More than
one letter above denotes more than one report.

26 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States
Figure 9. Pollution Prevention Programs

Map not to scale.

Figure 10. Energy Policies Supportive of Renewables

Map not to scale.

Resource Renewal Institute 27

 NEPPS Program
Thirty-eight states have signed National Environ-
mental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS)
agreements43 (see Figure 11). 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 environ-
mental 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.44 These
nine states were Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Texas.
Greenhouse Gas Inventories & 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 invento-
ries of greenhouse gas emissions and 25 have climate
change action plans. Although these reports are impor-
tant 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 sector45 (see Figure 12).
28 Resource Renewal Institute
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 indus-
try, 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.”46
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 exist-
ence in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa,
Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont. States
providing deposits on beverage containers are innova-
tors 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).47 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
 The State of the States
Figure 11. National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS) Programs

Map not to scale.

Figure 12. Climate Change Action Plans & Greenhouse

Gas Inventories

Map not to scale.

Resource Renewal Institute 29

 Figure 13. Governance Grade (from Governing magazine, 1999)

Map not to scale.

30 Resource Renewal Institute


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 Commit-
ment Sub-Index are Oregon, New Jersey, Illinois,
Maryland, New York, California, Washington, Pennsyl-
vania, Vermont, and Florida (see Figure 15).
Fiscal Commitment: Environmental Programs,
Open Space, and Public Transport
States with high per capita spending on environ-
mental programs are Illinois, Oregon, Utah, Delaware,
New Hampshire, and West Virginia. Looking at the
sub-category of open space protection, strong commit-
ment 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 (see Figure 17).
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
Governance
This indicator is drawn from a state governance
survey done by Governing magazine.48 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 manag-
ing for results, which indicates adoption and imple-
mentation of strategic planning by state governments.
According to the survey, Missouri, Virginia, Washing-
ton, South Carolina, Oregon, and Arizona are leading
the way on this front (see Figure 13).
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 impor-
tant reflector of community participation, which
often results from good government performance and
governance. In the 1996 presidential and state elec-
tions, 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.
Note: For detailed descriptions and analyses of the
specific indicators comprising the four GPC sub-
indices, see the supplement to this report: Detailed
Results of the Green Plan Capacity Analysis.
31
 Figure 14. Environmental Mgmt. Framework Sub-Index (35 pts)

Map not to scale.

Figure 15. Fiscal & Program Commitment Sub-Index (10 pts)

Map not to scale.

32 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States
Figure 16. Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-Index (40 pts)

*California is the only state able

to have standards higher than
the Clean Air Act allows. Other
states shown have opted into the
California standards since this
became possible in 1990.

Map not to scale.

Figure 17. Governance Sub-Index (15 pts)

Map not to scale.

Resource Renewal Institute 33

34 Resource Renewal Institute

III
Emerging from Resource Renewal Institute’s
analysis of green plan capacity is a clearer picture of
which states are farthest along the path to sustainability.
This section profiles the three highest-ranking states—
Oregon, New Jersey, and Minnesota. These states
exemplify the strides being made to develop environ-
mental management strategies for moving beyond
command and control.
Exhibited in the three profiles are many of the
nuts-and-bolts steps that have been taken in pursuit
of sustainable development. Undergirding all of
these actions are the principles of green planning.
Oregon’s Environmental Stewardship Plan proposal,
New Jersey’s Sustainable State Project, and
Minnesota’s Sustainable Development Initiative are
outstanding examples of innovative action that can
propel a state forward.
Together, these three states capture much of the
geographic, cultural, economic, and environmental
diversity that characterize the United States. Moreover,
their efforts to embrace sustainability provide the
nucleus for wide-scale development and application of
the green plan model in every region of the country.
A. OREGON:
SOWING THE SEEDS OF A GREEN PLAN
Having evolved from an economy heavily depen-
dent on abundant natural resources, Oregon has
become a magnet for the high-tech, information-based
“new economy.” With the rapid growth and develop-
ment brought on by this change, the very qualities that
are attracting business investment are increasingly
threatened by air pollution, congestion, and suburban
sprawl. A variety of state leaders have recognized the
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
States on the
Green Plan Path
seriousness of this situation and are looking to green
planning as a means for ensuring that continued
economic development does not destroy the state’s
pristine natural character.
Oregon has long been a national leader on environ-
mental issues. It was the first state to introduce a bottle
bill; the first to institute statewide urban growth manage-
ment legislation; and the first to create a regional
metropolitan planning agency (Portland Metro). It is
therefore no wonder that the state is making significant
progress in developing the capacity for green plan
implementation. Among recent actions is an executive
order signed by Governor Kitzhaber last year that should
generate momentum for an expanding set of initiatives
all aimed at making sustainable development an
overarching state goal (see Appendix C). Also unveiled
recently was a detailed state of the environment report
that gives leaders a clear picture of the environmental
conditions and priority issues that will have to be
addressed in working toward a sustainable future.
Development of Environmental Policy in Oregon
The greatest legacy of Governor Tom McCall’s
administration in the 1960s and 1970s is seen by many
as the introduction of a statewide growth management
framework. The passing of two landmark bills put in
place the framework that exists today: one in 1969
requiring comprehensive local land use plans; a second in
1973 creating statewide land use planning law. The 1973
law declared that the State of Oregon had an interest in
the way growth and development occurred, reclaiming
for the state some of the planning and zoning authority
delegated to local government decades earlier.
The 1973 law set Oregon apart from all other states.
It created the Land Conservation and Development
35
 Commission (LCDC) to establish statewide planning
goals that would guide growth and development in the
state. Every city and county in the state has to shape its
plans to meet the framework of these overarching goals.
In the late 1980s, under the leadership of Governor
Neil Goldschmidt, Oregon launched a strategic
planning effort that focused on the state’s long-term
health and prosperity. Out of that effort came several
important recommendations, including an understand-
ing of the need to “engage all of Oregon’s sectors in a
partnership for progress.” A fundamental tenet of this
work was the need to “assure that the state can grow
while protecting one of [its] key advantages, [its]
quality of life.” The effort culminated in the creation of
a comprehensive plan for the state’s future. Called
“Oregon Shines,” the plan set five, 10, 15, and 20-year
goals in three categories: people, economy, and quality
of life. Approximately 35 goals focused on environmen-
tal issues ranging from carbon dioxide emissions to
wetlands and forest preservation, transportation, and
water quality. Progress on these goals is measured
through the Oregon Benchmarks program, which
issued its first report in 1991.
The Benchmarks program has become a national
model in establishing a framework for the continuous
improvement of government agency activities, with a
focus on encouraging “state and local government
agencies, businesses, and nonprofit and citizen groups to
use the Benchmarks in their planning and reporting.”
This includes linking environmental agency activities to
specified environmental benchmarks, a critical element
of outcome-based environmental management.
Oregon has also integrated its planning for transpor-
tation, land conservation, and urban development. The
Transportation and Growth Management (TGM)
program, formed after its approval by the 1993 Oregon
Legislature, integrates “transportation planning with the
statewide land use planning program to achieve bench-
marks for mobility, air quality, and community design.”
The program offers grants for innovative strategies and
undertakes extensive outreach about smart development
principles to a broad range of constituencies.
36 Resource Renewal Institute
Oregon’s Plan for Salmon Restoration
Oregon’s Salmon Plan, launched in 1997, closely
resembles a green plan, albeit on a small scale. When
the federal government was preparing to list Oregon’s
coastal coho salmon under the Endangered Species Act,
the state developed a plan to enlist voluntary citizen
cooperation in restoring the salmon’s habitat, arguing
that because so much of the habitat involved private
property, a concerted voluntary effort would be the
most effective way to ensure success.
The Salmon Restoration Plan is a comprehensive,
watershed-based strategy to restore, monitor, and
preserve the ecosystems upon which the salmon
depend. It involves efforts by federal land managers,
state agencies, 81 new citizen watershed councils, soil
and water conservation districts, cities, counties,
businesses, and private landowners. Projects include
wetlands restoration, erosion control, water conserva-
tion efforts, urban riparian habitat restoration, reduc-
tion of non-point source pollution, control of hatchery
salmon stock and exotic fish species, and catch-and-
release programs for wild salmon. Federal and state
agencies responsible for dams and hydroelectric projects
have initiated measures to manage stream flows for the
maximum benefit to fish.
Although spearheaded by government, primary
responsibility for carrying out many of the plan’s
restoration efforts lies with local businesses, community
groups, and residents. Government provides a compre-
hensive framework, coordinating mechanisms, and
legal and regulatory measures, as well as some monitor-
ing and enforcement activities. Funding comes from
both public and private sources. It is not yet clear
whether the plan will succeed.
Toward an Oregon Green Plan
In March 1999, a bill to assess the feasibility of
establishing a green plan for Oregon was introduced in
the state legislature (see Appendix C for the full text of
the bill). As reported in the Portland Business Journal,
“patterned after ‘green plans’ in the Netherlands and
elsewhere in Europe, House Bill 3135 seeks to put

Oregon on a path not yet taken by other states toward
eco-leadership.” The proposal was designed to establish
a new state goal of sustainable development and require
environmental and natural resource agencies to adopt
integrated goals, measurable objectives, and bench-
marks to achieve the new state goal. It would also
require each agency to institute outcome-based man-
agement and regulatory tracks to foster innovation and
provide maximum flexibility to the private sector and
communities to achieve the goals.
Introduction of the sustainable development bill
followed a 1996 RRI-led “Seeing is Believing” policy
tour to the Netherlands with multi-sector leaders from
Oregon. In helping to build broad interest and support,
RRI also brought a delegation of Dutch industry
leaders to Oregon in 1997 to present the business
benefits of the green plan model.
Unfortunately, the legislative measure was not
brought to the floor for a vote. However, recognizing
the importance of the initiative, Governor Kitzhaber
quickly moved to advance the sustainable development
agenda through executive action. As the governor
proclaimed in a recent speech:
I believe that we are entering a new era of envi-
ronmental politics—an era where the very na-
ture of the problems we face challenge us to seek
new strategies for success—particularly those that
call for, and result in, greater individual respon-
sibility and accountability for our air, land, and
water. You cannot achieve that through regula-
tion; you cannot achieve that through confron-
tation; you cannot achieve that through the
courts. You can only achieve that through a col-
laborative and cooperative process that engages
thousands of Oregonians and gives them a stake
in the problem and some degree of ownership in
the solution.
A key body that has laid much of the groundwork
for Oregon’s progress in the past several years is the
Environmental Stewardship Plan Committee, an
informal group of diverse interests that has been
meeting since 1997. The group has been pursuing
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
“more efficient and effective approaches to environ-
mental management and regulation” through an
impressive process that is summarized in a background
report. Driving the Committee’s proposal to establish a
state Environmental Stewardship Plan is the need for a
“unified and results oriented environmental manage-
ment system, which can place Oregon on a path
towards sustainable development.”
Future Directions
With the work of the Environmental Stewardship
Plan Committee, the governor’s executive order to
make state operations sustainable, and a comprehen-
sive state of the environment report, Oregon is poised
to lead the nation to a new level of management
capacity that promises to bring sustainable develop-
ment within reach. Most encouraging is the fact that
these efforts enjoy strong support from the state’s
residents. According to a poll of registered voters
conducted in March 2000, a clear majority of Orego-
nians—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents
alike—believe that now is the time to act decisively on
behalf of sustainable development. RRI will continue
to monitor the state’s progress and to share Oregon’s
experience with the growing number of leaders from
other states who are looking for viable alternatives to
the status quo.
B. NEW JERSEY:
TRANSLATING THE DUTCH MODEL
In its conscious effort to learn from and ac-
tively incorporate key ingredients of the Dutch
green plan, New Jersey has become the nation’s
leading proponent for state-level green planning.
Strong interest in the Dutch approach stems from
the comparable environmental challenges facing
both places. The Netherlands and New Jersey are
both densely populated, heavily industrialized, and,
because much of their land area is coastal, they face
significant danger from rising sea levels brought on
by global climate change.
37
 Two initiatives in particular demonstrate New
Jersey’s leadership in working to shape a sustainable
future. First is the state’s Development and Redevelop-
ment Plan, prepared in 1992, which provides a widely
supported blueprint for smart growth. Complementing
this effort is the Sustainable State Project, launched in
1999 to guide public and private leaders in developing
new policies that meet the state’s long-term socio-
economic and environmental needs. Both endeavors are
products of extensive public outreach efforts that have
generated broad and influential support.
The Evolution of State Environmental Policy
It was a Resource Renewal Institute policy tour to
the Netherlands in the summer of 1993 that brought
New Jersey’s long-term environmental goals into focus.
Seeing the Dutch green plan in action proved so
compelling that the group of state NGO leaders who
participated in the trip resolved to permanently change
the way their state dealt with environmental matters.
Backing this bold proposition was the freshly minted
Stockton Alliance, a group of 20 CEOs from the NGO
and corporate communities that had come together to
find better ways of achieving results than confrontation
and litigation. Environmentalists and businesses were
dissatisfied with the lack of progress being made and
with the way the state Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) was administering its programs. All
agreed that piecemeal, media-specific programs—each
with their own regulations and staff—required integra-
tion and an overarching plan for the future.
Immediately after becoming governor in 1994,
Christine Whitman was invited to visit the Netherlands
by the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, in
cooperation with the Dutch Ministry of Spatial Plan-
ning, Housing, and the Environment. Recognizing the
possible benefits of such a visit, Governor Whitman
sent a delegation of six high-ranking state officials to
learn about the Netherlands’ plan. That trip served as a
springboard for all subsequent actions in the state,
beginning with the governor’s advocacy of the green
plan model in her 1995 State of the State address.
38 Resource Renewal Institute
In that speech, Governor Whitman detailed her
strategy for moving forward: “We are working with
environmentalists, corporate leaders, and the public to
determine clear, measurable [environmental] goals with
specific target dates… and will merge these goals with
the aims of the Economic Master Plan, Energy Master
Plan, the upcoming Environmental Master Plan, and
the State Development and Redevelopment Plan.”
Based on the collaborative principles and purpose of
the Stockton Alliance, Governor Whitman established
the Green and Gold Task Force that same year to
pursue working strategies for the joint promotion of
environmental quality and economic vitality.
Also in 1995, 20 diverse non-profit groups united
to develop the fundamental elements of a plan for New
Jersey’s environmental future. A series of Environmen-
tal Summits were convened that culminated in the
release of the “New Jersey Green Plan,” which set out
green plan principles and objectives for the state. This
document, and the organizations behind it, provided a
basis for launching the Sustainable State Project.
With growing interest and support, the Whitman
Administration adopted a number of the organizing
principles embodied in the Dutch green plan, among
them a DEP master plan and benchmarked annual
report, a standards-based program for working with the
U.S. EPA, and a statewide, interdisciplinary goal-
setting and benchmarking process. An annotated list of
accomplishments flowing from the ongoing inter-
change between New Jersey and the Netherlands is
provided in Figure 18.
Toward a Sustainable State: “Living With the
Future in Mind”
In a remarkably eventful year, it was also 1995
when New Jersey Future, a leading state NGO, hosted
the first Sustainable State Leadership Conference.
This gathering brought together representatives of
business, academia, environmental, and civic groups
to consider the concept of sustainability in shaping
New Jersey’s future. As defined by New Jersey Future,
a sustainable state is one that “recognizes that a high
 The State of the States

Figure 18. New Jersey’s Sustainability Accomplishments

1)State Commerce Commissioner Gil Medina proposed an Office of Sustainability that was subsequently estab-
lished by the governor through executive order in 1997. It was created to materially promote sustainable business
development, offering loans and technical support to new and existing businesses. It has since been renamed the
Office of Sustainable Business.

2)In response to a challenge issued by Governor Whitman, a loose consortium of state conservation and environ-
mental organizations agreed on a common agenda and subsequently published a New Jersey Green Plan. This
document served as part of the platform for the Sustainable State Project launched by the NGO New Jersey
Future and the governor’s office in 1999.

3)The 1999 Sustainable State Project Report, Living with the Future in Mind, lists 11 goals and 41 indicators of
socio-economic and environmental progress toward meeting those goals. Governor Whitman initiated the project
with an executive order asking all line agencies to adopt the goals and track the indicators as an integral part of
their operations. The NJDEP has taken the lead in coordinating benchmarking with its sister cabinet depart-
ments—transportation, agriculture, utility regulation, community affairs, and commerce.

4)The DEP also took the lead in implementing the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, New Jersey’s
“smart growth” plan, with an administrative order mandating agency cooperation.

5)DEP Commissioner Robert Shinn, in his role as chair of ECOS, a national organization of state natural resource
and environmental commissioners, urged the federal EPA to develop performance-based agreements and
evaluation. This action helped create the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS),
now working in more than thirty-seven states. Central to the program are performance-based contractual
agreements between the states and the federal government that are aimed at measuring environmental quality
results rather than counting permits issued or violations of law. New Jersey’s NEPPS agreement encompasses the
complete range of DEP programs, from radiation protection to open space acquisition.

6)DEP also initiated facility-wide permitting, in part as a lesson learned from the Dutch “one page permit” process.
The department is moving ahead with Silver Track II and Gold Track streamlined permit systems. An outgrowth
of Project XL, DEP is working exclusively with ISO 14000 companies on simplifying permit requirements. Silver
Track II companies must buy into CO2 goals, pollution prevention, and other DEP initiatives. Gold Track
companies must exceed these criteria by demonstrating a downward trend in emissions.

7)Necessary for this process to succeed is continuous monitoring of environmental functions. NJEMS (an
environmental management system) has been developed to index emissions via a GIS-based computer system. It
will be tied into an online program to provide the EPA with direct access to any part of the DEP monitoring
system.

8)Steps to integrate growth management and environmental program rules into the State Plan started with coastal
zone protection legislation in 1994. Water quality rules and watershed management planning guidelines incorpo-
rating State Plan implementation strategies were recently released.

9)The Dutch influence can also be seen in the latest effort to gain a stable source of funding for open space, where
tax policy is linked with environmental protection. While an increase in the motor fuel tax was initially proposed,
the legislature would not approve it. However, over $1.8 billion of sales tax revenue has been dedicated for the
next 20 years by means of a ballot referendum in 1998 and implementing legislation signed into law a year ago.
The goal is to protect a million acres of open space and farmland by fee and easement purchase within a decade.

10) In a unique action, the DEP and the Netherlands Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing, and the Environment
have executed a letter of intent to work together on greenhouse gas reduction strategies, aiming at a 3.5%
reduction over 1990 levels by 2005.

Resource Renewal Institute 39

 quality of life depends on a balance of economic,
environmental, and social goals.”
The conference was the first in a series of public
dialogues throughout the state that led to the
identification of 11 indicators for the state’s long-
term quality of life. In the four years that followed,
additional outreach was conducted through work-
shops, conferences, and roundtables to determine
what type of state New Jerseyans want. This work
was carried out in a partnership between New Jersey
Future and the Whitman administration, the kind of
purposeful collaboration that is at the heart of the
green planning process. The goals and indicators of
this extensive undertaking were presented and
evaluated in the 1999 Sustainable State Project
Report, Living with the Future in Mind. Governor
Whitman acknowledged the importance of the
report by issuing an executive order directing all
state agencies to pursue actions that will enable the
11 sustainability goals to be realized.
International Initiative
In yet another bold step, New Jersey signed a
landmark agreement with the Netherlands in 1998 to
address the issue of global climate change. The jointly
signed letter of intent established a framework for
developing shared initiatives to combat global warming,
including a trading system for greenhouse gas emission
credits. The national Center for Clean Air Policy has
facilitated the project.
Over the past year, New Jersey has deepened its
relationship with the Netherlands in order to make
even greater advances on progressive emissions
policies. The two governments have agreed to
convene meetings every six months, alternating host
sites between the Netherlands and New Jersey. The
general purpose of these meetings is to promote
innovative environmental policies that will help both
places achieve high environmental standards and to
further facilitate exchange of information and
technology between New Jersey and the Netherlands
for mutual benefit.
40 Resource Renewal Institute
Future Directions
New Jersey’s actions thus far demonstrate a
commitment to the sustainability agenda that has
propelled the state into a position of national
leadership. Yet, despite these efforts, it remains to be
seen whether the conviction truly exists to turn
words into deeds that enable the state to achieve its
widely shared goals for the future. The Sustainable
State Report rightly concludes that “much work
remains to be done if we are to see this project bear
sustainable fruit. We must continue to fill in gaps in
our knowledge of trends affecting our future. We
must set meaningful targets, or benchmarks, for each
indicator. We must commit, as citizens, businesses,
and government officials, to achieving these bench-
marks—and eventually, our goals of a sustainable
and fulfilling life for all New Jerseyans.” New Jersey
does not yet have an official green plan, but as RRI’s
analysis reveals, no other state has done more to
learn about and incorporate green planning prin-
ciples, especially in the areas of flexible, goal-ori-
ented environmental regulation and statewide land
use and transportation planning. While New Jersey
has only just started down the path to sustainability,
the state’s current willingness to employ new envi-
ronmental strategies has positioned it well for the
next generation of environmental management.
C. MINNESOTA:
THE FIRST U.S. GREEN PLAN?
Minnesota’s natural wealth, coupled with a com-
mitment to progressive policy actions that represent the
interests of many groups, have made the state a leader
in developing and implementing sustainability initia-
tives. Like New Jersey, by scrutinizing the ways in
which the environment, the economy, and human
communities are interrelated, Minnesota has moved
forward on the path to a sustainable future. The state
offers a good model of how to secure the broad partici-
pation necessary to make sustainable development
policies a reality.

A Collaborative Process for Achieving
Sustainability
When Governor Arne Carlson was elected in 1990,
he committed his administration to reforming the
management of state government. The centerpiece of
this reform was Minnesota Milestones, an initiative to
establish goals and a 30-year vision for the state. Led by
Minnesota Planning, the Administration turned to the
public for suggestions on the state’s future and what
Minnesotans most wanted that future to look like.
Thousands of citizens participated in the effort, as did
the heads of each and every state department. They
identified 20 broad social, economic, and environmen-
tal goals under a vision for the future, which stated,
among other things: “We do not want growth and
change to overpower our quality of life. …A new
respect for the environment based upon a deeper
understanding of our role in the natural world will
become a part of our personal and corporate values.”
Eighty measurable indicators of progress, or milestones,
were selected to track progress toward the vision and
goals. They have been routinely monitored since the
program’s inception.
Building on elements of the Milestones’ vision,
cited above, and a Milestones goal that the state would
seek sustained economic growth consistent with
environmental protection, the state’s Environmental
Quality Board (EQB) decided to examine sustainable
development as a strategy for the State of Minnesota.
The EQB is a policy forum consisting of the heads of
ten state agencies involved with environment and
development, five citizens, and a chair who serves at the
request of the Governor. The Office of Strategic and
Long Range Planning, also known as Minnesota
Planning, is both a board member and staff to the
board. The EQB develops policy, creates long-range
plans, and reviews proposed projects that would
significantly affect the environment.
Redefining Progress provided the basis for a state
strategic plan for sustainable development, distributed
by the Governor and EQB in 1995. The plan called
for appointment of a Governor’s Round Table on
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
Sustainable Development, which took place in 1996.
The Governor asked the Round Table to serve as a
catalyst for sustainable development, foster public and
private partnerships, and reach out to Minnesotans
across the state to stimulate interest in and communi-
cate the importance of achieving sustainable develop-
ment. The Round Table consisted of 30 business,
environmental and community leaders, half of which
were members of the original Initiative teams. The
Round Table issued its final report in 1998, “Investing
in Minnesota’s Future: An Agenda for Sustaining Our
Quality of Life.” The report identifies six challenges
to sustainable development in Minnesota. (See the
Minnesota Planning/EQB sustainable development
webpage at www.mnplan.state.mn.us/SDI/
index.html.) Subsequent agency efforts have begun to
respond to these challenges.
Significant Legislative Landmarks
In 1996, the state legislature took the remarkable
step of directing all state agencies, departments, and
boards to assess how well their missions and programs
reflect and implement the Round Table’s principles of
sustainable development, or how they could be changed
to do so. Minnesota was the first state to take this
dramatic step forward.
In addition to this directive, the state has enacted
other groundbreaking, sustainability-focused legisla-
tion, including:
• The Sustainable Forest Resources Act of 1995,
which established a Forest Resources Council.
The Council in turn set guidelines for sustain-
able forest management and created compliance
audits that have shown levels of compliance
exceeding 90 percent on most ownerships.
Improved information sharing, landscape
planning, and a training program to certify
loggers are also results of the Council’s work.
• The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act,
also passed in 1995, which established a
multimillion-dollar program to redevelop
41
 contaminated sites for urban revitalization and
set area-wide goals for affordable housing.
• The Community-Based Planning Act of 1997,
which created mechanisms and guidelines for
community-based planning aimed at achieving
sustainable development. The Act promoted
citizen participation, improved cooperation
among local governments and the development
of sustainable approaches to economic devel-
opment, conservation, community design,
housing, transportation, land use planning,
public investment, and education.
• The Environmental Regulatory Innovations Act
of 1996, which sought to reward Minnesota
companies by granting regulatory flexibility in
exchange for superior environmental perfor-
mance. Promoting corporate environmental
responsibility in this way stands as a cornerstone
strategy of any successful green plan.
Toward A Minnesota Green Plan
Minnesota has many of the key components of a
green plan already in place, the most important being a
comprehensive, integrated, systems-based approach. As
with any such endeavor that is in its initial phase,
however, there is much room for improvement. For
example, many of the goals and strategies that have
been identified are in need of greater specificity. Each
community, along with the state as a whole, will need
to set clear, coordinated priorities and develop specific
goals with measurable outcomes and a fixed timetable
in order to achieve meaningful change.
The extent to which the goals and principles that
have been adopted are being integrated into areas of
government other than those traditionally responsible
for environmental concerns is unclear, nor is there
much evidence that environmental factors are being
integrated into economic decision-making. Both are
cited as key priorities in the strategic plan, Challenges
for a Sustainable Minnesota, but it will take a steadfast
commitment from government leaders to actually bring
about changes of this magnitude.
42 Resource Renewal Institute
Although the Governor’s Round Table on Sustain-
able Development went out of existence in 1998,
sustainability continues to be a focus in Minnesota. In
particular, smart growth has emerged as a priority of
the Ventura Administration, demonstrated by the
“Growing Smart in Minnesota” initiative. The frame-
work paper for that initiative calls for the state to
“support local governments around the state that make
sustainable development choices.” For example, the
Governor’s 1999 transportation budget recommenda-
tions called for funding of community-based planning
in conjunction with inter-regional corridor improve-
ments. The intent was to ensure that communities
would be equipped to control highway access and
prevent the sprawl that highway improvements might
otherwise engender. While the legislature balked at the
planning initiative, the Governor has established a
Local Solutions Alliance, a recommendation of the
Governor’s Round Table, to unify financial and techni-
cal assistance across state agency lines in pursuit of
smart and sustainable communities.
Two other signs of continuing progress are the
1999 release of Smart Signals: Economics for Lasting
Progress and the December 2000 adoption by EQB of
the scope for an Urban Development Generic Environ-
mental Impact Statement (GEIS). The Smart Signals
study recommends specific policy actions to move the
state toward a sustainable economy, including taking
better advantage of market forces, developing new tools
to measure progress, and redesigning incentive pro-
grams to encourage sustainable development.
The Urban Development GEIS seeks to understand
the social, economic and environmental implications of
urban development in Minnesota, and the effectiveness
of state and local policies and institutions in managing
growth. It will examine the influence of state tax policy,
general local government aid, and state spending pro-
grams on urban development cost and form. It will also
examine the extent to which local land use controls
export growth costs. The goal is to separate myth from
reality and, by so doing, improve urban development
policy and practice.
 The State of the States

Future Directions
What direction the state will go in the coming
years is difficult to predict, but the solid framework
that has been established is capable of driving the
process forward regardless of political changes.
Creating an environmentally and economically
sustainable society is not a short-term proposition,
and as Minnesota continues to blaze a path for itself
and for other states it will take years to determine the
true effect of the state’s actions. What is certain is that
Minnesota has already accomplished more than
almost any other state. The state’s pioneering efforts
are sure to provide important lessons and inspiration
for all those who follow.49

Resource Renewal Institute 43

44 Resource Renewal Institute

IV
From both the macro and micro perspectives
presented in this report, there is no mistaking the fact
that a growing number of states are treating sustainable
development as a policy imperative whose time has
come. On all fronts—framework, innovation, commit-
ment, and governance—an increasing sophistication of
activity and purpose is positioning states to make
commensurate advances in the underlying environmen-
tal policies that drive their programs.
At the same time, however, because only a fraction
of the 50 states surveyed have incorporated
sustainability into their environmental operations,
much work will be required to expand the positive
developments underway and their overall impact on
environmental protection in the United States. As
highlighted in the individual profiles, the most promis-
ing efforts now being made are concentrated in just a
handful of states. It can be expected that as the compel-
ling benefits of these initiatives are made clearer, many
more states will act to adopt sustainability strategies of
their own.
The effect of such activity will be to unleash a new
level of environmental entrepreneurship from every
sector. As eloquently observed in Stephan Schmidheiny’s
book, Changing Course, “A clear vision of a sustainable
future mobilizes human energies to make the necessary
changes, breaking out of familiar and established
patterns. As leaders from all parts of society join forces in
translating vision into action, inertia is overcome and
cooperation replaces confrontation.”50
Hence, the stage is set for all states to progress down
the green plan path. Rather than offering a retrospective
summary and distillation of findings, this conclusion
looks ahead to the challenges and opportunities in
establishing sustainable development as the overarching
goal of every state and, ultimately, of the nation as a
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
Guiding States Along
the Green Plan Path
whole. It does so to underscore the urgency of the issues
at stake—namely the current and future health of our
air, water, and land—and the magnitude of the problems
that must be overcome (see Figures 19 and 20).
Even those states that have done the most to
embrace sustainable development continue to face an
uphill climb. Minnesota, ranked number three in our
survey of green plan capacity, offers a good case in
point. Despite the state’s cutting-edge efforts over the
past decade, Minnesota residents use more energy and
renewable resources, generate more waste, and drive
more miles than ever before. Without an aggressive
plan and a clear commitment to reverse these trends,
the state’s progress toward sustainability will be under-
mined. Such challenges illustrate the inherent com-
plexities of attempting to achieve sustainable develop-
ment. At the same time, however, because the state is
educating its citizens and building a policy structure
based on the principles of sustainability, Minnesota
stands a much better chance of surmounting environ-
mental obstacles than all those states that have so far
not made sustainable development a priority.
In surveying state environmental activities nation-
wide, this report has endeavored to provide a common
baseline of where we are as a country in developing
strategies capable of leading to sustainable develop-
ment. With this information in hand, the bigger
questions that must now be asked are: Where do we go
from here? and How do we get there?
Our report indicates that the answer to these
questions include three elements.
First, efforts must be made to expedite expanding
interest and initiative, being sure to build upon the
strides already underway by establishing an interstate
communication network that informs states of ongoing
45
 Figure 19. Environmental Threats and Challenges

Examples of the environmental challenges that need to be addressed in the century ahead include:

1. Climate change. Rising global temperature, related to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,
brings threats of glacial melting, sea level rise, and volatile weather patterns. Although disagreement exists among the
scientific community on the potential level of impact, few scientists disagree that climate change is now real, and will
soon impact the daily lives of all U.S. citizens.

2. Impact of our ecological footprint. Estimates of our ecological footprint put the U.S. at 30.2 acres to support the
lifestyle of one person; this compares with 15.6 acres in the Germany, and 2.6 acres in India.1 With increased global
trade, the impact of the U.S. on the global environment is likely to increase.

3. Extinction of species. Globally, more than 1,000 plant and animal species become extinct each year. Though the
Endangered Species Act has had numerous successes in the U.S., many species remain threatened by habitat destruction
from urban development, deforestation, and intensive farming.

4. Population growth, urbanization, and sprawl. While not as rapid as global population growth, the population of the
U.S. is nevertheless expected to grow from 285 million (in 2001) to a projected 400 million by 2050.2 Much of this
growth will occur in sunbelt states, with attendant auto-dependent sprawl and urban growth. Sprawl is a problem
throughout the U.S., even in midwestern and northeastern cities that are experiencing no population growth.

5. Water scarcity. Accompanying population growth and urbanization in the western United States will be a growing
demand on the region’s scarce water resources. This will likely increase the competition between urban, agricultural, and
environmental needs.

6. Environmental contaminants. Some health problems are attributable to environmental problems, such as the increased
incidence of waterborne pathogens and exposure to toxic chemicals. Approximately 1,000 new chemicals are introduced
into the global market every year. Some synthetic chemicals and heavy metals—often found in pesticides and in
industrial inputs and by-products—have been found to cause problems in our intellectual development and in the
reproductive, immune, and endocrine systems of wildlife and humans.3

7. Energy use. The energy crisis in California threatens to spread across the country, which is not surprising given that
U.S. residents consume, on average, 8.7 times more electricity per capita than residents of other countries.4 As the
population grows, energy demand will likely increase, as long as utilities’ funding for energy efficiency measures
continues to decrease. Most U.S. electricity comes from coal power, which emits mercury and other hazardous pollut-
ants. In 1998, only 7.5% of total U.S. energy was generated from renewable sources,5 mostly from hydropower and
biomass (not solar or wind power).

8. Loss and degradation of agricultural land. Globally, agricultural land is lost to erosion, conversion, and desertification
at a rate of about 20 million hectares per annum. The U.S. can be expected to play an important role as the agriculture
sector faces the enormous challenge of meeting the food needs of 1.7 billion more people over the next 20 years.

9. Degradation of the marine environment. Overfishing, habitat destruction, and pollution of the marine environment
threaten the primary protein supply for 1.2 billion of the world’s people. Among the problems facing the U.S. is a “dead
zone” that has developed at the mouth of the Mississippi River because of nutrient overloading from agricultural runoff.
This problem alone threatens a multi-billion dollar fishing industry.

1 National Geographic, July 2001.

2 Ibid.
3 Lester Brown, Michael Renner, and Brian Halweil. Vital Signs 2000. Worldwatch Institute, 2000.
4 U.S. Census, 1997.
5 “U.S. Renewable Energy Consumption,” U.S. Department of Energy, March 2000.

46 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

progress in every region of the country. Not only
should this network serve as an interactive conduit that
reaches all states, it should also function as an organiz-
ing vehicle for regional and national interchange via
conferences, workshops, and exchange programs that
periodically bring states together to learn from each
other firsthand. Knowing that the systemic change
called for will require broad-based cooperation, this
effort must engage both public and private sector
interests at the highest levels of influence and authority.
Contributors to this work should include, among
others, the Environmental Council of the States, the
Multi-State Working Group (MSWG), the Council of
State Governments, the National Council of State
Legislatures, and the National Governors Association.
Second, to optimize the potential of these activi-
ties, green planning can 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 methodol-
ogy. RRI’s Green Plan Leadership Program was
founded with this purpose in mind and is one example
of how the learning process can be undertaken
(www.rri.org). Through the Green Plan Leadership
Program, RRI is developing the necessary tools for
enabling states to pursue green plan adoption. Program
advisors include experienced green plan practitioners
and implementation experts from the U.S. and beyond.
Third, the federal government must serve as chief
facilitator for the transition to a regulatory system built
upon the principles of green planning. Working with
states and the private sector to establish an overarching
set of environmental targets and long-term goals for the
nation as a whole will provide the basis for coordinated
and efficient actions aimed at achieving sustainable
development. It will also foster the complementary
roles that federal and state governments must play
throughout the process. Recognition of the need to
move in this direction is seen in the NEPPS program
and in a congressional proposal titled the Second
Generation of Environmental Improvement Act
(HR3448).51 It is also exhibited in a recent letter from

Figure 20. State of the World Environment 1950 - 1997

Key
1950 1972 1997 1. Billion persons
2. Cities w/populations greater than
1. Population 2.5 3.8 5.8 8 million
2. Megacities 2 9 25 3. Average food production in
3. Food 1,980 2,450 2,770 calories/capita
4. Annual fish catch in million tons
4. Fish catch 19 58 91 5. Annual water use in cubic
5. Water use 1,300 2,600 4,200 kilometers
6. Index of forest cover
6. Rainforest 100 85 70 7. Million animals
7. Elephants 6.0 2.0 0.6 8. Annual CO2 emissions in billion
8. CO2 1.6 4.9 7.0 tons of carbon
9. Atmospheric concentration of
9. CFCs -- 1.4 3.0 CFCs in parts/billion (represents
ozone layer depletion)

Source: World Resources Institute, cited in the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Exploring Sustainable Development:
Global Scenarios, 1997.

Resource Renewal Institute 47

 the MSWG to the USEPA and congressional leaders
that calls for creation of “the next generation of envi-
ronmental law and policy.” According to the MSWG,
“the problems of maintaining the quality of life are
difficult but solvable. A wave of new thinking and
innovative problem solving abounds in the public and
private sectors, presenting a great opportunity for the
Congress and the Administration, in partnership, to
address this important national issue.”52
A. ELEMENTS OF A SUSTAINABLE STATE
Knowing the major elements of a sustainable state
is the first step in working to become one. What
follows is not meant to be a prescriptive list; however, it
appears unlikely that sustainability can be achieved
without incorporating all of these provisions.
1. Goals, Indicators, and Benchmarks
To determine where, when, and how a sustainable
state is to be reached, it is necessary to establish goals,
measure progress toward those goals, and know when
and if the goals have been achieved. To be effective, the
goal-setting process needs to involve a wide cross-
section of the public, have the cooperation of all
government agencies, and be multidisciplinary. Know-
ing when to answer yes to “are we there yet?” consti-
tutes the first sustainability requirement.53
2. Integration of Law and Policy with Program
Consistency of government action both vertically,
from local to national, and horizontally, between state
cabinet-level agencies, is essential for any sustainability
goals to be achieved. Thus public housing policy,
transportation planning, water quality planning,
environmental regulations, budgeting, and tax policy all
have to be integrated accordingly. Because most state
law is derived from enabling statutes originating at
different times and with varying purposes, it is seldom
consistent with a sustainability agenda. The Nether-
lands has attempted to integrate its laws to be consis-
tent with the National Environmental Policy Plan.54
48 Resource Renewal Institute
New Zealand revisited all of its environmental laws and
integrated them into one act, the Resource Manage-
ment Act, which has at its center the goal of achieving
sustainable management. Here in the U.S., New Jersey
has taken two steps toward the integration of environ-
mental and growth management laws within the state’s
Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) and water
quality regulations to make them consistent with the
State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP).
The SDRP is the unofficial instrument for implemen-
tation of the Sustainable State goals.55
3. Growth Management or Smart Growth
In many respects, how we arrange ourselves on the
landscape with new construction and how we manage
the built environment determine how just, healthy, and
efficient our future will be. Therefore, determining what
is needed, planning what is to be built, where it is to be
located, and when it is appropriate are key elements in
searching for a sustainable future. As reported, several
states have smart growth initiatives starting on an
integrated growth management path; Oregon, New
Jersey, and Maryland are among the leaders.56
4. Public Education
No sustainability effort will be successful without
ensuring public buy-in. Compliance with environmental
protection law, indeed the development of law itself,
requires the support of major political players and the
public. Most environmental protection law is perceived
to apply to industry and public agencies, not to individu-
als. Yet, when the case is made and carried to the people,
cooperation is obtained. Such is the situation, for
example, with recycling and cigarette smoking in public
places. Two decades ago, both recycling programs and
smoking bans for indoor public places were a rarity. But
intensive public education campaigns enabled strong laws
to emerge and new norms to take hold on both fronts.
5. Social Equity
Everyone aspires to a healthy and safe environ-
ment. But while affluent communities use more

resources than poor communities, low-income areas
typically face greater environmental burdens. Equal
access to clean air, water, and land is integral to
sustainability. This can best be achieved through the
deliberative efforts of government, industry, and the
NGO community working together and recognizing
the links between health, education, employment,
poverty, overconsumption, and environmental quality.
6. Procurement Policy
Government has the opportunity—some would say
obligation—to lead by example in ensuring that the
products it buys and its methods of operation contribute
to a sustainable condition. The effectiveness of procure-
ment policies has already been demonstrated in recy-
cling, where governments have mandated purchase of
recycled materials, and therefore created markets, which
have in turn led to widespread availability of recycled
products that are competitive with virgin materials.
7. Media Transfer Policy
The U.S. traditionally has had a single-media focus
in its environmental regulatory policy. Washing street
contaminants into storm drains entering the nearest
river, dumping sewage sludge into leaking landfills, or
even stripping water pollutants and discharging them
into the air are some of the many examples of how
pollutants are transferred from one medium to another
under the present system. Integrated policy that
requires a holistic view of pollution is fundamental to
creating a sustainable environment. The Dutch estab-
lished such a policy as part of their first National
Environmental Policy Plan.
8. Level Playing Field – Green Economics
No sustainable development program is likely to be
successful unless what are now considered externalities
are internalized in our economic reporting system. For
example, under the present system pollution prevention
activity is considered an economic cost and oil spill
remediation an economic benefit. Further, we make no
allowance for the depletion of natural resources in
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
calculating our gross state and national products. Proper
accounting of natural resource depletion and internaliz-
ing pollution costs are critical for making the informed
decisions necessary to become a sustainable state.
B. STEPPING STONES TOWARD A
SUSTAINABLE STATE
The following actions can help any state forge
programs and policies that incorporate the above
elements and meet the long-term needs of all its citizens.
This list fuses the major features of green planning with
applied examples drawn from various state initiatives
highlighted on these pages. In all cases, the environmen-
tal, economic, and social needs specific to a state will
dictate the terms of both the process and the product.
• Initiate a focused effort that brings together
diverse interests to consider the long-term future
of their state, enabling each sector to express its
priority needs/desires.
Examples: The Minnesota Sustainable Develop-
ment Initiative, New Jersey’s Sustainable State
Project, the California Environmental Dialogue,
Oregon’s Environmental Stewardship Plan Com-
mittee, and the Eco/Eco Policy Forum of Maine
have provided formal and informal settings for
commencing this dialogue. The state legislature in
New York is considering a bill to establish a
sustainable development task force that would have
this action as its first step (see Appendix C).
• From this dialogue, craft a unifying vision for the
state that captures the contributions of all its
voices and engenders a “chorus of concern” for
the state’s long-term quality of life.
Example: The vision statement of the Minnesota
Sustainable Development Initiative provides an
excellent model worthy of adoption by any state
(see Figure 21).
49
 • Articulate the underlying principles that com-
prise the vision.
Examples: Once again, Minnesota provides a good
model with a set of five principles that cover the
complex attributes that together define sustain-
able development (see Figure 21). As explained by
the multi-sector round table of interests contrib-
uting to the Sustainable Development Initiative,
“Principles are general guideposts along the path.
A set of rules for long-term economic, environ-
mental, and social well-being…” In its work, the
Environmental Stewardship Plan Committee of
Oregon identified a longer list of principles
flowing from a vision statement that features three
key values: the environmental compatibility of
business practices, the right and responsibility of
every citizen to have a voice in determining the
state’s future, and the need for accountability on
actions impacting the environment.
• Equip multi-sector leaders and the general public
with a detailed understanding of the challenges
and opportunities facing the state thus allowing
for informed recommendations and decisions to
be made.
Examples: As described earlier in this report, state
of the environment reports are an effective tool for
this purpose. The report can be a straightforward
accounting of environmental conditions such as in
the states of Indiana, South Carolina, and Hawaii,
or it can be based on the guiding principles and
vision that give the report a focused theme and
purpose. Reports from Oregon and Maine offer
good examples of the latter. Worth reiterating is the
fact that more than one-third of states (19) have
not yet produced such reports.
• With a reliable and comprehensive information
base, establish a clear and defensible premise for
pursuing new policy actions that better serve the
needs of each sector.
Examples: The premise or rationale for undertaking
50 Resource Renewal Institute
policy actions meant to achieve sustainable develop-
ment can come in a variety of forms. California’s
Innovation Initiative builds upon a detailed premise
that spells out the environmental, economic, and
social basis for moving toward sustainability (see the
initiative summary in Appendix C). Alternatively, as
in Minnesota, the premise can be presented in the
context of a strategic action plan outlining the
challenges that compel the state to pursue sustain-
able development policies.
• Develop an integrated set of goals and objectives
with a corresponding timetable and an appropri-
ate set of indicators for tracking progress.
Examples: New Jersey’s Sustainable State Project
Report contains 11 goals “shaped with extensive
public input, which embody the highest aspirations
of New Jerseyans from all walks of life.” Together
with its 43 indicators for measuring progress, the
report provides a comprehensive picture of the
factors that will determine long-term quality of life
in New Jersey. Not included in the report, however,
is a set of strategies or a timetable to achieve the
goals laid out in the report. The Minnesota Mile-
stones and Oregon Benchmarks programs also offer
goals and indicators of progress, but like New
Jersey neither effort provides strategies or deadlines
for fulfilling the goals.
• Implement new policies and programs aimed at
realizing the stated goals and objectives.
Examples: At the state level there are two major
avenues for implementing new programs and
policies—either through executive or legislative
action. The majority of states that have made
advances on sustainable development have done so
through gubernatorial initiative. The various actions
taken by New Jersey that are profiled in this report
were all accomplished administratively under
Governor Whitman. The story in Oregon is similar,
if not as extensive, with Governor Kitzhaber having
taken steps to move the sustainability agenda

forward. Following a failed attempt at legislative
action in 1998, the governor signed an executive
order in 2000 to make state operations sustainable
(see Appendix C). It is slated to be the first in a series
of executive actions on sustainable development. In
Minnesota, what began as an executive initiative
ultimately received endorsement by the state
legislature, where numerous bills were passed that
contribute to the state’s sustainable development
goals. The measures are described in Minnesota’s
state profile (see Section III).
• Devise strategies to ensure long-term commit-
ment to the policies and programs adopted.
Examples: Because state implementation of the
sustainable development agenda is still very much
in its formative phase, tested examples of this
action are not yet available. It can be expected,
however, that the leading GPC states will provide
the best-informed models for use in other states.
Implementing these actions will create a framework
for achieving sustainable development. It will also spawn
and strengthen the policy innovation necessary for
continuous progress to be made. Because of the diverse
support that comes from incorporating the priority
concerns of all sectors, commitment to this endeavor will
be strong, especially as its benefits are realized over time.
This, in turn, will prompt the efficient governance and
leadership required for ensuring long-term success.
Integral to the overall process of creating a sustain-
able state is the need to educate participants in the
practice of green planning. Given that success hinges
on changing a regulatory structure that has effectively
segregated both the issues and the interests involved,
the learning curve to be reckoned with is steep and will
require focused action that brings policy makers in
contact with viable alternatives to the status quo.
Through the Green Plan Leadership Program, RRI
has learned that progress made stems from progress seen.
Thus the “Seeing is Believing” policy tour has become
the cornerstone of RRI’s education effort. Having led
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
more than a dozen delegations to the Netherlands and
New Zealand, RRI has found that there is no substitute
for the inspiration and understanding derived from
direct exposure to green planning in action. In fact, there
is a strong correlation between those states that have
participated in policy tours and their ranking in the
Green Plan Capacity Index. Oregon and New Jersey,
ranked number one and two respectively, were both
motivated by experiencing the Dutch plan firsthand. As
Judy Jengo, advisor to New Jersey Governor Whitman
and policy tour graduate, recently wrote, “The effective
strategy developed by the Dutch has not only been an
inspiration for New Jersey; it has also provided us with a
conceptual blueprint for the determined pursuit of
sustainable development.”
An important caveat resides in the elusive nature of
this pursuit. Sustainable development has yet to be
achieved by any state or country. While the technical
know-how already exists for defining and measuring
elements contributing to a sustainable condition, up
until now it has been relatively easy for detractors to
dismiss the concept as academic, self-limiting, and
impractical. But a more enlightened view is beginning
to take hold, the essence of which is summed up in the
following passage from a World Business Council for
Sustainable Development report:
The extent of our inter-connectedness has
changed the speed with which knowledge is trans-
ferred and problems are perceived—but not the
speed with which these problems are solved…our
problems seem baffling in their interlinked com-
plexity, and the slow and insufficient response of
our institutions leaves many people feeling frus-
trated and disillusioned.57
This sentiment is contributing to an accelerating push
for effective new policies 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 states that are setting the pace for
lasting change, an encouraging trend that carries with it
the promise of a sustainable future.
51
 Figure 21. Vision Statement & Principles of the
Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative

VISION STATEMENT

The Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative envisions a future where businesses grow and prosper while
respecting the natural and human environments that support them. In this future:

• We Minnesotans make commitments and choices to preserve the options future generations will need to secure the
quality of life we now enjoy. We see sustainable development as a positive, fundamental change in the way we define
social progress, do business and protect the environment.

• We view the health of our natural environment, the strength of our community and our economic security as interde-
pendent. We maintain our quality of life through the sustainable use of energy and natural resources, recognizing that
population growth, resource consumption and lifestyle choices determine the options we leave for future generations.

• Our communities are places where all citizens enjoy rich opportunities in education, employment, involvement in
community and appreciation of the environment.

• Our economy is healthy, diversified, globally competitive and in harmony with Minnesota’s ecosystems; it provides all
citizens ample opportunity for a fulfilling life.

• Our natural environment is biologically and ecologically diverse and able to provide the resource benefits, products
and services needed for the indefinite future.

• We continually work to change our political and economic systems so that they consistently reward economically
efficient, socially beneficial and environmentally sustainable behavior.

PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FOR MINNESOTA

The Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development offers five principles as guideposts along the path of
sustainable development. They are:

• Global interdependence. Economic prosperity, ecosystem health, liberty and justice are linked, and our long-term
well-being depends on maintaining all four. Local decisions must be informed by their regional and global context.

• Stewardship. Stewardship requires the recognition that we are all caretakers of the environment and economy for
the benefit of present and future generations. We must balance the impacts of today’s decisions with the needs of
future generations.

• Conservation. Minnesotans must maintain essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life-support systems
of the environment; harvest renewable resources on a sustainable basis; and make wise and efficient use of our renew-
able and non-renewable resources.

• Indicators. Minnesotans need to have and use clear goals and measurable indicators based on reliable information to
guide public policies and private actions toward long-term economic prosperity, community vitality, cultural diversity
and healthy ecosystems.

• Shared responsibility. All Minnesotans accept responsibility for sustaining the environment and economy, with each
being accountable for his or her decisions and actions, in a spirit of partnership and open cooperation. No entity has
the right to shift the costs of its behavior to other individuals, communities, states, nations or future generations. Full-
cost accounting is essential for assuring shared responsibility.

Source: Investing in Minnesota’s Future: An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life, Governor’s Round Table on Sustainable Development, 1998;
and Redefining Progress: Working Toward a Sustainable Future, 1994.

52 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

Appendices

APPENDIX A
GPC Index Methodology and Data Tables

Detailed Methodology Outline for GPC Analysis 57

Environmental Management Framework Sub-Index 60
Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-Index 61
Environmental Commitment Sub-Index 62
Governance Sub-Index 63
GPC Index, Final Results I, Ranked 64
GPC Index, Final Results II, Ranked 65

APPENDIX B
A Comparison of GPC Index Rankings with Existing Measures of State 67
Environmental Quality and Socio-Economic Quality

APPENDIX C
State Legislation and Administrative Action Related
to Sustainable Development

i. Oregon HB 3135 (did not pass) 72

ii. Oregon Executive Order No. EO-00-07: Development of a State 77
Strategy Promoting Sustainability in Internal State Gov’t Operations
iii.New York State Bill A5676 (awaiting passage) 83
iv. Connecticut Bill: “An Act Concerning Exemplary Environmental 87
Management Systems” (enacted)
v. California EPA Innovation Initiative Summary 90

Resource Renewal Institute 53

54 Resource Renewal Institute
 The State of the States

APPENDIX A

GPC Index Methodology

and Data Tables

Note: A more extensive review of the indicators comprising the GPC Index can be
found in a separate volume (Detailed Results of the Green Plan Capacity Analysis), which
is available upon request or by visiting RRI’s website at www.rri.org.

Resource Renewal Institute 55

56 Resource Renewal Institute
 APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW, OUTLINE OF SUB-FACTORS USED IN GREEN PLAN CAPACITY ANALYSIS
WHAT EACH INDICATOR MEASURES INDICATOR

35 pts 1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK SUB-INDEX (ATTRIBUTES)

1 . 1 Existence of a State Sustainability Plan (with Legislative Support)

6 Existence of a framework for sustainability 1.1.1 Existence of a State Plan focused upon the achievement of sustainable development
2 Existence of a framework for sustainability 1.1.2 Existence of a State Plan inclusive of the concepts of sustainable development
2 Existence of a framework for sustainability 1.1.3 Support for State Sustainability Planning in Legislation (1 point for pending legislation)
1 0 ==> scored as 10 points in sub-index

1 . 2 Existence and quality of State of the Environment report

0 Availability of information 1.2.1 Is there a comprehensive state of the environment report available (online or in hard copy)?
1.5 Level of analysis 1.2.2 Is there a temporal analysis of environmental trends, or does the report present more of a 'snapshot'?
2.5 Level of analysis 1.2.3 Does the report include projection of environmental quality and discussion of possible future scenarios?
2.5 Level of analysis 1.2.4 Does the report include an analytical narrative on trends (beyond presentation of raw data)?
2.5 Level of analysis 1.2.5 Does the report include case studies? Does the report show innovation in any particular way?
3 Level of usage and impact of report 1.2.6 Is the report part of a larger process? (e.g. progress boards, linked to strategic planning process)
3 Level of usage and impact of report 1.2.7 Is the report linked to state environmental agency/state government goals?
3 Level of usage and impact of report 1.2.8 Is the report a 'one-off' production, or is it part of an on-going process?
1 Initiative for broader SoE reporting 1.2.9 Is there more than one comprehensive state of the environment report? (usually a progress board report and SoE report)
1 Initiative for updated SoE reporting 1.2.10 How recent is the report? (1 point if more recent than 1996; 1/2 point if prior to)
20 ==> scored as 20 points in sub-index

1 . 3 Availability of Information to the Public (Website Review)

What level of information is available on the website(s)?
5 Availability of information $ 1.3.1 Is there environmental data available online from state government agencies?
5 Availability of information 1.3.2 Are topical reports on the state of the environment available, i.e., air, water, land?
5 Availability of information 1.3.3 Is a searchable database of environmental information available?
0 Availability of information 1.3.4 Is there a comprehensive state of the environment report available (online or in hard copy)?
How 'user friendly' and encouraging of participation is the website?
2.5 Content and usability of website 1.3.5 Overall design and 'user friendliness'?
2.5 Content and usability of website 1.3.6 Are reports dowloadable (PDF)?
2.5 Content and usability of website 1.3.7 Is the content in-depth, or just "up front"?

Resource Renewal Institute

2.5 Content and usability of website 1.3.8 Are contact details available easily?
25 Sub-Total
5 ==> weighted down to 5 points in sub-index

1 . 4 Existence of State Planning Office/Program

2 Initiative for comprehensive planning 1.4.1 Is there a state planning office or state planning program in the state?
2 ==> scored as 5 pts in sub-index

1 . 5 State Planning/Development Act - modernization & strength of state role

3 Base for comprehensive planning 1.5.1 Similarity to 1920s legislation - has the state government modernized and customized its land use planning laws?
2 Base for comprehensive planning 1.5.2 What is the strength of the state role in planning and development? Can the state coordinate planning statewide at all?
5 ==> scored as 5 pts in sub-index

1 . 6 Proportion of Federally Delegable Programs Delegated to States

3 Strength of state role in environmental mgt 1.6.1 What proportion of federally delegable programs have been delegated to each state?
==> scored as 3 pts in sub-index Percentage out of 28 programs, under 5 acts (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act, and
Toxic Substances Control Act; percentage has been converted to a point score)
The State of the States

45 Sub-total
3 5 ==> pro-rated down to 35 points overall * Total for State Environmental Management Framework Sub-Index, 25 Sub-Factors

57
58
40 pts 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INNOVATION SUB-INDEX (ATTRIBUTES)

2 . 1 Air Quality Standards (above Clean Air Act)

6 Policy innovation above Federal requirements 2.1.1 Existence of Air Quality Standards above Federal Clean Air Act* (both air quality and tailpipe standards)
6 Policy innovation above Federal requirements 2.1.2 States Opting into California Standards (tailpipe standards only, above Federal level)
6 ==> scored as 6 pts in sub-index * Note: only California has this mandate, other states can opt into these standards.
(Note: states cannot score in both categories)

2 . 2 Pollution Prevention Programs

2 Policy innovation in pollution prevention
2 Policy innovation in pollution prevention
2 Policy innovation in pollution prevention
2 Policy innovation in pollution prevention
8 ==> scored as 8 pts in sub-index
2.2.1 Is there pollution prevention legislation in the state?
2.2.2 Does this legislation have a numeric goal?
2.2.3 Does this legislation have reporting requirements?
2.2.4 Does this legislation include funding for P2 programs?

2 . 3 Energy Policy Supportive of Renewables

0 Policy innovation in energy management 2.3.1 Comprehensive Restructuring Policies
2 Policy innovation in renewable energy 2.3.2 Renewable Electricity Standards
2 Policy innovation in renewable energy 2.3.3 Renewable Electricity Funds
1 Policy innovation in renewable energy 2.3.4 Net Metering
1 Policy innovation in renewable energy 2.3.5 Disclosure
6 ==> scored as 6 pts in sub-index

2 . 4 Existence of a National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) Program

5 Policy innovation in pollution prevention 2.4.1 Does the state have a NEPPS program? Does it have a PPA (4 pts for NEPPS without signed PPA)?
==> scored as 5 pts in sub-index

2 . 5 Existence of Environmental Leadership Program

1 Policy innovation in pollution prevention 2.5.1 Does the state have an Environmental Leadership program?
1 Policy innovation in pollution prevention 2.5.2 Is the Environmental Leadership Program being effected?
2 Policy innovation in pollution prevention 2.5.3 Does the Environmental Leadership Program have legislative support?
4 ==> scored as 4 pts in sub-index

2 . 6 Existence of State Climate Change Action Plan

0 . 5 Recognition and action on broader context 2.6.1 Does the state have a climate change action plan? (2 pts for draft; 4 pts for completed)

Resource Renewal Institute

==> scored as 0.5 pts in sub-index

2 . 7 State Authored Inventories of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

0 . 5 Recognition and analysis of broader context 2.7.1 Does a state authored inventory of greenhouse gas emissions exist?
==> scored as 0.5 pt in sub-index

2 . 8 Existence of State-Level "Right-to-Know" Act

2 Recognition and action on broader context 2.8.1 Does the state have a state-level "Right-to-Know" Act regarding toxics and chemical presence?
==> scored as 2 pts in sub-index * Note: only California has this legislation, to date (9.2000)

2 . 9 Existence of Bottle Bill

2 Innovation in state environmental planning 2.9.1 Is there a beverage container refund law?
2 ==> scored as 2 pts in sub-index

2 . 1 0 Existence of Environmental Assessment Requirements

1 Innovation in state environmental planning 2.10.1 Does the state have environmental assessment requirements for state agencies based on NEPA?
1 Innovation in local environmental planning 2.10.2 Does the state have environmental assessment requirements for local government based on NEPA?
2 ==> scored as 2 pts in sub-index
2 . 1 1 Innovation in Comprehensive Plan Requirements
1 Innovation in local environmental planning 2.11.1 Is there a comprehensive plan statutory mandate for urban growth boundaries?
1 Innovation in local environmental planning 2.11.2 Is there a comprehensive plan statutory mandate for critical and sensitive areas?
 1 Innovation in local environmental planning 2.11.3 Is there a comprehensive plan statutory mandate for natural hazards?
1 Innovation in local environmental planning 2.11.4 Is there a comprehensive plan statutory mandate for visioning or public participation?
4 ==> scored as 4 pts in sub-index

40 Sub-total
40 ==> scored as 40 points Total for Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-Index, 25 Sub-Factors

10 pts 3.0 FISCAL & PROGRAM COMMITMENT SUB-INDEX (ATTRIBUTES)

3 . 1 State budget environmental commitment, 1997

3 State government environmental commitment 3.1.1 State environmental agency budget per capita, 1997
3 State government environmental commitment 3.1.2 State environmental agency budget as a proportion of state taxes, 1997
6 ==> scored as 6 pts in sub-index
$
3 . 2 Open space protection
4 State commitment to open space protection 3.2.1 Open space protection, from Sierra Club Sprawl Report
==> scored as 4 pts in sub-index

3 . 3 Expenditure on public transport

4 State commitment to alternate transp. modes 3.3.1 Per capita transit spending
==> scored as 4 pts in sub-index

3 . 4 Recycling levels and targets

2 State achievement in recycling
2 State commitment to recycling
1 State commitment to recycling
1 State commitment to recycling
6 ==> scored as 6 pts in sub-index
3.4.1 State-wide recycling rate
3.4.2 Recycling rate target
3.4.3 Mandate on local government to reach recycling target
3.4.4 Curbside recycling, percent of population served

20 Sub-total
10 ==> pro-rated down to 10 points overall * Total for Fiscal & Program Commitment Sub-Index, 8 sub-factors
15 pts 4.0 GOVERNANCE SUB-INDEX (ATTRIBUTES)

10 4 . 1 Governance Grade, 1999, G o v e r n i n g magazine

Resource Renewal Institute

Effective state governance 4.1.1 Financial management
Effective state governance 4.1.2 Capital management
Effective state governance 4.1.3 Human resources
Innovation in strategic management 4.1.4 Managing for results
Innovation in information technology 4.1.5 Information technology
1 0 ==> scored as 10 pts in sub-index
Indexed and averaged from 5 factors above (equally weighted)

4 . 2 Existence of a Green Government (Procurement/Operations) Program

3 Commitment to internal govt sustainability 4.2.1 Existence of a Green Government (Procurement/Operations) Program
3 ==> scored as 3 pts in sub-index

4 . 3 Voter Participation Rate

2 Community reflection of state/federal governance 4.3.1 Percent of people who reported voting in the 1996 November elections.
2 ==> scored as 2 pts in sub-index

15 ==> scored as 15 points overall Total for Governance Sub-Index, 7 sub-factors

The State of the States

1 0 0 TOTAL TOTAL OF 65 FACTORS GRADED

* Pro-rating was done to provide proportionality to the sub-indices and ensure that all factors are accounted for and that their relative contributions are accurately reflected.

59
 Appendix A. Table 3. Environmental Management Framework Sub-index.

Federally Environmental
Delegable Environmental Management
State State of the Availability State State Programs Management Framework
Sustainability Environment of Information Planning Planning that are Framework Sub-Index
1 2 3 4 5 6
Rank State Plan Report (website) Office Act Delegated Sub-Index (score)
1 Oregon
   
 33
2 New Jersey
      31
3 Minnesota
   
 28
4 Washington        26
5 Florida  
    25
6 Maine        23
7 Vermont  
 
 22
8 Utah     
 21
9 Pennsylvania    
  20
1 0 North Carolina  
 
 19
1 1 Connecticut     

19
1 2 Kentucky  


19
1 3 Maryland 

  
19
1 4 Idaho  


19
1 5 Delaware 
  

19
1 6 Georgia 
  

18
1 7 South Carolina 
 


18
1 8 Illinois     

18
1 9 Massachusetts    

17
2 0 Indiana  
 

16
2 1 Hawaii      
15
2 2 Wisconsin 

  
15
2 3 Missouri 
  

15
2 4 Virginia 

  
14
2 5 Michigan 

 

13
2 6 Texas 
   
13
2 7 Tennessee 
   
13
2 8 Iowa 
     12
2 9 Kansas 
     12
3 0 New Hampshire        12
3 1 Montana 
     10
3 3 California    
  9
3 2 Ohio     
 7
3 4 Rhode Island        7
3 5 Arizona    
  6
3 6 West Virginia     
 6
3 7 New York        5
3 8 Nevada        5
3 9 Nebraska  
 
 5
4 0 Louisiana     
 5
4 1 Arkansas     
 4
4 2 Colorado     
 4
4 3 South Dakota     
 4
4 4 Mississippi     
 4
4 5 North Dakota     
 3
4 6 Oklahoma     
 3
4 7 Alaska        3
4 8 Alabama     
 3
4 9 New Mexico     
 2
5 0 Wyoming     
 2
KEY  high
above average  below average  low
1. Source: Website research, Resource Renewal Institute, 2000.
2. Source: Phone survey and website reviews, Resource Renewal Institute, 2000.
3. Source: Website reviews, Resource Renewal Institute, 2000.
4. Source: Website research, Resource Renewal Institute, 2000.
5. Source: American Planning Association, 2000. Element includes "strength of state planning role."
6. Source: Environmental Council of States website (http://www.ecos.org), 2000.

60 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States
Appendix A. Table 4. Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-index.

Climate Change Action Plan6

Energy Policy Supportive of

Environmental Assessment
State Pollution Prevention

Comprehensive Planning
State “Right-to-Know”
Air Quality Standards/

State Environmental

Innovation Sub-Index

Innovation Sub-Index
Leadership Program5

Emissions Inventory7

Environmental Policy

Environmental Policy
NEPPS Agreement4
Tailpipe Emissions

Requirements10
Above Federal1

Renewables3
Legislation2

Legislation8

Bottle Bills9

Mandates11

(score)
Rank State
1 Massachusetts   
 
     30
2 Maine  

 
  
 29
3 New York  

 
 
  27
4 California  
 

 
  26
5 New Jersey   


     25
6 Oregon 




 

 24
7 Vermont   


  
 23
8 Minnesota  

 
 
  23
9 Connecticut   


     20
10 Washington   


     18
11 Arizona   
      
17
12 Texas 


      
17
13 Illinois  



   
16
14 Georgia 

 
   
16
15 Indiana   
 
   
15
16 Rhode Island 


 
   
15
17 Wisconsin  



   
14
18 Mississippi   
 
   
14
19 Colorado   


   
13
20 Iowa     

   
13
21 Maryland   
 
  

13
22 Delaware   


   
12
23 Michigan 
        
12
24 Montana   


  
 12
25 New Hampshire 

 
     11
26 Florida   
      
10
27 South Carolina    
     
10
28 South Dakota 

        10
29 Missouri 

 
     10
30 Kentucky     

  
 9
31 Louisiana 

        9
32 Ohio   
        9
33 Alaska   
        8
34 Idaho   
     
 8
35 Oklahoma   
        8
36 Arkansas   
        7
37 Hawaii   


 
  7
38 North Carolina   


     7
39 Pennsylvania  
 

     7
40 Tennessee     

     7
41 Utah   


     7
42 Nebraska   
        6
43 North Dakota   
        6
44 Kansas   
 
     6
45 Nevada  
  
     6
46 New Mexico  
  
    5
47 Virginia      
     5
48 Wyoming   
        4
49 West Virginia             3
50 Alabama     

     2
KEY  high
above average  below average low
1. Source: Union of Concerned Scientists U.S.A. website 8. Source: Barry Rabe, "Power to the States: The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralization,"
2. Source: http://www.p2.org/ in Vig & Kraft, Environmental Policy, 2000
3. Source: Union of Concerned Scientists U.S.A. website 9. Source: National Council for Science and the Environment
4. Source: US EPA website & ECOS website 10. Source: "Problems and Prospects in Local Environmental Assessment: Lessons from the
5. Source: Tellus Institute United States," Rolf Pendall, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
6. Source: US EPA 41 (1), 5-23, 1998
7. Source: US EPA 11. Source: American Planning Association

Resource Renewal Institute 61

 Appendix A. Table 5. Fiscal & Program Commitment Sub-index.
Fiscal &
Fiscal & Program
State Budgets for Expenditures Program Commitment
Environmental Open Space on Public Recycling Commitment Sub-Index
1 2 3 4
Rank State Agencies Protection Transit Policies Sub-Index (score)
1 Oregon      7
2 New Jersey      7
3 Illinois      6
4 Maryland      5
5 New York      5
6 California      5
7 Washington      5
8 Pennsylvania
 
 5
9 Vermont   
 5
10 Florida


 5
11 Massachusetts   

5
12 Connecticut   

5
13 Rhode Island
 

4
14 West Virginia   

4
15 Georgia   

4
16 Hawaii
 

4
17 New Hampshire   

4
18 Texas   

4
19 Delaware    
4
20 Minnesota    
4
21 Maine
  
4
22 Colorado


4
23 Missouri



4
24 Tennessee
  
3
25 Ohio  
  3
26 South Carolina
 
 3
27 Arizona   
 3
28 Michigan   
 3
29 Virginia  

 3
30 Nevada

  3
31 South Dakota      3
32 North Carolina   
 3
33 Utah

  3
34 Montana

  3
35 Alaska
    3
36 Indiana   
 2
37 Louisiana  
  2
38 Nebraska   
 2
39 Wisconsin      2
40 Iowa      2
41 Alabama      2
42 Kentucky      2
43 New Mexico      2
44 Mississippi
    2
45 North Dakota      2
46 Arkansas   
 2
47 Idaho      2
48 Kansas      1
49 Oklahoma      1
50 Wyoming      0
KEY  high
above average  below average  low
1. Source: http://www.stateline.org/
2. Source: Sierra Club, Sprawl Report: Rating the States, 1999.
3. Source: Sierra Club, Sprawl Report: Rating the States, 1999.
4. Source: BioCycle magazine, State of Garbage report, 1999.

62 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States
Appendix A. Table 6. Governance Sub-index.
Governance
Governance Green Governance Sub-Index
1 2 3
Rank State Grade Procurement Voting Rate Sub-Index (score)
1 Missouri     7
2 Washington     7
3 Virginia     7
4 Utah     7
5 Michigan     6
6 Minnesota  
 5
7 Wisconsin     5
8 Iowa     5
9 Nebraska     5
10 Ohio     5
11 Pennsylvania   
5
12 Delaware   
5
13 South Carolina   
5
14 Maryland   
5
15 North Carolina   
5
16 Kentucky   
5
17 Texas   
5
18 Montana


5
19 North Dakota


5
20 South Dakota


4
21 Kansas
 
4
22 Louisiana
 
4
23 Oregon
 
4
24 Vermont
 
4
25 Massachusetts
 
4
26 Illinois
 
4
27 New Jersey
 
4
28 Tennessee
 
4
29 New Hampshire
   4
30 Colorado
   4
31 Indiana
   4
32 Mississippi
   4
33 Florida
   3
34 West Virginia
   3
35 Georgia
   3
36 Nevada
   3
37 Maine  
 3
38 Wyoming  
 3
39 Idaho     3
40 Alaska     3
41 Oklahoma     3
42 Arizona     3
43 Rhode Island     2
44 Connecticut     2
45 New Mexico     2
46 Arkansas     2
47 New York     2
48 California     2
49 Hawaii     2
50 Alabama     1
KEY  high
above average  below average  low
1. Source: Governing Magazine, 1999
2. Source: RRI website research, 2000.
3. Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Resource Renewal Institute 63

 Appendix A. Table 7. GPC Index, Final Results I, Ranked

F r a m e w o r k I n n o v a t i o n C o m m i t m e n t Governance GPC Index GPC Index

1 Oregon   
 73
2 New Jersey   
 71
3 Minnesota  
  64
4 Maine  
  59
5 Washington      57
6 Massachusetts


 57
7 Vermont   
 55
8 Connecticut

  45
9 Illinois


 45
1 0 Florida 
   43
1 1 Maryland



43
1 2 California    
42
1 3 Georgia



42
1 4 Pennsylvania   

42
1 5 Indiana

 
41
1 6 Delaware




40
1 7 Texas




40
1 8 New York    
39
1 9 Utah    
39
2 0 North Carolina   

38
2 1 Wisconsin

 
37
2 2 South Carolina



37
2 3 Kentucky
 

36
2 4 Missouri


36
2 5 Michigan

 
36
2 6 Iowa 
 
34
2 7 Idaho
    31
2 8 New Hampshire  
  31
2 9 Montana   
 30
3 0 Virginia
    29
3 1 Arizona 
   29
3 2 Rhode Island 

  28
3 3 Tennessee


 28
3 4 Hawaii

  28
3 5 Ohio      26
3 6 Colorado 

  25
3 7 Kansas   
 24
3 8 Mississippi 
   23
3 9 South Dakota   
 22
4 0 Louisiana   
 22
4 1 Nebraska      20
4 2 Nevada      18
4 3 Alaska      17
4 4 West Virginia  
  17
4 5 North Dakota   
 17
4 6 Oklahoma      15
4 7 Arkansas      15
4 8 New Mexico      11
4 9 Wyoming      10
5 0 Alabama      8
KEY  high
above average  below average  low

64 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States
Appendix A. Table 8. GPC Index, Final Results II, Ranked

Out of 35 pts Out of 40 pts Out of 10 pts Out of 15 pts

Framework Innovation C o m m i t m e n t Governance GPC Index GPC Index
1 Oregon 33 24 7 8 73

2 New Jersey 31 25 7 8 71

3 Minnesota 28 23 4 9 64

4 Maine 23 29 4 3 59

5 Washington 26 18 5 8 57

6 Massachusetts 17 30 5 5 57

7 Vermont 22 23 5 5 55

8 Connecticut 19 20 5 2 45

9 Illinois 18 16 6 5 45

1 0 Florida 25 10 5 4 43

1 1 Maryland 19 13 5 6 43 
1 2 California 9 26 5 2 42 
1 3 Georgia 18 16 4 4 42 
1 4 Pennsylvania 20 7 5 9 42 
1 5 Indiana 16 15 2 7 41 
1 6 Delaware 19 12 4 6 40 
1 7 Texas 13 17 4 6 40 
1 8 New York 5 27 5 2 39 
1 9 Utah 21 7 3 8 39 
2 0 North Carolina 19 7 3 9 38 
2 1 Wisconsin 15 14 2 6 37 
2 2 South Carolina 18 10 3 6 37 
2 3 Kentucky 19 9 2 6 36 
2 4 Missouri 15 10 4 8 36 
2 5 Michigan 13 12 3 7 36 
2 6 Iowa 12 13 2 6 34 
2 7 Idaho 19 8 2 3 31 
2 8 New Hampshire 12 11 4 4 31 
2 9 Montana 10 12 3 5 30 
3 0 Virginia 14 5 3 8 29 
3 1 Arizona 6 17 3 3 29 
3 2 Rhode Island 7 15 4 2 28 
3 3 Tennessee 13 7 3 5 28 
3 4 Hawaii 15 7 4 2 28 
3 5 Ohio 7 9 3 6 26 
3 6 Colorado 4 13 4 4 25 
3 7 Kansas 12 6 1 5 24 
3 8 Mississippi 4 14 2 4 23 
3 9 South Dakota 4 10 3 5 22 
4 0 Louisiana 5 9 2 5 22 
4 1 Nebraska 5 6 2 6 20 
4 2 Nevada 5 6 3 4 18 
4 3 Alaska 3 8 3 3 17 
4 4 West Virginia 6 3 4 4 17 
4 5 North Dakota 3 6 2 5 17 
4 6 Oklahoma 3 8 1 3 15 
4 7 Arkansas 4 7 2 2 15 
4 8 New Mexico 2 5 2 2 11 
4 9 Wyoming 2 4 0 3 10 
5 0 Alabama 3 2 2 1 8 

Resource Renewal Institute 65

66 Resource Renewal Institute
 The State of the States

APPENDIX B

A Comparison of G.P.C. Index

Rankings with Existing Measures
of State Environmental Quality
and Socio-economic Quality

Resource Renewal Institute 67

 The Institute for Southern Studies (ISS) produced Gold and Green 2000 as an
update to its 1994 report. The report ranks states according to 20 indicators on their
economic/social (gold) health and 20 indicators on their environmental (green) quality.

Economic (Gold) Indicators: Workplace deaths, workers in high-injury jobs,

workers with toxic injuries, workers in jobs with high risk of disease, disability
benefits, employer health insurance, laws protecting workers, unemployment rate,
youth unemployment rate, unemployment duration, employment growth,
women’s opportunities in top jobs, minority opportunities in top jobs, annual pay,
households in poverty, income gap between rich and poor, high-school educa-
tional attainment, tax fairness, business start-ups, job growth in new business.

Environmental (Green) Indicators: Hazardous waste generated, toxic chemical

discharges, cancer-causing toxins, solid waste generated, solid waste recycled,
pesticides, fertilizer use, total water use, hazardous spills, global warming gases, air
quality, gasoline use, miles driven, energy consumption, change in energy con-
sumption, state spending on environment, portion of state budget for the environ-
ment, environmental policy record, pollution subsidy versus investment, emis-
sions-to-job ratio.

Gold and Green 2000 found that “states with the highest environmental standards
also boast the best economic performance.”1 Furthermore, a comparison of the Gold
and Green rankings with GPC Index rankings shows a relationship between states’
environmental and economic standing and their green planning capacity. Of the seven
top-scoring GPC states, three are also in the seven top-scoring states on the Gold and on
the Green indices. On the economic, Gold index, Minnesota, Vermont, and Massachu-
setts all scored within the top seven. On the environmental, Green index, Vermont,

Table 9. Comparison of GPC Index with

Gold and Green Index Rankings

State GPC Index Rank ISS Green Rank ISS Gold Rank

Oregon 1 8 23
New Jersey 2 24 10
Minnesota 3 6 (tie) 2
Maine 4 6 (tie) 13
Washington 5 11 18
Massachusetts 6 18 4
Vermont 7 1 3

68 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

Minnesota, and Maine scored within the top seven. Furthermore, all of the top-seven
GPC Index states scored within the top 25 (the top half ) of Gold and Green rankings.
The fact that states like Massachusetts and New Jersey score high in the GPC Index
but not as high on environmental quality can probably be attributed to a couple of
factors. First, it makes sense that states with greater environmental pressures (from
population density and industrial development) have had more of a need to build the
policy capacity to address those pressures. (This partially accounts for the low GPC
ranking of states like North and South Dakota, which do not experience these pressures
to the extent that other states do.) Secondly, some of the innovative policies that states
like Massachusetts and New Jersey have put into place are relatively new and have not
been fully implemented. Therefore, those policies may not have translated yet into
measurable environmental improvements.
While some correlations are apparent between the various indices, this information
is primarily presented to round out the profiles of these states.

1
Gold and Green 2000, Institute for Southern Studies, http://216.22.158/
goldgreen2000.html.

Resource Renewal Institute 69

70 Resource Renewal Institute
 The State of the States

APPENDIX C

State Legislation and

Administrative Action Related
to Sustainable Development

Resource Renewal Institute 71

 APPENDIX C (i).
Text of Oregon HB 3135

70th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—1999 Regular Session

LC 1787

House Bill 3135

Sponsored by Representative WELLS; Representative PIERCY (at the request of

Stewardship Planned Partnership)

SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a
part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is
an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced.

Declares sustainable development as policy goal of State of Oregon. Establishes

Sustainable Development Task Force to study feasibility of adopting goal oriented
and performance based regulatory system to achieve goal.

Declares emergency, effective July 1, 1999.

A BILL FOR AN ACT

Relating to sustainable development study; appropriating money; limiting expenditures;

and declaring an emergency. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

SECTION 1. { + As used in sections 1 to 5 of this 1999 Act:

(1) ‘Benchmarks’ means interim indicators that measure the progress in achieving
measurable objectives and long term measurable goals.

(2) ‘Long term measurable goals’ means the attainment of the condition for a
parameter that is necessary to achieve sustainable development within 25 years.

NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an amended section is new.
Matter within { - braces and minus signs - } is existing law to be omitted.
New sections are within { + braces and plus signs + }.

72 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

(3) ‘Measurable objectives’ means measurable achievements at specific points in

time, typically in two- to five-year segments that over the duration achieve long
term measurable goals.

(4) ‘Natural resource agency’ includes the Office of Energy, Department of Land
Conservation and Development, Environmental Quality Commission, State
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, State Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Water Resources Department, State Forestry Department, Division of
State Lands, State Parks and Recreation Department and State Department of
Agriculture.

(5) ‘Sustainable development’ means managing the use, development and protec-
tion of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, that enables people to
meet their current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs. + }

SECTION 2. { + The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that:

(1) In order to establish a policy of sustainable development, the State of Oregon

must achieve the following intermediate value goals:
(a) A competitive and balanced economy;
(b) A healthy environment
(c) A continuing resource base; and
(d) Communities that provide a good quality of life, for both current and future
generations of Oregonians.

(2) Although Oregon has made progress toward the goals set forth in subsection (1)
of this section, Oregon lacks an integrated strategy for achieving these goals
concurrently. Oregon also lacks established mechanisms for measuring the success
of activities implemented to achieve these goals.

(3) To develop an integrated strategy for achieving the four goals set forth in
subsection (1) of this section, and thus establishing a sustainable development
policy, the State of Oregon must:
(a) Examine the feasibility of establishing clear, long term measurable goals for
environmental and natural resource stewardship along with measurable objectives
and interim benchmarks to monitor progress towards the goals in accordance with
ORS 291.110 and 291.200;
(b) Examine a performance based system in which long term measurable goals can
be attained by carefully monitored and self-generated, incentive based strategies
that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental management and
regulation for businesses, communities and government; and

Resource Renewal Institute 73

 (c) Integrate environmental and natural resource goals with economic and
societal goals. + }

SECTION 3. { + In order to achieve the goals set forth in section 2 (1) of this
1999 Act, the State of Oregon shall examine an environmental and natural re-
source management system that is based on a policy of sustainable development
and that:
(1) Establishes clear long term measurable goals and measurable objectives in
accordance with ORS 291.110;
(2) Is incentive based and performance oriented;
(3) Allows attainment of superior environmental and natural resource management
performance by adoption of a performance track in which entities would be held
accountable for achieving long term measurable goals but have freedom to choose
how to accomplish them;
(4) Assures predictability for participants;
(5) Is integrated, cross media, cross agency and flexible;
(6) Focuses on managing the causes of environmental degradation rather than
simply impacts;
(7) Concentrates on issues of long term ecological significance; and
(8) Achieves the objectives of subsections (1) to (7) of this section in the most cost-
effective, economically accommodating and community oriented manner. + }

SECTION 4. { + (1) There is created a Sustainable Development Task Force

consisting of not more than 18 members. The President of the Senate shall appoint
two at-large members, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint
two at-large members, and the Governor shall appoint one at-large member who
shall serve as chairperson of the task force. In addition to the five at-large members,
each director of a natural resource agency shall appoint one member. The Governor
shall appoint the remaining members of the task force to represent industry, public
interest groups and municipalities.

(2) The task force shall conduct the examination described in section 3 of this
1999 Act and determine the viability of adopting a goal oriented and performance
based regulatory system with sustainable development as the overarching environ-
mental policy for the State of Oregon.

(3) The task force may cause to be employed such persons as are necessary to the
performance of the function of the task force. The task force shall fix the duties and
amounts of compensation of such employees. The task force shall use the services
of natural resource agency staff to the greatest extent practicable.

(4) All agencies, departments and officers of this state are directed to assist the task
force created under this section in attaining its mission, and to furnish such

74 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

information and advice as the members of the task force consider necessary to
perform their functions.

(5) Subject to the approval of the Emergency Board, the task force created under
this section may accept contributions of funds and assistance from the United
States or its agencies or from any other source, public or private, and agree to
conditions thereon not inconsistent with the purposes of the task force. All such
funds are to aid in financing the functions of the task force and shall be deposited
in the General Fund of the State Treasury to the credit of separate accounts for the
task force and shall be disbursed for the purpose for which contributed in the same
manner as funds appropriated for the task force.

(6) Official action by the task force established under this section shall require the
approval of a majority of the quorum of the task force. A majority of the members
of the task force constitutes a quorum. All legislation recommended by official
action of the task force must indicate that the legislation is introduced at the
request of the task force. Such legislation shall be prepared in time for presession
numbering and presession filing pursuant to ORS 171.130. + }

SECTION 5. { + In accordance with the requirements established by the Sustain-

able Development Task Force, each natural resource agency shall determine the
following and report to the task force:
(1) The degree to which a state policy of sustainable development will assist the
agency in carrying out its mission.
(2) Methods for establishing long term measurable goals to achieve sustainable
development, including interim benchmarks, from the agency’s perspective.
(3) How collaboration would occur with other governmental entities and state
agencies under a policy of sustainable development.
(4) Changes to statutes, rules, policies, intergovernmental agreements, strategic
plans, relationships with private and nonprofit sectors and the agency’s organiza-
tion and processes that would be necessary to implement a policy of sustainable
development.
(5) Whether resources are being allocated in reasonable proportion to the ecologi-
cal significance of sustainable development and the resource allocation changes
necessary to bring the allocation into proper proportion.
(6) The extent to which new systems can be developed, particularly incentive based
programs, to achieve measurable superior environmental protection and natural
resource management. + }

SECTION 6. { + The appointing authorities shall appoint the members of the

Sustainable Development Task Force on or before October 1, 1999. The task force
shall convene its first meeting on or before October 15, 1999. + }

Resource Renewal Institute 75

 SECTION 7. { + In addition to and not in lieu of any other appropriation, there is
appropriated to the Sustainable Development Task Force for the biennium begin-
ning July 1, 1999, out of the General Fund, the sum of $___, which may be
expended for the purposes set forth in section 4 of this 1999 Act. + }

SECTION 8. { + Notwithstanding any other law, the amount of $___ is establish

for the biennium beginning July 1, 1999, as the maximum limit for payment of
expenses from fees, moneys or other revenues, including Miscellaneous Receipts,
excluding federal funds, collected or received by the Sustainable Development Task
Force. + }

SECTION 9. { + Sections 1 to 6 of this 1999 Act are repealed on ___. + }

SECTION 10. { + This 1999 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation
of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this
1999 Act takes effect July 1, 1999. + }

Source: Oregon State Assembly.

76 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

APPENDIX C (ii).
OREGON EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. EO-00-07:
DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE STRATEGY PROMOTING
SUSTAINABILITY IN INTERNAL STATE GOVERNMENT
OPERATIONS

WHEREAS the unique natural qualities of the Pacific Northwest are unparalleled
in the world and state government, as a large employer and facilities manager,
impacts these qualities through its internal state government operations;

WHEREAS the people of the State of Oregon have a long history of finding
innovative solutions to the most challenging and complex problems;

WHEREAS the State of Oregon strategic plan, Oregon Shines, reflects values that
balance community, environmental and economic aspects of life in Oregon;

WHEREAS analysis of current trends described by the Oregon Benchmarks and by

the Oregon State of the Environment Report shows significant threats to quality of
life and environmental and economic sustainability;

WHEREAS the State of Oregon aspires to learn from the leadership of private
industry, business, labor, educational institutions and other governments in
addressing the goal of sustainable development;

WHEREAS it is the goal of the State of Oregon to increase efficiency in state

government, cut long-term costs associated with state programs and save taxpayer
dollars; and

WHEREAS this complex challenge is evolving, it is believed there are important

steps the State of Oregon can take now to amend internal government operations
to meet important goals.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED:

The State of Oregon shall develop and promote policies and programs that will
assist Oregon to meet a goal of sustainability within one generation—by 2025.

A number of significant steps will be necessary to achieve a sustainable future and

will require the participation of all Oregonians. As an initial effort under this

Resource Renewal Institute 77

 executive order, the State of Oregon shall focus on improving its internal operations
as state government’s first step toward meeting the goal of sustainability. This step is
the first of many to be taken as we advance the state toward a sustainable future.

The State of Oregon adopts the following definition, goals and guidelines to
promote sustainability.

Definition
Sustainability means using, developing and protecting resources at a rate and in a
manner that enables people to meet their current needs and also provides that
future generations can meet their own needs. Sustainability requires simultaneously
meeting environmental, economic and community needs.

Goals
1. Increase the economic viability of all Oregon communities and citizens;
2. Increase the efficiency with which energy, water, material resources and land are used;
3. Reduce releases to air, water and land of substances harmful to human health
and the environment; and
4. Reduce adverse impacts on natural habitats and species.

Guidelines
As the State of Oregon works toward sustainability, the state shall:
1. Employ the knowledge, expertise and creativity of Oregon’s citizens in develop-
ing solutions;
2. Build upon existing private and public efforts throughout the state to ensure
efficient and complementary results;
3. Integrate efforts in ways that enhance the effectiveness of new and existing efforts;
4. Collaborate and cooperate to remove barriers and find solutions;
5. Emphasize on-going learning and adaptive management as techniques needed to
inform and improve the process continually;
6. Develop voluntary, incentive-based and performance-oriented systems to
supplement traditional regulatory approaches;
7. Seek to understand the full costs and benefits of possible actions to ensure that
decisions are fully informed;
8. Using good science, measure resource use, environmental health and costs to
determine progress in achieving desired outcomes; and
9. Establish clear, measurable goals and targets to guide state efforts toward
sustainability.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED:

All state agencies and employees are expected to take actions to promote sustain-
able practices within state government. As an initial step, the Department of

78 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

Administrative Services, with its central role in state buildings, procurement and
communication, shall lead efforts focused on internal government operations. The
following specific actions shall be taken under this executive order:

1. Adopt Sustainability Practices within State Government Operations to Demon-

strate how to Reduce Waste

The Governor designates the Department of Administrative Services as the leader

in implementing early sustainability measures in such areas as: facilities construc-
tion and operations; purchasing; energy usage; vehicle use and maintenance;
information systems operations; and publishing and distribution.

The Department of Administrative Services, in collaboration with other state

agencies, shall implement the following objectives:
a. Within six months following the date of this order, the Department of
Administrative Services shall adopt sustainable facilities standards and
guidelines. These shall guide the siting, design, construction, deconstruction,
operation and maintenance of state buildings and landscapes, and the selection,
terms and conditions for state leaseholds. The department shall:
i. Review and consider sustainable facilities standards, practices and principles
employed by businesses, educational institutions and other governments;
ii. Obtain input from the existing Central Facilities Planning Committee and
the existing Capital Projects Advisory Board, organized for state facilities
coordination under ORS 276.227;
iii. Review and update state sustainable facilities standards and guidelines at least
biennially; and
iv. Track and report key sustainable facilities performance elements through the
existing State Facilities Coordination Program.
b. The Department of Administrative Services shall use the North Mall Complex
design, construction and maintenance as a pilot project to employ and evaluate
sustainability methods and programs. The facility design shall employ a wide
range of compatible, reliable sustainability actions. Where feasible, it shall test
such programs and standards as the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program.
c. The Department of Administrative Services shall expand state government
purchasing power by aggressively entering into joint bidding agreements with
other state and local governments and with multi-government purchasing
alliances, and by encouraging local governments to access resulting low-price,
high-value purchase agreements that promote sustainability. This will make
sustainable products and services more widely available to local governments.
d. To the extent that it is effective and practical to do so, the Department of
Administrative Services shall take immediate action to purchase electrical energy

Resource Renewal Institute 79

 from renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. In the
immediate future, this shall involve purchasing green power from private
utilities as appropriate; beginning October 2001, this shall involve purchasing
green power through direct access to the power generation market.
e. The Department of Administrative Services shall appoint a Sustainable Supplier
Council. In consultation with the council, the department, by June 2001, shall
develop sustainability purchasing policies, targets and benchmarks for each of
the following areas: paper products; building construction; cleaning products
and coatings; general purpose motor vehicles and office furniture. In determin-0
ing benchmarks, the council shall consider benefits and costs that could arise as
a result of purchasing sustainable alternatives.

The Department of Administrative Services shall develop, based on its experience

in implementing the preceding objectives, appropriate mechanisms to assist other
state agencies in efficiently achieving sustainable internal operations. Mechanisms
may include replication of department procedures or collaboration on the develop-
ment of alternative approaches. In this effort, the department shall consult with the
sustainability work group.

The Department of Administrative Services shall report biennially to the Governor

and the Legislative Assembly on actions taken to promote sustainability. The first
such report shall be submitted by December 15, 2000 and shall address actions
taken by the Department of Administrative Services and other state agencies to
implement this executive order.

2. Create a Sustainability Work Group

To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of efforts related to the sustainability of

state operations, the Governor shall assemble a Sustainability Work Group com-
prising representatives of the Legislative Assembly, state agencies, business, natural
resources industry and environmental interests, labor, education and local govern-
ment for the purpose of providing evaluations, recommendations and feedback on
state efforts. The work group shall also be asked to develop options for additional
steps the state can take to promote sustainability. Staffing for the work group shall
be coordinated by the Governor’s office. The work group shall present a first report
to the Governor and the Legislative Assembly by December 15, 2000, with a final
report due by June 1, 2001.

3. Assess Options for Sustainability Indicators and Targets

The Oregon Progress Board shall evaluate potential measures, including Oregon
Benchmarks and the State of the Environment Report, for their effectiveness in

80 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

measuring progress toward sustainability. In this evaluation, the Progress Board shall
consult with the Sustainability Work Group and with the Department of Administra-
tive Services. The Progress Board shall report to the Governor and Legislative Assem-
bly on their findings as part of the board’s biennial reporting process.

4. Conduct Business, Community and Public Outreach

Business and Community Outreach

In order for state government to develop sustainable internal operations and assist
local organizations to do the same, the Economic and Community Development
Department, after consultation with the Economic and Community Development
Commission, other Community Solutions Team agencies and other appropriate
state agencies, shall develop and implement strategies to accomplish the following
actions:
a. Develop partnerships among state and local governments, businesses and
communities that support and promote sustainability;
b. Coordinate efforts to better market sustainable products, industries and services
from Oregon and encourage development of environmental technologies;
c. Develop a range of resources to support organizations adopting sustainable
practices. These resources may include training and educational opportunities,
electronically available information, case studies and other services of greatest
value to businesses, communities and other organizations;
d. Intensify efforts to increase the economic stability of communities designated as
“economically distressed;” and
e. Evaluate a range of incentives that would make investments in sustainably-
oriented businesses and practices more attractive.

By September 30, 2000, the Economic and Community Development Depart-

ment shall prepare and submit to the Sustainability Work Group for its review a
plan to encourage businesses and communities throughout the state to learn about
and voluntarily adopt sustainable practices.

By December 15, 2000, the Economic and Community Development Department

shall prepare and submit to the Governor and the Legislative Assembly a report on
the actions taken to implement this executive order.

Public Outreach
The Governor’s office, the Department of Administrative Services and the Eco-
nomic and Community Development Department shall, after consultation with
the Sustainability Work Group, develop and maintain Internet web sites describing
the plans, actions and accomplishments of state agencies and highlighting examples
of successful sustainability practices from the public and private sectors. In addi-

Resource Renewal Institute 81

 tion, these entities, in collaboration with the Sustainability Work Group, shall
develop and implement short-term plans to communicate with the general public
about the state’s efforts to promote sustainability.

5. Pursue Further Efforts

The State of Oregon, in cooperation with businesses, non-profit organizations,

local governments and other citizens, will pursue further actions in an on-going
effort to meet the goals and principles outlined in this executive order. The Gover-
nor, in subsequent orders and directives, may announce additional objectives to be
pursued by agencies. Directives may also identify steps to ensure broad public
participation in this sustainability effort.

Done before me at Salem, Oregon, this 17th day of May, 2000.

John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.

GOVERNOR

Source: Oregon Governor’s Website.

82 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

APPENDIX C (iii).
Text of New York State Bill A5676

STATE OF NEW YORK

5676

2001-2002 Regular Sessions

IN ASSEMBLY

February 27, 2001

___________

Introduced by M. of A. GRANNIS, SCHIMMINGER, SILVER, HOYT, CAHILL,

STRINGER, P. RIVERA – Multi-Sponsored by – M. of A. BRAGMAN, BREN-
NAN, CANESTRARI, CLARK, A. COHEN, M. COHEN, COLTON, COOK, DESTITO,
DiNAPOLI, GALEF, GLICK, GOTTFRIED, GREENE, JACOBS, JOHN, KAUFMAN,
LAFAYETTE, LAVELLE, LUSTER, MARKEY, McENENY, MILLMAN, MORELLE, ORTIZ,
PAULIN, RHODD-CUMMINGS, SANDERS, SCARBOROUGH, SEDDIO, SIDIKMAN, SWEE-
NEY, TOWNS, WEINSTEIN, WEISENBERG — read once and referred to the
Committee on Economic Development, Job Creation, Commerce and Industry

AN ACT creating a sustainable development task force to study the feasi-

bility of adopting goal oriented and performance based regulatory
systems to achieve a goal of sustainable development for the state of
New York

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. As used in this act, the term:

(1) “Benchmarks” means interim indicators that measure the progress in achieving
measurable objectives and long term measurable goals.
(2) “Long term measurable goals” means the attainment of the condition for a
parameter that is necessary to achieve sustainable development within 25 years.

EXPLANATION: Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new;

matter in brackets { } is old law to be omitted.

Resource Renewal Institute 83

 (3) “Measurable objectives” means measurable achievements at specific points in
time, typically in two- to five-year segments that over the duration achieve long
term measurable goals.
(4) “Sustainable development” means managing the use, development and
protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate,
that enables people to meet their current needs without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
S 2. The legislature finds and declares that:
(1) In order to establish a policy of sustainable development neces-
sary for economic competitiveness in the twenty-first century, the state
must achieve the following intermediate value goals:
(a) A competitive and balanced economy;
(b) A healthy environment;
(c) A continuing resource base; and
(d) Communities that provide a good quality of life, for both current
and future generations of New Yorkers.
(2) Although New York state has made progress towards the goals set
forth in subdivision 1 of this section, it lacks an integrated strategy
for achieving these goals concurrently. It also lacks established mech-
anisms for measuring the success of activities implemented to achieve these goals.
(3) To develop an integrated strategy for achieving the four goals set
forth in subdivision 1 of this section, and thus establishing a sustain-
able development policy, the state must:
(a) Examine the feasibility of establishing clear, long term measur-
able goals for environmental and natural resource stewardship along with
measurable objectives and interim benchmarks to monitor progress towards the goals;
(b) Examine a performance based system in which long term measurable
goals can be attained by carefully monitored and self-generated, incen-
tive based strategies that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
environmental management and regulation for businesses, communities and
government; and
(c) Integrate environmental and natural resource goals with economic
and societal goals.
S 3. In order to achieve the goals set forth in subdivision 1 of
section two of this act, the state shall examine an environmental and
natural resource management system that is based on a policy of sustain-
able development and that:
(1) Establishes clear long term measurable goals and measurable objectives;
(2) Is incentive based and performance oriented;
(3) Allows attainment of superior environmental and natural resource
management performance by adoption of a performance track in which enti-
ties would be held accountable for achieving long term measurable goals

84 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

but have freedom to choose how to accomplish them;

(4) Assures predictability for participants;
(5) Is integrated, cross media, cross agency and flexible;
(6) Focuses on managing the causes of environmental degradation rather
than simply impacts;
(7) Concentrates on issues of long term ecological significance; and
(8) Achieves the objectives of subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of
this section in the most cost-effective, economically accommodating and
community oriented manner.
S 4. (1) A sustainable development task force is hereby created to
conduct the examination described in section three of this act and
determine the viability of adopting a goal oriented and performance
based regulatory system with sustainable development as the overarching
environmental policy for the state.
(2) The task force shall consist of fifteen members, each to serve for
a term of two years, to be appointed as follows: two shall be appointed
by the temporary president of the senate and one by the minority leader
of the senate; two shall be appointed by the speaker of the assembly and
one by the minority leader of the assembly; seven shall be appointed by
the governor. The appointees shall be broadly representative of the
geographic areas of the state and include representatives of industry,
public interest groups and local government and the public at large. No
more than four appointees shall be legislators. Commissioners of the
department of environmental conservation and the department of economic
development shall be ex-officio members. The governor shall designate
the chairman and vice chairman from among his appointees. Vacancies in
the membership of the commission and among its officers shall be filled
in the manner provided for original appointments.
(3) The task force may employ and at pleasure remove such personnel as
it may deem necessary for the performance of its functions and fix their
compensation within the amounts made available therefor.
(4) The task force may meet within and without the state, shall hold
public hearings, and shall have all the powers of a legislative commit-
tee pursuant to the legislative law.
(5)The members of the task force shall receive no compensation for
their services, but shall be allowed their actual and necessary expenses
incurred in the performance of their duties hereunder.
(6) To the maximum extent feasible, the task force shall be entitled to
request and receive and shall utilize and be provided with such facili-
ties, resources, and data of any court, department, division, board,
bureau, commission, or agency of the state or any political subdivision
thereof as it may reasonably request to carry out properly its powers

Resource Renewal Institute 85

 and duties hereunder.
S 5. In accordance with the requirements established by the sustaina-
ble development task force, the departments of environmental conserva-
tion, economic development, agriculture and markets, and parks, recre-
ation and historic preservation and any other agency or public benefit
corporation deemed appropriate by the task force shall determine the
following and report to the task force:
(1) The degree to which a state policy of sustainable development will
assist the agency in carrying out its mission.
(2) Methods for establishing long term measurable goals to achieve
sustainable development, including interim benchmarks from the agency‘s
perspective.
(3) How collaboration would occur with other governmental entities and
state agencies under a policy of sustainable development.
(4) Changes to statutes, rules, policies, intergovernmental agree-
ments, strategic plans, relationships with private and nonprofit sectors
and the agency‘s organization and processes that would be necessary to
implement a policy of sustainable development.
(5) Whether resources are being allocated in reasonable proportion to
the ecological significance of sustainable development and the resource
allocation changes necessary to bring the allocation into proper proportion.
(6) The extent to which new systems can be developed, particularly
incentive based programs, to achieve measurable superior environmental
protection and natural resource management.
S 6. The appointing authorities shall appoint the members of the
sustainable development task force on or before 90 days after this act
shall have become a law and the task force shall convene its first meet-
ing on or before 60 days thereafter.
S 7. The task force shall make a preliminary report to the governor
and the legislature of its findings, conclusions, and recommendations
not later than August 1, 2002 and a final report of its findings,
conclusions, and recommendations not later than March 1, 2003, and shall
submit with its reports such legislative proposals as it deems necessary
to implement its recommendations.
S 8. This act shall take effect immediately.

New York State Assembly 2001

86 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

APPENDIX C (iv).
Connecticut Bill: “An Act Con-
cerning Exemplary Environmental
Management Systems.”
General Assembly Amendment
January Session, 1999 LCO No. 17014

Offered by:
SEN. DAILY, 33rd Dist.;
REP. MUSHINSKY, 85th Dist.;
REP. BACKER, 121st Dist.;
REP. CARON, 44th Dist.;
REP. BERNHARD, 136th Dist.;
REP. DAVIS, 50th Dist.
REP. MADDOX, 66th Dist.
REP. COLLINS, 117th Dist.
REP. ROY, 119th Dist.
REP. O’ROURKE, 32nd Dist.
REP. SAWYER, 55th Dist.

To: Subst. House Bill No. 6830 File No. 799 Cal. No. 576

“An Act Concerning Exemplary Environmental Management Systems.”

Strike out everything after the enacting clause and substitute the following in lieu thereof:
“(NEW) (a) Any business required to obtain a permit or other approval from the
Commissioner of Environmental Protection to operate in this state may apply to the
commissioner for the benefits of the program established under subsection (e) of this
section. Such application shall be on forms and in a manner prescribed by the commis-
sioner. The advisory board convened under subsection (c) of this section shall consider,
and may approve, such application if the business has demonstrated to the satisfaction of
such board that such business (1) has an exemplary record of compliance with environ-
mental laws which shall include, but shall not be limited to, evidence that such business
has not been found in violation of any such law, other than a minor violation as deter-
mined under section 22a-6s of the general statutes, within the preceding three years; (2)
has complied with the provisions of section 22a-6s of the general statutes, and any orders
of the commissioner under said section, with regard to any minor violation, as defined in
said section; and (3) consistently employs practices in its operation that ensure protec-
tion of the natural environment to a degree greater than that required by law.

Resource Renewal Institute 87

 (b) Upon approval of such application, the commissioner may provide the benefits
of the program to the business if the commissioner finds that (1) the business is regis-
tered as meeting the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System Standard and has
adopted principles for sustainability such as the CERES principles, the Natural Step, the
Hanover Principles or equivalent internationally recognized principles for sustainability
as determined by the commissioner, or (2) in the case of a small business, as defined in
section 32-344 of the general statutes, the business has an equivalent environmental
management system which employs a data collection system for the categories of infor-
mation described in 63 Federal Register 12094 (1998). The environmental management
system of any business approved for the program system shall include provisions for
commitment of the management of the business to the environmental management
system, compliance assurance and pollution prevention, enabling systems, performance
and accountability, third-party audits and measurement and improvement. Any business
approved for the program shall be issued a certificate by the commissioner evidencing
such approval.
(c) The commissioner shall submit an application of a business under subsection
(a) of this section to an advisory board convened by the commissioner for consideration
of such application. Such board shall consist of a representative of the Council on
Environmental Quality; the Attorney General, or a designee; a representative of the
industry in which the business is engaged, provided such representative has no business
relationship with the applicant; and the commissioner, or a designee.
(d) If the commissioner finds that a business that has been approved for the
program ceases to be qualified for the program because it no longer complies with the
requirements provided for in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the commissioner
shall revoke the certificate issued under subsection (b) of this section and the business
shall not be entitled to any further benefits under the program. Any such business may
reapply to the program at any time.
(e) The Commissioner of Environmental Protection may establish a pilot program
to attract to this state, or to support in this state, businesses which require a permit or
other approval from the commissioner in order to operate in this state and which have a
history of providing for the best protection of the natural environment in the operations
of such business. Such program may be based on any model plan developed by a
multistate working group or may replicate a pilot program developed by such a group.
Such program shall provide for expedited review of permit applications and a public
recognition process which may include issuance to businesses of a symbol or seal signify-
ing the exemplary record of environmental protection and exclusive use of such symbol
or seal by the business in its advertising or other public displays. Notwithstanding any
provision of title of the general statutes and the regulations adopted by the commissioner
under said title, such program may provide for (1) less frequent reporting, consistent
with federal law, of information otherwise required to be reported as a condition of the
business’ operation in this state, (2) a facility-wide permit for all approvals required from
the commissioner for operation of a facility operated by the business in this state, (3) a

88 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

permit that would allow for changes in individual processes at a facility without the need
for a new permit provided the total pollutant emissions or discharge from the facility
does not increase, or (4) reduced fees for any permit required from the commissioner.”

Source: Connecticut State Assembly.

Resource Renewal Institute 89

 APPENDIX C (v).
Cal/EPA Innovation Initiative

Cal/EPA’s vision: “A California that enjoys a clean, healthy, sustainable environ-

ment that enhances the quality of life for current and future generations, and protects
our diverse natural resources.”

Purpose:
In 1999 Cal/EPA launched an Innovation Initiative to evaluate the environmental and
public information benefits of environmental management systems (EMS) in up to eight
pilot projects. The Innovation Initiative has been further expanded to:

• engage stakeholders in dialogue about the environmental goals and strategies

necessary for a sustainable California;
• conduct other regional, sector and facility EMS based pilot projects to test
methods to improve environmental performance and to identify areas in the
regulatory system that inhibit environmental excellence; and
• create, at Cal/EPA, a model green agency.

Cal/EPA seeks to develop the appropriate mix of regulatory and collaborative

management systems and practices that will lead to superior environmental protection
and a sustainable California. The Cal/EPA Innovation Initiative is one of four Agency
Secretary strategies designed to accomplish that goal. Along with improved access to
regional and facility based environmental information, an integrated approach to our
regulatory responsibilities and completion of both a structural redesign and a strategic
planning process, the Innovation Initiative seeks to help define a second generation of
environmental management approaches that will lead to sustainability.

To accomplish this mission the Innovation Initiative will focus in five areas:

1. Create a “California Sustainability Plan,” a long-term vision for sustainability

that delineates, for both regulated and unregulated environmental aspects critical to a
sustainable future, goals, improvement targets and measures, contributing sectors, and
appropriate regulatory or collaborative strategies. It will be developed in partnership with
the California Environmental Dialogue, with input from a broad group of stakeholders
and the public. Its goals will help guide Cal/EPA and other State Agency strategic plans
and guide the selection of regional, sector and facility environmental targets.

2. Develop regional environmental management systems (EMS), multi-party

agreements between Cal/EPA and state and local regulatory agencies, business and public

90 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States

advocacy groups, to address California’s sustainability goals, to target improved perfor-

mance in significant regional environmental aspects and to identify regulatory barriers to
enhanced environmental performance. Implementation will be accomplished through
sector partnership agreements between Cal/EPA and state and local regulatory agencies
and a responsible business sector, to achieve specified improvement that is beyond both
current standards and current performance. Cal/EPA’s part of the agreement will be to
agree to explore such appropriate regulatory rationalizations as unified permitting,
inspection and reporting that can significantly contribute to accelerating the pace, or
reducing the cost of environmental improvement.

3. Initiate “environmental excellence” agreements, with facilities that are currently

in compliance with regulations, to deliver additional “beyond compliance” and “beyond
current performance” improvements in significant regulated and unregulated environ-
mental aspects. Aspects that are targeted by the California Sustainability Plan and by the
regional EMS would receive the first consideration for action. Cal/EPA’s part of the
agreement will be to agree to explore such appropriate regulatory rationalizations as
unified permitting, inspection and reporting that can significantly contribute to acceler-
ating the pace, or reducing the cost of environmental improvement.

4. Conduct EMS Pilot Projects, designed to inform public policy makers and
stakeholders whether and how the use of an EMS:

• increases public health and environmental protection, and

• provides better public information than existing regulatory requirements.

In order to determine if an EMS provides these benefits, Cal/EPA will conduct up

to eight pilot projects. Data on changes in environmental performance and regulatory
compliance, pollution prevention, and stakeholder involvement will be collected and
evaluated, as well as information on the types and quality of information available to
stakeholders. Quarterly progress reports will be submitted to the Legislature, with the
final analysis due January 1, 2002. These pilot projects are also part of a national study,
sponsored by the US EPA, the Multi-State Working Group on Environmental Manage-
ment Systems (MSWG) and the University of North Carolina, on the efficacy of envi-
ronmental management systems.

5. Develop a Cal/EPA environmental management system with the goal of creating

a model green government agency for California State government. Demonstrate
exemplary environmental practices in both regulated and unregulated aspects and
disseminate the knowledge gained about the reduction in environmental impacts and
cost savings to other state and local government agencies and to California schools
through the Cal/EPA school education program.

Resource Renewal Institute 91

 Legislative Authority:
Governor Gray Davis formally established the Cal/EPA EMS Innovation Initiative.
Assembly Bill 1102 was cosponsored by Assembly Members Jackson, Nakano, Correa,
Reyes and Senator Sher. Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill 1102 on July 6,
1999. The statute codifies and clarifies existing practices in Public Resources Code,
Section 71045 et. seq. January 1, 2000 is set forth as the Initiative’s establishment date,
and it is due to sunset on January 1, 2002. Appropriation from the State’s General Fund
provides the revenue to support this work.

Source: Cal/EPA, 2000.

92 Resource Renewal Institute

 The State of the States
Endnotes
1
Bob Hall and Mary Lee Kerr, 1991-1992 Green
Index: A State-By-State Guide to the Nation’s Envi-
ronmental Health, Island Press, 1991.
10
2
Gold and Green 2000, Institute for Southern
Studies, Durham, North Carolina, 2000. (First
report published in 1994.)
3
The Role of States in Sustainable Development
11
Programs in the United States, A report presented at
the National Town Meeting on Sustainable Devel-
opment, convened by the President’s Council on
Sustainable Development in Detroit, MI, May 4,
12
1999. This report was prepared by Donald A.
Brown, Senior Counsel, Pennsylvania Department
of the Environment, and officials from other states.
http://www.rri.org/bestpractices/PCSD/
roleofstates.html
4
Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and
13
Pennsylvania.
5
See: OECD Environmental Performance Review:
14
United States, OECD, Paris, 1996.
6
“In the U.S. it takes 12.2 acres to supply the
average person’s basic needs; in the Netherlands, 8
acres; in India, 1 acre. If the entire world lived like
15
North Americans, it would take three planet Earths
to support the present world population.” Source:
16
Donella Meadows, “Our ‘Footprints’ Are Treading
Too Much On The Earth,” Charleston (S.C.)
17
Gazette, April 1, 1996.
7
See: Huey D. Johnson, Green Plans: Greenprint for
Sustainability, Lincoln: University of Nebraska
18
Press, 1995. For a detailed examination of the
process leading up to the creation of the Dutch
green plan, see: Paul DeJongh and Sean Captain,
19
Our Common Journey, London: Zed Books, 1999.
8
Concern for Tomorrow, National Institute of Public
Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM),
Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 1989.
9
Thus a well-informed and participatory public was
critical to the success of the Dutch green plan, a
Resource Renewal Institute
measure which is included in the Green Plan
Capacity Index of this report for all 50 states (using
voter participation rate as an indicator).
Portions of this section (including references) are
drawn from: Phil Greenberg, Toward a U.S. Green
Plan, a report commissioned by the Resource
Renewal Institute, San Francisco, CA, 1993.
environment.gov: Transforming Environmental
Protection for the 21st Century. National Academy of
Public Administration, Washington, DC, Novem-
ber 2000.
See, for example: Michael Kraft and Norman Vig,
“Environmental Policy from the 1970s to 2000: An
Overview,” in Vig and Kraft’s Environmental Policy,
CQ Press, 2000. Discussion regarding improve-
ments in the quality of the environment can found
on pp. 19-27.
See Paul DeJongh and Sean Captain, Our Common
Journey, London: Zed Books, 1999, p. 226.
Karl Hausker, The Convergence of Ideas on Improv-
ing the Environmental Protection System. Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Washington,
DC, 1999.
This program evolved into the National Partner-
ship for Reinventing Government.
Norman Vig, in Vig and Kraft, Environmental
Policy, p. 114.
The PCSD closed their office to little fanfare
following a “National Town Meeting for
Sustainability” held in Detroit in April 1999.
See: Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanowski, and John
Peterson Meyers, Our Stolen Future, New York:
Dutton, 1996.
The article continues further in this regard:
“Departments such as Interior, Energy, Agriculture,
Commerce, Transportation, and Housing and
Urban Development implement most of the
national policies that affect environmental quality.
Scientific agencies like the White House Office of
93

Science and Technology Policy, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
support critical research that must be incorporated
more fully into the policymaking process. There
must also be much more integration of interna-
tional and domestic environmental policy, since
most serious threats to the environmental are now
regional and global and scope.” Michael Kraft and
Norman Vig, “Toward Sustainable Development,”
in Vig and Kraft, Environmental Policy.
20
Dan Beardsley, Terry Davies, and Robert Hersh,
“Improving Environmental Management: What
Works, What Doesn’t,” Environment, September 1997.
21
Paul R. Portney, “Looking Ahead to 2050: Envi-
ronmental Problems and Policy (2000-2050),”
Resources, Resources for the Future, Winter 2000.
22
R. Steven Brown, “The States Protect the Environ-
ment,” ECOS, Summer 1999.
23
Mary Graham, Environmental Protection and the
States: “Race to the Bottom” or “Race to the Bottom
Line”?, Brookings Institution, 1998. http://
www.brook.edu/press/review/win98/grahwi98.htm
24
OECD Environmental Performance Review: United
States, OECD, Paris, 1996.
25
The highly industrialized southern states of Texas
and Louisiana have been particularly criticized in
this regard. For example, see: John B. Judis, “It’s
the EPA and OSHA, Stupid!,” American Prospect,
Vol. 11, Issue 21, 9/24 - 10/2, 2000.
26
OECD Environmental Performance Review, p. 35.
27
See: An Environmental Perspective on Regulatory
Reinvention - The NGO “sniff test,” presented by
Steve Skavroneck of Citizens for a Better Environ-
ment in July 1999, outlines criteria that regula-
tory innovations must meet to be acceptable by
NGOs, and Sierra Club Guidance for Evaluating
Regulatory Reform Proposals - Another “sniff
test” for regulatory innovations published by the
Sierra Club in November 1999. Both available at:
www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/
mswg/ngo.htm
94 Resource Renewal Institute
28
Mary Graham, American Prospect, 1998. http://
www.prospect.org/archives/36/36grahfs.html
29
Ibid.
30
Barry Rabe, “Power to the States: The Promise and
Pitfalls of Decentralization,” in Vig and Kraft,
Environmental Policy, 2000.
31
Ibid.
32
See NEPPS discussion in Part 3.
33
Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, “The
Government Performance Project—Grading the
States: A Management Report Card,” Governing,
1999. www.governing.com/gpp/gp9intro.htm.
Note: The 2001 update of the Government Perfor-
mance Project rankings is now available, but not in
time to include it in the Green Plan Capacity
analysis. Overall, state grades did not change
substantially between 1999 and 2001.
34
Note: Though state scores appear as whole num-
bers, they are actually rounded off from scores with
decimal points. Those states that appear to have
tied scores are ranked according to their hidden
decimal point scores.
35
See: Rabe, “Power to the States: The Promise and Pitfalls
of Decentralization,” Environmental Policy 2000.
36
The Virginia Environmental Quality Index (VEQI)
is another state of the environment study worthy of
mention. It was not included in this analysis, as it
came to our attention after the research for the
report was completed. The index, which presents
county-by-county indicator trends between 1985
and 1999, was developed by Virginia Common-
wealth University’s Center for Environmental
Studies in partnership with federal and state agencies
and environmental non-profit organizations.
Information on the VEQI can be found at
www.veqi.org.
37
Defined in this report as broader than land use
planning, to also include long-term strategic
planning and performance measurement, and
sustainability planning.
38
Planning Communities for the 21st Century, Ameri-
can Planning Association, Chicago, 1999.

39
Environmental Council of the States,
www.ecos.org. Note: Data were also available for
EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act), FIFRA (Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), and OPA (Oil
Pollution Act), however the data for these three acts
were not utilized as it was either (a) programs that
were not delegable to states, or (b) all programs
were delegated, so there was no differentiation
between states.
40
Source: www.ucsusa.org/, and conversations with
staff in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ air
quality program.
41
Barry Rabe, “Power to the States: The Promise and
Pitfalls of Decentralization,” Environmental Policy 2000.
42
Steven Clemmer, Bentham Paulos and Alan Nogee,
Clean Power Surge, Ranking the States, Union of
Concerned Scientists, April 2000.
43
According to discussions by RRI staff with the Tellus
Institute and NJ Department of Environmental
Protection. For a different perspective, see also:
Duggan Flanakin, EPA’s Relations with the States:
Top-Down Commander or Managing Partner?,
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow
(www.cfact.org), January 1999.
44
Jeanne Herb and Michael Crow, A Review of State
Environmental Leadership Programs (ELPs), a research
report undertaken by the Tellus Institute on behalf of
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
April 2000.
45
See: Janine Bloomfield, Ph.D., with Molly Smith
and Nicholas Thompson, “Hot Nights in the City:
Global Warming, Sea-Level Rise and the New York
Metropolitan Region,” Environmental Defense,
June 1999; “Confronting Climate Change in
California: Ecological Impacts on the Golden State,”
Union of Concerned Scientists, 1999; Jim Woehrle
and Julie Bach, “Playing With Fire: Global Warming
in Minnesota, Second Edition,” Minnesotans for an
Energy Efficient Economy, 2000.
46
Barry Rabe, “Power to the States: The Promise and
Pitfalls of Decentralization,” Environmental Policy 2000.
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
47
Rolf Pendall, “Problems and Prospects in Local
Environmental Assessment: Lessons from the
United States,” Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 41 (1), 1998, p. 5-23.
48
Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, “The
Government Performance Project—Grading the
States: A Management Report Card,” Governing,
1999. www.governing.com/gpp/gp9intro.htm.
Note: The 2001 update of the Government
Performance Project rankings has been published,
but was not available at the time that the Green
Plan Capacity analysis was conducted. Overall,
state grades did not change substantially between
1999 and 2001.
49
The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
issued the following valuable document just before
the publication of this report: From People to Policy:
Sustainability in Minnesota, by John R. Wells.
Minnesota EQB, St, Paul, MN, March 2001.
50
Stephan Schmidheiny, Changing Course: A Global
Business Perspective on Development and the Envi-
ronment, World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, 1992.
51
HR3448, 106th Congress, 1st Session, November
18, 1999.
52
The letter was issued to EPA Administrator
Whitman on February 21, 2001.
53
See: Living with the Future in Mind, New Jersey
Future, 1999.
54
See NEPP III, Netherlands National Environmental
Policy Plan, Netherlands Ministry for Spatial
Planning, Housing, and the Environment, 1998.
55
See Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA)
regulations and New Jersey Water Quality regula-
tions.
56
See, for example, the New Jersey State Develop-
ment and Redevelopment Plan, the Oregon
Growth Management Plan, and the Maryland
Smart Growth Policy Plan.
57
Exploring Sustainable Development, World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, 1997.
95
96 Resource Renewal Institute

Bibliography
Barrett, Katherine, and Richard Greene. “The Govern-
ment Performance Project—Grading the States: A
Management Report Card.” Governing, 1999.
Barringer, Richard, ed. “Toward a Sustainable Maine:
The Politics, Economics and Ethics of
Sustainability” Conference Proceedings. Edmund
S. Muskie Institute of Public Affairs, 1993.
Beardsley, Dan, Terry Davies, and Robert Hersh. “Improv-
ing Environmental Management: What Works, What
Doesn’t.” Environment, September 1997.
Bloomfield, Ph.D., Janine, with Molly Smith and
Nicholas Thompson. Hot Nights in the City: Global
Warming, Sea-Level Rise and the New York Metro-
politan Region. Environmental Defense, June 1999.
Brown, Donald, et al. The Role of States in Sustainable
Development Programs in the United States. A Report
Presented at the National Town Meeting on Sustain-
able Development, Detroit, MI, May 4, 1999.
Brown, Lester, Michael Renner, and Brian Halweil.
Vital Signs 2000. Worldwatch Institute, 2000.
Brown, R. Steven. “The States Protect the Environ-
ment.” ECOS, Summer 1999.
Brownfields in Minnesota: An Opportunity for Sustain-
able Development. Pathways to Sustainable Devel-
opment Project, Minnesota Sustainable Develop-
ment Initiative, Environmental Quality Board,
Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July 1997.
Cahn, Robert, ed. An Environmental Agenda for the
Future. Washington, D.C.: Agenda Press, 1985.
Cal/EPA Innovation Initiative. Cal/EPA, 2000.
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
Caldwell, Lynton. “A Constitutional Law for the Envi-
ronment: 20 Years With NEPA Indicates the Need.”
Environment, vol. 31, no. 10, December 1989.
Challenges for a Sustainable Minnesota: A Minnesota
Strategic Plan for Sustainable Development. Minne-
sota Sustainable Development Initiative, Minne-
sota Environmental Quality Board, and Minnesota
Planning, St. Paul, MN, 1995.
Clemmer, Steven, Bentham Paulos, and Alan Nogee.
Clean Power Surge, Ranking the States. Union of
Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA, April 2000.
Coglianese, Cary. “The Limits of Consensus,” A review of
the Enterprise for the Environment report: The
Environmental Protection System in Transition: Toward
a More Desirable Future. Environment, April 1999.
Colburn, Theo, Dianne Dumanowski, and John
Peterson Meyers. Our Stolen Future. New York:
Dutton, 1996.
Common Ground: Achieving Sustainable Communities in
Minnesota. Sustainable Economic Development
and Environmental Task Force, Minnesota Plan-
ning, St. Paul, MN, September 1995.
Community-Based Planning Act: Law sets the stage for
community-based planning. Minnesota Planning,
St. Paul, MN, September 1997.
Comp, T. Allen, ed. Blueprint for the Environment: A
Plan for Federal Action. Salt Lake City: Howe
Brothers, 1989.
Concern for Tomorrow. National Institute of Public
Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM),
Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 1989.
97
 Connecticut General Assembly Bill 6830: An Act
Concerning Exemplary Environmental Manage-
ment Systems. January 1999 Session.
Confronting Climate Change in California: Ecological
Impacts on the Golden State. Union of Concerned
Scientists, 1999.
Davies III, J. Clarence, and Barbara Davies. The Politics
of Pollution. Indianapolis: Pegasus/Bobbs-Merrill.
DeJongh, Paul and Sean Captain. Our Common
Journey. London: Zed Books, 1999.
Development Report Card for the States: Economic
Benchmarks for State and Corporate Decision
Makers. Corporation for Enterprise Development,
Washington D.C., 1999.
Energy in Minnesota: A Briefing Paper. Pathways to
Sustainable Development Project, Minnesota
Sustainable Development Initiative, Environmental
Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN,
July 1997.
environment.gov: Transforming Environmental Protec-
tion for the 21st Century. National Academy of
Public Administration, Washington, DC,
November 2000.
The Environmental Protection System in Transition
Toward a More Desirable Future. Final report of
the Enterprise for the Environment, National
Academy of Public Administration and the
Keystone Center, 1997.
Environmental Regulatory Innovations Act, Senate File
1956. Minnesota State Senate, Minnesota State
Government, 1995.
Exploring Sustainable Development. World Business
Council for Sustainable Development, 1997.
Fiscal Patterns: Population Trends. Pathways to
Sustainable Development Project, Minnesota
Sustainable Development Initiative, Environ-
98 Resource Renewal Institute
mental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning,
St. Paul, MN, July, 1997.
Flanakin, Duggan. EPA’s Relations with the States: Top-
Down Commander or Managing Partner? Commit-
tee for a Constructive Tomorrow, January 1999.
Frieder, Julie. “The Resource Management Act: An
Observer’s View.” Primary Industry Management,
New Zealand, 1998.
From Rio to the Capitols: State Strategies for Sustainable
Development, Conference Proceedings. Common-
wealth of Kentucky, Louisville, KY, May 1993.
The Global 2000 Report to the President. Council on
Environmental Quality and U.S. Department of
State. New York: Penguin Books, 1982.
Global Future: Time To Act. Council on Environmental
Quality and U.S. Department of State, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1981.
Gold and Green 2000. Institute for Southern Studies,
Durham, NC, 2000 (first published in 1994).
Graham, Mary. Environmental Protection and the States:
“Race to the Bottom” or “Race to the Bottom Line”?
Brookings Institution, 1998.
Graham, Mary. “Regulation By Shaming.” The
Atlantic Monthly, April 2000.
Green Permits and the Environmental Management
Systems Incentives Project. Department of Environ-
mental Quality, OR, January 1998.
Greenberg, Phil. Toward a U.S. Green Plan. Resource
Renewal Institute, San Francisco, CA, 1993.
House of Representatives 3448: Second Generation of
Environmental Improvement Act. 106th Congress,
1st Session, November 18, 1999.
Hall, Bob and Mary Lee Kerr. 1991-1992 Green Index:
A State-By-State Guide to the Nation’s Environmental
Health. Island Press, 1991.

Hausker, Karl. The Convergence of Ideas on Improving
the Environmental Protection System. Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Washington,
DC, 1999.
Herb, Jeanne, and Michael Crow. A Review of State
Environmental Leadership Programs (ELPs). Tellus
Institute/Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, April 2000.
Investing in Minnesota’s Future: An Agenda for Sustaining
Our Quality of Life. Minnesota Round Table on
Sustainable Development, Minnesota Planning,
May 1998.
Investing in Minnesota’s Future: Economics and Incentives.
Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Develop-
ment, Minnesota Planning, July 1998.
Investing in Minnesota’s Future: Sustainable Communi-
ties. Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable
Development, Minnesota Planning, June 1998.
Johnson, Huey D. Green Plans: Greenprint for
Sustainability. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1997.
Johnson, Huey D. Investing for Prosperity: Enhancing
California’s Resources to Meet Human and Economic
Needs— An Update. California Natural Resources
Agency, January 1982.
Judis, John B. “It’s the EPA and OSHA, Stupid!,”
American Prospect, Vol. 11, Issue 21, 9/24 - 10/2,
2000.
Kitzhaber, Governor John. “The Oregon Plan: Finding
Common Ground to Protect the Coho Salmon.”
ECOS, January/February 1998.
Koziol, Leo. A Green Plan at the Crossroads: New
Zealand’s Resource Management Act: The Transition
from Theory to Practice. Resource Renewal Institute,
San Francisco, CA, 1997.
Resource Renewal Institute
The State of the States
Kraft, Michael, and Norman Vig. “Environmental
Policy from the 1970s to 2000: An Overview,” in
Environmental Policy, CQ Press, 2000.
Legacy: The Newsletter of the Minnesota Sustainable
Development Initiative. Environmental Quality
Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July
1996.
Legacy: The Newsletter of the Minnesota Sustainable
Development Initiative. Environmental Quality
Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN,
October 1997.
Lerner, Steve. Eco-Pioneers: Practical Visionaries Solving
Today’s Environmental Problems. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1997.
Living with the Future in Mind, New Jersey Future,
Trenton, NJ, 1999.
Making Plans: Community-Based Planning’s First Two Years.
Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, August 1999.
Meadows, Donella. “Our ‘Footprints’ Are Treading Too
Much On The Earth.” Charleston (S.C.) Gazette,
April 1, 1996.
Meyer, Secretary George E. A Green Tier for Greater
Environmental Protection. Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resource, June 1999.
Miller, Norm. “The New Environmental Paradigm:
Better Ways of Being Green.” New Jersey Reporter,
November/December 1995.
Manufacturing in Minnesota: A Briefing Paper. Pathways to
Sustainable Development Project, Minnesota Sustain-
able Development Initiative, Environmental Quality
Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July 1997.
McCarthy, James E. Bottle Bills and Curbside Recycling.
Report for Congress, Congressional Research
Service, CNIE, 1993.
Minnesota Milestones: A Report Card for the Future.
Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, December 1992.
99
 Minnesota Milestones 1996 Progress Report. Minnesota
Planning, St. Paul, MN, July 1996.
Minnesota Milestones: Measures that Matter. Minnesota
Planning, August 1998.
Minnesota Policies Affecting Residential Development.
Pathways to Sustainable Development Project,
Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative,
Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning,
St. Paul, MN, July 1997.
Multi-State Working Group (MSWG) letter to EPA
Administrator Whitman, February 21, 2001.
Netherlands National Environmental Policy Plan
(NEPP), Ministry for Spatial Planning, Housing,
and the Environment.
New York State Assembly Bill 5676 (sustainable
development task force). February 22, 2001; 2000-
2001 Session.
OECD Environmental Peformance Review: United States.
OECD, Paris, 1996.
Oregon Executive Order EO-00-07: Development of a
State Strategy Promoting Sustainability in Internal
State Government Operations. Governor John
Kitzhaber, Salem, OR, May 17, 2000.
Oregon House Bill 3135 (sustainable development
policy). 70th Legislative Assembly, 1999 Session.
Oregon Shines II: Updating Oregon’s Strategic Plan: A
Report to the People of Oregon. Oregon Progress
Board, Salem, OR, 1997.
Pendall, Rolf. “Problems and Prospects in Local Environ-
mental Assessment: Lessons from the United States.”
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
41 (1), 1998.
Planning Communities for the 21st Century. American
Planning Association, Chicago, IL, 1999.
100 Resource Renewal Institute
Portney, Paul R. “Looking Ahead to 2050: Environmen-
tal Problems and Policy (2000-2050).” Resources
magazine, Resources for the Future, Winter 2000.
Rabe, Barry. “Power to the States: The Promise and
Pitfalls of Decentralization,” in Environmental
Policy, Norman Vig and Michael Kraft, eds., CQ
Press, 2000.
Redefining Progress: Working Toward a Sustainable
Future. Minnesota Sustainable Development
Initiative, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN,
February 1994.
Schmidheiny, Stephan. Changing Course: A Global
Business Perspective on Development and the Envi-
ronment. World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, 1992.
Selected Public Incentives in Minnesota: A Briefing Paper.
Pathways to Sustainable Development Project,
Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative,
Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Plan-
ning, St. Paul, MN, July 1997.
Should Minnesota Pursue Progressive Tax Policy to
Stimulate Investment in Pollution Prevention and
Energy Conservation? Case Studies and Social
Benefits. Pathways to Sustainable Development
Project, Minnesota Sustainable Development
Initiative, Environmental Quality Board, Minne-
sota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July 1997.
Skavroneck, Steve. An Environmental Perspective on
Regulatory Reinvention. Citizens for a Better
Environment, July 1999.
Sierra Club Guidance for Evaluating Regulatory Reform
Proposals. Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.,
November 1999.
Solving Sprawl: The Sierra Club Rates the States. Sierra
Club, Washington, D.C., 1999.
The State New Economy Index: Benchmarking Economic
Transformation in the States. Progressive Policy
 The State of the States

Institute, Technology & New Economy Project,

Washington, D.C., 1999.

The State of New Zealand’s Environment. Ministry for

the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand, 1997.

Sustainable Development: The Very Idea. Environmental

Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN,
January 1998.

Sustainable Development for Local Government, House

File 1800, Chapter 454. Minnesota State House of
Representatives Bill, 1995.

Sustainable Maine: Integrating Economy, Environment

and Community. A Primer. Sustainable Maine,
Portland, ME, 1996.

Taking Root: State agency efforts toward sustainable develop-

ment in Minnesota. Environmental Quality Board,
Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, April 1998.

Vig, Norman. “Presidential Leadership and the Envi-

ronment: From Reagan to Clinton,” in Environ-
mental Policy, Norman Vig and Michael Kraft, eds.,
4th Edition, CQ Press, 2000.

Wisconsin Climate Change Action Plan: Framework for

Climate Change Action. Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, Air Program.

Woehrle, Jim, and Julie Bach. Playing With Fire: Global

Warming in Minnesota, Second Edition. Minneso-
tans for an Energy Efficient Economy, 2000.

Resource Renewal Institute 101

102 Resource Renewal Institute
 The State of the States

Online Resources

Resource Renewal Institute New Jersey Future

www.rri.org www.njfuture.org/

International Network of Green Planners Oregon Progress Board

www.ingp.org www.econ.state.org.us/opb/

World Business Council for Sustainable Development Oregon Solutions for a Sustainable Future
www.wbcsd.ch www.oregonsolutions.net

Netherlands Embassy, Washington, D.C. Iowa 2010

www.netherlands-embassy.org www.iowa2010.state.ia.us/

Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning Illinois EcoWatch Network

and the Environment www.dnr.state.il.us/orep/inrin/ecowatch/
www.minvrom.nl
Save Louisiana Wetlands
New Zealand Government www.savelawetlands.org
www.govt.nz
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment www.janus.state.me.us/dep
www.mfe.govt.nz
GreenWorks Channel, Pennsylvania
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency www.greenworkschannel.org
www.epa.gov
Environment 2000, An Assessment of the Quality of
U.S. Department of Energy’s Center of Excellence for Vermont’s Environment, The Vermont Agency of
Sustainable Development Natural Resources
www.sustainable.doe.gov www.anr.state.vt.us/env00/index.html

Minnesota Planning Watch Over Washington (WOW)

www.mnplan.state.mn.us/ www.wa.gov/ecology/wq/wow/index.html

New Jersey Office of State Planning West Virginia DEP Public Empowerment Program
www.state.nj.us/osp www.dep.state.wv.us/pubemp.html

Resource Renewal Institute 103

 Environmental Council of the States
www.ecos.org

Center for Strategic and International Studies

www.csis.org

Aspen Institute
www.aspeninstitute.org

National Academy of Public Administration

www.napawash.org

Brookings Institution
www.brook.edu

Reason Public Policy Institute

www.rppi.org

Redefining Progress
www.rprogress.org

Coalition for Environmentally Responsible

Economies (CERES)
www.ceres.org

Stateline
www.stateline.org

Environmental News Network

www.enn.com

104 Resource Renewal Institute

About the Resource Renewal Institute
The Resource Renewal Institute (RRI) is a non-profit, non-governmental organization that
supports innovative environmental management strategies in the United States and worldwide. RRI’s
mission is to catalyze the development and implementation of green plans. To this end, RRI evaluates
the effectiveness of existing and emerging green plans, educates government, business, and public
interest leaders about the attributes of green planning, and inspires state and community leaders to
spearhead green planning processes throughout the United States. RRI’s programs include: the States
Campaign; the Green Plan Leadership Program; and the Green Plan Center—RRI’s international
clearinghouse of environmental information.

Huey D. Johnson founded RRI in 1985 to explore innovative environmental ideas and to catalyze
green planning in the United States. Prior to RRI, Mr. Johnson founded the Trust for Public Land,
and served as California Secretary for Resources. He is best known for establishing California’s 20-year
“Investing for Prosperity” program, a precursor to green planning that created and protected jobs in
fisheries, forestry, and alternative energy industries. RRI staff are multidisciplinary, bringing experi-
ence from government, resource management, communications, finance and education. In addition,
several of RRI’s staff members have hands-on green plan development and implementation experience
at the state and national level.

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, RRI also has an office in Albany, New York. RRI’s
international panel of advisors includes green plan leaders from Canada, the Netherlands, Mexico,
New Zealand, and across the United States. And as a member of the International Network of Green
Planners, RRI has had a unique opportunity to learn from the experiences of green planners around
the world.

Further information on RRI and its programs can be found on our website: www.rri.org.
Resource Renewal Institute
Fort Mason Center, Pier One • San Francisco, CA 94123
415.928.3774 tel • 415.928.6529 fax
e-mail: info@rri.org

New York Office • 128 Plank Road • Feura Bush, NY 12067

518.768.2667 tel/fax
e-mail: eric@rri.org

www.rri.org

© 2001 RESOURCE RENEWAL INSTITUTE