What local climate change plans can teach us about city power.

• Author: Trisolini, Katherine A.

Introduction I. Schroeder and Bulkeley's Study of London and Los Angeles II. Relative City Power: Structural Influences on Autonomy III. A City's Power Over Its Object: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Opportunities A. Local Power in the Proprietary Domain B. City Ability to Reduce Emissions by Shaping the Built Environment C. Implementing Emission Reductions by Managing Waste D. Cities as Educators and Purveyors of Environmental Norms Conclusion INTRODUCTION

This brief commentary on Heike Shroeder and Harriet Bulkeley's recent Piece (1) in this volume of the Fordham Urban Law Journal asks what new light city action on climate change can shed on an old discussion about the extent of city power or powerlessness. While this commentary does not offer a new, full-fledged theory of city power, it does suggest new avenues for inquiry in the hopes of contributing to the understanding of local governments.

Assessments of city power in the United States have focused largely on how state and federal law either impede or augment city autonomy in relation to higher levels of government or other cities. (2) City action on climate change highlights the potential to revisit the question of city power from a new angle. Rather than inquiring into the relative power of cities vis-a-vis other governments, one can investigate power in relation to the object over which the city aims to exercise its power. In other words, we can ask: "City power with regards to what?" A very small degree of relative power may have a substantial effect on a specific problem. Cities may turn out to be quite powerful in one realm despite being quite disempowered in another. Although Schroeder and Bulkeley primarily examine structural constraints to assess the "role of law" in municipal climate change plans, their study highlights how the movement of local governments tackling climate change invites us to revisit the broader question of city power.

1. SCHROEDER AND BULKELEY'S STUDY OF LONDON AND Los ANGELES

   Schroeder and Bulkeley's review of climate plans in London and Los Angeles makes at least three important contributions to the study of climate change and local governments. First, the authors adeptly illustrate the range of domains in which cities act by reviewing their policies using a taxonomy that recognizes four types of governance modalities: "self governance" which concerns a local government's control of its own actions; "control and compliance refers to the ... use of traditional forms of authority such as regulation and planning;" "provision" or governing through service delivery; and "enabling" which describes local efforts to facilitate, encourage, and enable voluntary private sector activities) The authors show these two cities to be innovative in employing these various modalities to work around legal, economic, and other constraints.

   Second, the authors avoid the temptation to seek a single variable to explain local interest in climate change. Rather, they identify multiple factors in their case studies that interact to motivate local action, thus capturing the nuance of catalyzing circumstances. (4) Finally, their Article draws attention to the importance of comparative study of local governments, an understudied topic of increasing relevance due to the emergence of cities as global actors. (5) Understanding cities' roles in addressing global problems is rendered all the more salient by the success of transnational organizations' efforts to mobilize local governments to act on climate change, as discussed by the authors. (6)

   Schroeder and Bulkeley find that while international networks have catalyzed local efforts "[t]he extent to which municipal governments are able to address climate change, however, also depends on their competencies in this area." (7) The authors assess each city's "competencies" by reference to the formal legal framework that authorizes and constrains each city's actions under their respective systems of government. (8) Thus, their study aims to uncover how global cities are governing climate change in the context of their embeddedness within the vertical legal structures of the state. (9) Although they identify a number of creative efforts on the part of each city, particularly the use of tools such as partnerships that the authors see as reflecting a shift away from "law" and towards "governance," the authors appear somewhat pessimistic about cities' ability to meaningfully mitigate climate change given their legal subservience to higher levels of government. (10)

   The authors describe the place of local governments within a hierarchy of governmental levels as the predominant factor in cities' ability to influence climate change: "The competency and capacity of local government to address a multi-layered environmental problem such as climate change is largely determined by the legal structures within which it is embedded ..." (11) Schroeder and Bulkeley describe local governments in the United Kingdom as operating under a principle of ultra vires: "local councils have been able to do only what they are statutorily permitted to do. Their rights and competences are not general, but specific." (12) The central government can dictate how they exercise their power or provide for more discretionary implementation. (13) Yet, the authors find many new sources of statutory authority ranging from mandates to report energy efficiency in housing stock and authority to improve it, to guidance on transport planning that allows them to address energy efficiency, renewable energy, and the travel intensity of development. The Local Government Act's introduction of a duty of "well being" has provided broad discretion that some U.K. governments have employed to address climate. (14)

   Thus, local governments in the United Kingdom enjoy "partial autonomy" in their efforts to address climate change, although within a complex environment of increasing guidance from higher levels of government:

   The overall picture of competencies for addressing climate change among U.K. local authorities is a complex one. On the one hand, central government has becoming increasingly involved in "directing" local government in this area, particularly through new planning guidance and national performance indicators. On the other hand, these remain areas for local government discretion--there is no statutory responsibility to follow this guidance--and there is also considerable scope for local government to act on climate change through other means, including through their own estate, in arenas of housing and transport policy, and through the increasingly regulated area of biodegradable waste. Partial autonomy remains a valid description of the competencies of local government in this area, albeit that the increasing political and public salience of the issue has led to a greater level of involvement by United Kingdom local authorities than was the case in the late 1990s. (15) Unlike other local governments, the Greater London Authority ("GLA") is specifically charged with environmental responsibilities, including express authorization on climate change. Although the GLA has a broader mandate to address climate change than other local governments, an overview of its power nonetheless still provides a mixed picture:

   The [GLA] has been charged with a "duty" to address climate change.... The GLA, as a devolved administration encompassing a regional development agency, however, also has an ambiguous, partially autonomous role in addressing climate change. Through its planning and strategic policy powers, the GLA is charged with following national direction ... but also has considerable independence. (16) The authors' examination of the powers of local governments in the United States identifies the lack of local government recognition in the text of the U.S. Constitution, the historic presumption under Dillon's Rule that cities are creatures of their states, and the more recent enactment of "home rule" provisions in most state constitutions granting cities non-interference in specific areas of local affairs. (17) Yet they emphasize that states can withdraw these powers at any time and thus accept the view that U.S. cities are "mere conveniences of the states." (18)

   The case studies show two large cities embedded within divergent formal structures. In addition to the broad differences mentioned above, the GLA was designed as a new and broader entity to provide governance for interconnected issues across a set of geographically connected smaller local jurisdictions. Los Angeles, in contrast, while having a fairly wide geographic area, nonetheless does not have authority over independent cities within its geographic borders and adjacent to it in the Los Angeles metropolitan region.

   The most significant difference between the two cases lies in the GLA's mandate to address climate change and its responsibility to address performance indicators that makes it unique even among other U.K. governments:

   In the Greater London Authority Act 2007, the mayor was charged with the duty to "take action with a view to mitigation of, or adaptation to, climate change" in line with national government policy and with the responsibility for preparing detailed strategies for both mitigation and adaptation. This new duty places addressing climate change on a substantive legal footing, one not witnessed in the United Kingdom's other cities and regions. (19) Los Angeles, in contrast, has had to make due with existing authority. It has no specific directive to address climate change and, at the time of the study, was governed by a federal government that had refused to adopt mandatory reduction plans. Although California enacted legislation in 2006 setting an aggressive emission reduction target, new regulations implementing the policy will not take effect until 2010 (20) and the statute did not create new municipal powers. (21) In short, Los Angeles has general powers and...