�鶹��Ƶ

Despite the collective promise of integrating more open (broader-based, participatory) city-level governance into the global energy governance regime, little attention has been paid to the different impact logics and assumptions underpinning local procedural governance tools (PGTs) in circulation and the degree to which they address key good governance dimensions dominantly thought to be indicative of transformation. This review aims to fill this gap by mapping and analyzing key energy transition PGTs circulating across four climate action initiatives that mobilize and provide support to cities and local governments. A framework—REPAIR: Reflexivity, Enabling/Embedding, Participatory, Integrative, Adaptive, and Radicality—is proposed based on a synthesis of common governance innovation design features, and a representative sample of 25 PGTs are evaluated against these dimensions. The analysis reveals a need for (1) more differentiation and tailored capacity relating to governance monitoring, evaluating, and learning systems; (2) more attention to prioritization and design factors across different governance interventions in relation to local climate actions; and (3) more nuanced theories of change for operationalizing local power/coalition/mandate building (across different dimensions of governance). This article concludes that there are real gaps in how the collective advantages, opportunities, and promise of traveling “ideal types” of good governance will be fulfilled and outlines future research directions for informing more aligned governance innovation for low-carbon transitions in urban areas.