1. CEQA and Climate Change Evaluating & Addressing GHG Emissions from Projects Barbara Lee, CAPCOA

2. CAPCOA’s Resource Paper  Air Districts were approached by local governments for help on CEQA & GHG  California Air Pollution Control Officers Association coordinated district’s efforts  Resource guide released in January ’08  Intended to provide support for lead agencies incorporating GHG analysis into CEQA programs  Not intended to dictate policy decisions  Plan to provide addendum in 9 - 12 months with thresholds set, new mitigations, etc.

3. Overview  Consideration of Fundamental Issues  What to do about Thresholds  Analytical Methods & Tools  Mitigation

4. Fundamental Issues  CEQA Requirement:  Public agencies should refrain from approving projects that have significant adverse environmental impacts if there are feasible alternatives or mitigations that can substantially avoid those impacts  Fair Argument Standard:  An EIR must be prepared if it can be fairly argued (based on substantial evidence in the record) that the project may have a significant environmental impact

5. More Fundamental Issues  Defensible Analyses  Sufficient analysis of environmental consequences to support informed decision  Conclusions supported by substantial evidence  Good faith effort at full disclosure  Statewide Thresholds  OPR to develop GHG mitigation guidance by July ’09, and Resource Agency to adopt by January ’10  ARB could establish statewide approach under AB 32 scoping plan  Interim Approach

6. Three Paths Through CEQA  What is Significant?  Implementing CEQA with No GHG Threshold  Implementing CEQA with GHG Threshold set at Zero  Implementing CEQA with a Non-zero Threshold

7. CEQA with no GHG Threshold  CEQA does not require a lead agency to set a significance threshold  In the absence of a threshold, significance is determined on a case-by-case basis  Agency can presume significance (rebutable)  Agency can presume insignificance (rebutable)  Agency can review each project with no presumption  May create uncertainty for project proponents  May create workload and resource issues for agency

8. CEQA with GHG Threshold of Zero  Considers ALL emissions of GHG to be significant  All projects must have EIR or MND  All emissions must be mitigated to zero or receive a Statement of Overriding Considerations  Greater degree of certainty for project proponents  Could place substantial workload and resource burdens on agency and proponents

9. CEQA with Non-zero Threshold  CAPCOA evaluated two approaches to setting a non-zero threshold:  Approach 1- Thresholds based on emission reduction targets of Statutes and Executive Orders  Approach 2- Tiered thresholds  Other approaches can be used but were not examined in this report  Goal is to maximize environmental benefit while minimizing burden on agencies & proponents

10. Non-Zero Threshold Approach #1  The Statute & Executive Order Approach would require each project to meet the emission reduction targets of AB 32 and the Governor’s Executive Order.  Uniform Percentage for all projects  Greater Percentage for New Development  Percentages by Economic Sector  Percentages by Region  Establishing “business as usual” baseline  Determining appropriate percentages

11. Non-zero Threshold Approach #2  The Tiered Approach would “bin” projects based on established characteristics, with increasing requirements for each bin, or tier TierZero ThresholdQuantitative ThresholdsQualitative Thresholds 1 Net GHG reduction = Less than Significant Emissions below Tier 2 threshold = Less than significant if Level 1 mitigations applied Project meets Tier 1 criteria = Less than significant if Level 1 mitigations applied 2 Net GHG increase mitigated to less than significant Emissions above Tier 2 threshold = Less than significant if Level 1 & 2 mitigations applied Project meets Tier 2 criteria = Less than significant if Level 1 & 2 mitigations applied 3 Net GHG increase not fully mitigated Emissions above Tier 3 threshold = EIR + Level 1, 2 & 3 mitigation Project meets Tier 3 criteria = EIR + Level 1, 2 & 3 mitigation

12. Stepping Through the Analysis  General Plans  Consistency with AB 32, or other established reduction plans  Projects  Statutory Exemptions  Green List  Consistency with Plan  Tiered Analysis

14. Analytical Methods & Tools  URBEMIS  Direct Emissions  Indirect Emissions  CCAR Protocols  General Reporting Protocol  Specific Protocols (eg., Forestry, Local Government)  Specific Sectors and Source Categories  Stationary Sources  Wastewater and Solid Waste  Construction

15. Analytic Scenarios  Existing conditions  AB 32 Baseline = 1990 emissions  Buildout of the Existing General Plan  Buildout of the Updated General Plan  Increment between Buildout of the Existing and Updated General Plans

16. GHG Mitigation Strategies  Forward Planning: Incorporate GHG reduction strategies into the General Plan  Land Use Design- Prioritize Smarter Growth, Connectivity, Compactness, Diversity, Transportation Facilities, Redevelopment, Jobs- Housing-Balance, and Shipping Mode Shift  Project Level Mitigation: Provide a “toolbox” of strategies to mitigate projects  Project Design- Transit, Bike, & Pedestrian support, Alternative Fuel & Electric Vehicles, Energy & Water Efficiency, Green Building, Landscaping, Low Emission Technologies, and Offsets  GHG Reduction Plan: Implement a specific plan to reduce GHG emissions  Establish jurisdictional baseline, reduction targets, deadlines, and specific mitigation strategies and measures

17. Mitigation Priorities & Issues  Systemic Design to Avoid Emissions  Project Design to Avoid Emissions  Project Elements that Control Emissions  Concurrent Onsite Actions to Offset Emissions  Concurrent Offsite Actions to Offset Emissions  Use Mitigation Fees  Use of Banked Offsets: Real, Permanent, Quantifiable, Enforceable, Additional