WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT READ INTO THE RECORD — Beverly Hills City Council, November 1, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

October 2016
1 Can a Percent Below BAU Threshold Be Shown to Support Meeting AB 32? 2 The Court ruling requires CEQA lead agencies wanting to use a BAU threshold to find a path that 3 relates statewide BAU emission reductions to local project reductions below BAU. In other words:
4 What reduction below BAU would be required for a project to demonstrate that it would not conflict 5 with the state achieving its target?
6 Mathematically, this can be demonstrated based on adopted regulations and growth projections 7 used to prepare the state’s BAU projection. In fact, as discussed above, the state likely requires no 8 reduction beyond compliance with regulation for existing and new development in order to achieve 9 the AB 32 2020 target. Assigning a reduction amount that is the responsibility of new development 10 alone in a City or a region is more challenging.
11 Using the Data behind the Scoping Plan BAU
12 The Court recommends examination of the data behind the Scoping Plan BAU estimates for 13 information supporting a project BAU threshold. The state GHG inventory can be disaggregated, 14 isolating land use development-related sources, such as transportation and energy from non15 development related sources such as agriculture and industry. However, as described in an earlier 16 section, the supporting data used in preparing the Scoping Plan is often not sufficiently fine grained 17 to determine a definitive amount of reductions for new development in a specific region or City to 18 achieve. On the other hand, CEQA does not require perfection in determining a project’s fair share of 19 reductions from statewide emission inventory. We know that in aggregate sufficient reductions are 20 now in place to achieve the target. The aggregate is estimated using emission factors, activity data, 21 growth rates and other variables that reflect regional differences to the extent possible. Therefore, 22 project level emission inventories generated using these same factors and variables are consistent 23 with the aggregate.
24 The BAU forecast is subject to change to reflect updates to population and economic estimates used 25 to forecast emissions. The Scoping Plan originally estimated that a statewide reduction of 28 percent 26 was required from the full statewide inventory. A more recent BAU forecast estimated that a 22 percent reduction from BAU would be required to reach the 2020 target. 27 40 Now a project threshold 28 based on a 29 percent reduction from BAU, such as the San Joaquin Valley BAU threshold, requires 29 project reductions 7 percent greater than the 22 percent average reduction from BAU required for 30 the State to achieve the 2020 AB 32 target. A threshold of 29 percent would show that development 31 related emission sectors are doing more than other non-development related sectors to reduce 32 greenhouse gas emissions.
33 Relationship to Project BAU Analysis
34 Experience performing project BAU analyses shows the effect of regulations on project emissions. 35 Recent analyses using CalEEMod, prepared for a variety of projects, indicate that reductions from 36 regulations alone are approximately 28 percent to 32 percent compared to the BAU GHG emissions, 37 depending on the mix of sources within each project. This means that most development projects 38 would exceed the percentage reduction required by a 28 percent BAU threshold with regulations 39 alone. Many projects will achieve additional transportation-related reductions due to their design 40 and due to location that makes them more accessible by walking, bicycling, or transit. Some energy 41 reductions beyond regulations may also be possible for certain projects. These additional

40 More recent BAU forecasts reflecting slower statewide growth projections require lower percentage reductions relative to BAU using those later base years.

Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 58 ends

October 2016
1 reductions, as quantified using the CalEEMod emission model mitigation component, have been widely accepted as providing reductions beyond business as usual. 2 41 3 A closer look at the transportation sector may be helpful. Most emissions from development projects 4 are from the transportation sector, the sector which is subject to the most robust regulatory 5 program. Recent analyses using CalEEMod prepared for a variety of projects indicated that 6 reductions below BAU for passenger vehicle emissions in 2020 can be approximately 34 percent, 7 due to implementation of the LCFS, Pavley I, and Advanced Clean Cars. In other words, emissions 8 from passenger car transportation sources in new and existing development will be 34 percent 9 lower in 2020 than they were in the same development subject to regulation in place in 2005; a 10 remarkable achievement.
11 The Gap Has Been Filled
12 It is important to recognize that the Scoping Plan was adopted in 2008, and many of the Air Districts 13 were developing their GHG thresholds in 2008 and 2009. At that time, few regulations implementing 14 the Scoping Plan had been implemented. The Scoping Plan provided estimates of reductions that 15 were anticipated from the measures included in the plan, but for analysis purposes, many analysts 16 used only adopted regulations to determine the reductions creditable for CAPs and for development 17 projects. Analysts also often waited for modeling tools to be developed to incorporate the emission 18 reductions prior to using them for a BAU analysis. This resulted in a gap between the reductions 19 achieved by regulations and those reductions required to show consistency with the 2020 BAU 20 percentage reduction. In the Newhall Ranch case, the project was required to determine reductions 21 from its land use design and transportation measures to close the gap and exceed the identified 29 22 percent reduction below BAU threshold. If that project were analyzed today, the gap would be 23 closed by regulations which have since been adopted to reduce GHG emissions from project sources, 24 and possibly no reductions from land use design would be required to meet the 2020 target, at least for portions of the project built prior to 2020. 25 42
26 After most Scoping Plan regulations have been adopted, the BAU analysis demonstrates that 27 regulations are adequate to reduce project GHG impacts to less than significant because they allow 28 the state to achieve the 2020 target while accommodating all growth projected for the State. For 29 projects that are operational by 2020, no additional reductions are required to demonstrate 30 consistency with state target. Those projects will continue to reduce emissions along with other 31 existing sources due to regulations applicable to energy and transportation that are gradually 32 implemented.
33 Addressing Different Rates of Growth
34 The Scoping Plan BAU inventory accounts for different growth rates across the state. The Scoping 35 Plan’s overall growth forecast is a compilation of local growth forecasts. The Scoping Plan does not 36 apply more stringent regulations to fast growing areas than to slow growing areas, but it does 37 account for differential effectiveness of the regulations by region. Fast growing areas will 38 automatically do more (relative to BAU on a mass emissions basis) than slow growing areas because

41 The most comprehensive documentation supporting the reduction is compiled in the CAPCOA document Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures which was used as the basis of the CalEEMod mitigation component.
42 As discussed earlier in this paper, the Committee recommends assessing projects with post-2020 buildouts against later targets. For current projects with a horizon of 2020 or earlier, an analysis showing that a project provides a reduction below BAU of 28 percent or greater provides additional substantial evidence that the project would not conflict with AB 32 targets.

Page 59 ends

October 2016
1 more projects will be subject to building energy, vehicle, and water efficiency measures in those 2 areas. The percentage reduction below BAU for projects can be the same regardless of location but 3 will just apply to more projects. For example, fast growing area A has five projects and slow growing 4 area B has one project. If projects in both areas achieve a 29 percent reduction below BAU, the 5 average reduction is 29 percent. The state does not need fast growing areas to reduce emissions by a 6 larger percentage in order for it to reach its target. This is because regulations that apply to new and 7 existing emission sources in both slow growing and fast growing areas are sufficient to offset overall 8 increases from development statewide. In other words, the state only needs to address its average 9 growth rate which includes both slow and fast growing areas. 10 In addition, growth projected in the Scoping Plan for development-related sectors is lower than for 11 non-development related sources. Therefore, if one is using a percent below BAU level based on the 12 statewide average for all emission sectors, then the development-related sectors subject to the 13 average reduction amount are required to do more than non-development-related sectors. This is 14 borne out by looking at where the state Scoping Plan expects to achieve the reductions required to 15 reach the target.
16 Addressing Different New Development Locations
17 In Newhall Ranch, the Court suggests that a project threshold must account for project location. 18 Emissions per capita will vary by location due to geographic, economic, and climate factors. Can the 19 same reduction below BAU be applied to all projects regardless of location? The short answer is yes. 20 The state relies on the average reduction, which includes all parts of the state and factors in 21 differences in location. Project emissions for similar land uses will vary by location, but the 22 reduction below BAU can be the same if consistent with growth forecasts used in the Scoping Plan. 23 New development in an area with high per capita VMT will achieve more absolute reductions 24 (relative to BAU) than new development in an area with low per capita VMT, due to the 25 disproportionate effect of state measures requiring vehicle and fuel technology improvements for 26 transportation emissions in higher VMT areas. Areas with large temperature extremes will use more 27 energy for heating and cooling, but will also achieve more reductions from state-mandated energy 28 efficiency regulations than will areas with more moderate temperatures. Areas with high per capita 29 VMT due to long distance commuting may have low building energy use to due moderate climate. 30 The potential variations are endless; the key is the commonalities. 31 Projects provide housing, jobs, and services, all resulting in increases in transportation and energy 32 use. They all benefit from reductions that target fuels, vehicles, and power generation. They are 33 often interrelated within a community. People with jobs require housing. People in housing require 34 goods and services. From this aspect, none are worse than any others; they just fulfill a different 35 need within the community. Since all of these projects require transportation and energy, a BAU 36 threshold that applies uniformly can work. Some projects will have lower emissions than others but 37 the significance of the impact on climate change is best measured as to whether the project is doing 38 its fair share to support statewide overall reductions. 39 City or regional climate action plans can help address the location concern by providing emission 40 estimates that more accurately reflect local sources and land use plans. If there is no city or regional 41 plan that identifies local or regional targets, what threshold should a city use? The answer until now 42 for many lead agencies has been a reduction below BAU based on the statewide reductions required 43 to reach AB 32 targets. The statewide average is not the correct percentage reduction because 44 development related sources are required by regulation to do more than average for the State to 45 achieve its 2020 target. When regulations are adequate to achieve the target, the percentage 46 reduction required by regulation for development related sources is the reduction from BAU. A 47 percentage reduction from BAU of 28 percent or higher appears necessary to demonstrate 48 consistency with AB 32 targets.

Page 60 ends

October 2016
1 Could a city select its own BAU threshold based on its own analysis of growth? CEQA provides 2 latitude for cities in CEQA Guidelines 15183.5, but it has to be supported by substantial evidence 3 that it doesn’t significantly impact climate change. Cities with detailed emission inventories based 4 on local sources and conditions, and projections accounting for adopted regulations and growth 5 forecasts, would seem to have the basic information needed to support the crafting of a local 6 threshold supported by substantial evidence. However, a CAP process could provide a 7 comprehensive approach that would have more community support. 8 Addressing Diverse Development Types and Densities
9 The next factor to consider when using compliance with regulations as the basis of a significance 10 finding is whether there are project characteristics that render the regulations insufficient to reduce 11 the project impacts, and which would interfere with achieving the state target. The Newhall Ranch 12 Court showed concern with factors such as a project’s location and development density, compared 13 with what the state used to make its BAU growth projections. Could a project be so big, and result in 14 such a change in the regional development pattern, that it invalidates the state’s growth forecast? 15 Additionally, to what extent is the state relying on changes in density and development patterns in 16 the proposed location of the project, and is the project consistent with those assumptions? 17 Relationship to SB 375 Regional Targets
18 As described earlier, the state assumes only a 1.4 percent reduction in 2020 transportation 19 emissions from changes in land use and transportation systems through the SB 375 regional targets process. 20 43 These reductions would be achieved through buildout of already planned development 21 and transportation infrastructure. Perhaps a test for large projects such as Newhall Ranch would be 22 to assess whether the proposed development supports or conflicts with the regional target land use 23 assumptions? Typical-scale residential subdivisions and shopping center projects consistent with 24 the local general plan are part of the planned development pattern and density, and therefore would 25 not conflict with location and density assumptions used for regional targets. 26 Changes in Land Use Assumptions
27 General plans are not static and are periodically updated to reflect each community’s vision for 28 future development. General plan update EIRs should examine the effect of new development 29 allowed by the plan on regional growth projections, and their effect on longer term emission 30 reduction targets for the state. Designating new land for development does not necessarily result in 31 an increase in the rate of growth in the region or the state. New designated land may serve pent-up 32 demand in areas with shortages of housing or jobs, but may also sit vacant for many years. 33 Addressing pent-up demand may be positive in that it allows people who have been commuting long 34 distances to have a shorter commute. Population growth will occur and people will need to live and 35 work somewhere. Limiting growth in a community does not reduce global GHG emissions. The 36 development pattern has some effect on motor vehicle use and on the feasibility of alternative 37 modes of transportation. However, there is no substantial evidence that continued development as 38 allowed by general plans, zoning ordinances, and development standards would interfere with the 39 state achieving its 2020 GHG reduction target. On the contrary, the state assumed that development 40 would continue as planned in developing its strategy.

43 The latest accounting of Scoping Plan Measures was completed by ARB in 2011 and estimates reductions of approximately 3.0 MMTCO2e out of 210 MMTCO2e BAU transportation emissions. See:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 61 ends

October 2016
1 Growth forecasts are also not static. The state is tasked with updating the Scoping Plan to ensure 2 that growth is properly accounted for in its BAU projections. The state’s Cap and Trade regulation 3 provides a mechanism to respond to differences in predicted growth. The state uses VMT forecasts 4 prepared by the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies that are based on the latest planning 5 assumptions within each region. This provides a feedback mechanism to ensure that growth can be 6 accommodated without conflicting with air quality plans or with GHG targets. 7 Accounting for Development Density
8 The Court’s concern regarding development density in Newhall mirroring the densities used in 9 developing the statewide BAU projection is easily addressed. Development densities affect trip 10 generation and VMT. Higher density development generates fewer vehicle trips than lower density 11 development, as seen in trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers 12 (ITE). The ARB baseline and the BAU inventory use VMT estimates generated by the regional 13 transportation planning agencies from their regional transportation models. The transportation 14 models estimate trips by employing land use assumptions and travel survey data to generate VMT. 15 The BAU forecast does not account for changes in land use patterns, but rather is based on growth 16 projections. However, for future year projections prepared for regional transportation plans and for 17 SCS to comply with SB 375, the planned land use pattern from local general plans is accounted for. 18 This allows credit for increasing development densities in achieving SB 375 regional targets. 19 The project-level modeling tool used in California (CalEEMod) includes a mitigation component that 20 quantifies the benefits of land use, as well as transportation measures based on the characteristics of 21 an individual project and the surrounding community in which it will be constructed. The 22 percentage reductions allowed by the model are based on the increased potential for people using 23 the project to walk, bicycle, and use transit for their daily trips, and on the project’s proximity to 24 major employment or commercial centers that would reduce trip lengths. 25 The CalEEMod modeling tools provide a reasonable means of comparing the transportation impacts 26 of development at different locations demanded by the Court. The reductions claimed are supported 27 by empirical data described in the CAPCOA document Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation 28 Measures.
29 Recommendations for Current Projects
30 Newhall Ranch provides a high bar for using a BAU threshold. However, as we approach the 2020 31 milestone year it appears that California will achieve the 2020 target with its adopted regulatory 32 strategy. This provides substantial evidence that new development is not preventing the State from 33 achieving the 2020 target. Projects with buildout dates post 2020 will need a new threshold based 34 on the new SB 32 2030 target. Continued use of thresholds based on achieving the statewide 35 average reduction from BAU is not recommended. Thresholds based on reductions required from 36 development related emissions accounting for the statewide regulations seem defensible, but still 37 have a potential for legal challenge until the questions raised throughout this paper are resolved. 38 Post-2020 Considerations
39 If the concerns raised above can be overcome, either through a revised threshold formulation and 40 calculation or through a substantial evidence based argument that the current threshold 41 formulation is valid, then this threshold concept could be extended to the post-2020 period. There 42 will remain differences in the base year and in the socioeconomic projections used to project the 43 future milestone BAU, but provided the details of the forecast are fully documented and disclosed, 44 and all projects using the percent below BAU threshold are consistent with the BAU forecast 45 construction, then the comparisons made should be valid. A BAU threshold for 2030 was estimated Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 62 ends

October 2016
1 by using 2013 base year data for the statewide inventory, and with forecasts for 2030 BAU 2 emissions, and then determining the reductions needed to meet a 40 percent below 1990 levels. The 3 result as presented in the Technical Appendix is 50% below 2030 BAU levels. There is a high degree 4 of uncertainty about the BAU emissions for 2050; as a result a 2050 BAU threshold was not 5 estimated.
6 Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 63 ends

October 2016
1 VI. Climate Action Plan Targets
2 Michael Hendrix, LSA Associates
3 Hilary Haskell, San Diego Gas and Electric
4 Nicole Vermilion, PlaceWorks
5 Rich Walter, ICF
6 7 This section discusses the current CAP practice concerning GHG reduction targets, foundational 8 principles for developing CAP targets, and recommendations in light of the post-2020 challenge and 9 the Newhall Ranch ruling.
10 Current CAP Practice and Targets
11 Local CAPs emerged in the 1990s with the formation of ICLEI–Local Governments for Sustainability 12 (formerly the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) and with that organization’s 13 Cities for Climate Protection Campaign. The purpose of a CAP is to provide a long-range planning 14 document to address GHG emissions as a result of various transportation, development, and 15 infrastructure projects. CAPs recognize the importance of local governments in achieving 16 California’s GHG reduction target set forth by AB 32. The overall intent and tone of CAPs can range 17 from broad overviews of potential future actions to tangible strategies with well-defined goals and 18 deadlines.
19 The CEQA Guidelines envision CAPs as providing an institutional means of ensuring that 20 development projects and local plans rely on publicly-vetted reduction thresholds, and that they 21 employ adopted reduction methods. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 sets out the minimum 22 requirements for “plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,” which include CAPs 23 meeting those requirements. Once adopted, a CAP can streamline the CEQA review process: If a 24 project is consistent with an adopted CAP for the jurisdiction, then the project may have less than 25 significant GHG emissions, absent a fair argument otherwise (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4[b]). 26 CAPs in their early years often contained high-level, ambitious goals that sometimes lacked technical 27 or quantitative backing. More recently, CAPs have trended towards more technically sound analyses 28 with rigorous/mandatory policies. This shift towards more implementable, strategic CAPs is in part 29 due to OPR’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines amendments. Currently, although the range of CAPs is diverse, 30 there are some similarities among them. Specifically, most CAPs contain a well-known, recognizable 31 set of land use and transportation sector solutions for reducing GHG emissions (e.g., addition of bike 32 lanes, encouraging mixed use development, improved transit options). Typically, CAPs rely on 33 actions under the control of the local government, including municipal initiatives such as ensuring 34 that all local government buildings meet a certain degree of energy efficiency (such as LEED 35 certification), as well as community initiatives which are typically related to areas such as 36 transportation, solid waste, land use, and recycling within the boundaries of the community being 37 analyzed.
38 A CAP that is to be used as the basis for tiered GHG emissions analysis under CEQA must meet the 39 requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, as summarized below. This authorizes 40 significance for individual projects to be determined through evaluation of consistency with the 41 enforceable GHG reduction measures in the CAP:
42  Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting 43 from activities within a defined geographic area;
44  Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG 45 emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 64 ends

October 2016
1  Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions 2 anticipated within the geographic area;
3  Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial 4 evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively 5 achieve the specified emissions level;
6  Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the emissions level, 7 and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; 8  Be adopted in a public process following environmental review. 9 Most CAP targets are based on the AB 32 GHG emission reduction target for 2020 (1990 levels or 10 15% below 2008 levels), although some include post-2020 goals. Until statewide reduction planning 11 is completed to achieve the SB 32 target, CAPs with 2020 horizons are still applicable and legally 12 adequate. CAP targets commonly in use include the following:
13  Less than 1990 emissions by 2020 or before: Some jurisdictions, such as the City of San 14 Francisco, developed CAPs even prior to AB 32 (inspired by the Kyoto protocol), and thus 15 adopted targets to reduce emissions to below 1990 levels by 2020 or sooner. 16  1990 emissions by 2020: Some jurisdictions, which have prepared 1990 emissions inventories, 17 have adopted this target to be directly consistent with AB 32. 18  15% less than ”current” emissions by 2020: Many jurisdictions have adopted a CAP target that 19 is 15% less than the “current” emissions, based on the ARB’s recommendation for local 20 governments in the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The AB 32 Scoping Plan was benchmarked on 21 estimated 2004 to 2008 levels, accordingly. The most recent (2015) inventories prepared by 22 ARB show that 2004 to 2008 statewide emissions are approximately between 11 and 13 percent above 1990 emissions levels. 23 44 Statewide, there is some variability in the 15% less 24 than “current” emissions target due to differences in forecasts and emissions levels. 25  Percent below 2020 BAU emissions by 2020: Some jurisdictions have adopted a CAP target 26 based on a reduction from forecasted BAU emissions that would match the statewide 27 reductions from 2020 BAU. Most jurisdictions are using a CAP target in the range of 28 to 31 28 percent below 2020 BAU emissions, based on the statewide reductions below 2020 BAU 29 estimated at the time of the AB 32 Scoping Plan in 2008 needed to meet the AB 32 target. 30 Some jurisdictions have adopted targets based on more recent forecasts with later base years, 31 and consequently have lower percent reductions (due to lower BAU forecasts with lower 32 emissions and greater efficiencies in later years). See discussion of the Newhall Ranch ruling 33 implications for this CAP target approach, below.
34 The climate action planning process includes inventorying current GHG emissions, forecasting 35 future GHG emissions, adopting a GHG emissions target, developing a CAP to address this target, 36 vetting the CAP and its strategies through a public environmental review process, implementing 37 policies, monitoring and tracking progress, and recognizing progress when targets are achieved. To 38 reduce GHG emissions, communities may use a variety of methods, including but not limited to 39 reducing waste disposal, conserving energy, and promoting “green” building. ICLEI provided a 40 framework for drafting CAPs, which consisted of a baseline GHG emission inventory, a BAU forecast, 41 assessing GHG emissions reductions to meet the target, and determination of a GHG emissions 42 reduction target as a percentage below the BAU target. Currently, the ICLEI framework continues to

44 As noted previously, the specific target used will vary depending on the base year selected and the data set used to calculate the reduction needed to match the AB 32 target.

Page 65 ends

October 2016
1 be used in CAPs. In addition, the Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative (SEEC) provides a CAP 2 template to assist agencies with preparing CAPs.
3 CAPs are often drafted as part of general plan updates or as amendments to general plans in order to 4 codify a GHG emission target and an associated reduction strategy. CAPs can streamline the CEQA 5 review process; if a project is consistent with an adopted CAP for the jurisdiction, then the project could have less than significant GHG emissions. 6 45
7 Many existing CAPs have reduction targets for both community-wide GHG emissions (including 8 emission sources related to land uses in the jurisdiction where the local agency has direct or indirect 9 jurisdictional control), in addition to targets for municipal government operations (including 10 emission sources related to facilities owned and operated by, and activities performed by, the local 11 government). The community-wide reduction target is an overall target for the jurisdiction, while 12 the municipal reduction target is focused on government operations. Municipal CAPs are often used 13 to set an example for the broader community served by the local government. Since this discussion 14 of target setting is for comprehensive reductions of GHG emissions, its focus is on community-wide 15 GHG reduction targets. However, the same foundational principles discussed below for community 16 targets can also be used in setting municipal targets. 17 Foundational Principles for CAP Targets
18 Align with Statewide Targets
19 The first foundational principle is alignment with statewide targets. 20 The ARB considers local governments “essential partners in achieving California’s goals to reduce 21 GHGs.” Local governments have broad influence and authority over activities that contribute to 22 significant direct and indirect GHG emissions. Through their planning and permitting processes, 23 local ordinances, outreach and education efforts, and municipal operations, many local governments have become leaders in reducing GHG emissions.” 24 46 Clearly ARB and other state agencies regard 25 local governments that have adopted and are implementing CAPs as vital partners in achieving the 26 statewide reduction targets provided in AB 32 (for 2020), SB 32 (for 2030), and EO S-03-05 (for 27 2050). CAPs are also the logical way to deal cumulatively with GHG emission reductions. The CEQA 28 Guidelines recognize this in allowing development projects to tier the project-level GHG impact 29 analysis required in CEQA from qualified CAPs (CEQA Guidelines §15183.5). A critical aspect of 30 having a CAP that fits the criteria within CEQA Guidelines §15183.5 is a reduction target that aligns 31 with statewide targets.
32 Many adopted CAPs have reduction targets aligned with AB 32, which focuses on a 2020 reduction 33 target. CAP targets should be based on the state-adopted target for the next milestone after the local 34 planning horizon, whether that is 2020, 2030, or 2050. Thus, if the planning horizon is 2020 or 35 earlier, the target should be based on statewide reductions needed by 2020. If the planning horizon 36 is 2025, then the target should be based on the 2030 target. If the planning horizon is 2035, then the 37 horizon target should be based on the 2050 targets. Currently, there is no state-adopted target 38 beyond 2020.

45 However, there is currently no streamlining or exemption for the CEQA documents for CAPs themselves. In the Beyond 2020 white paper, the Committee recommended such an exemption. 46 ARB: Local Government Actions for Climate Change (Sept. 12, 2014) http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgovernment/localgovernment.htm Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 66 ends

October 2016
1 SB 1383 establishes statewide targets for methane, HFCs, and black carbon in 2030, but these 2 targets are separate from the SB 32 target which applies to the long-term effects of GHG emissions 3 overall. Moreover, the state’s SLCP is designed to address the short-term climate effect of these 4 pollutants, while SB 32 is designed to address the long-term climate effect of GHG emissions overall. 5 It is recommended that CAPs include separate estimates of methane, HFCs, and black carbon in 6 emission inventories and forecasts. The inventory and forecasts should use short-term GWPs (20 7 year) instead of the long-term GWPs (100 years) used for the overall GHG emissions inventory. The 8 CAP should assess the consistency of jurisdictional SLCP emissions with statewide reduction 9 planning for SLCP reductions.
10 Identify the Horizon Year
11 The second foundational principle in target setting is identification of the horizon year. 12 From a planning perspective, local governments need to have planning documents that are 13 consistent with one another. As such, the horizon year of a CAP should normally be the same as the 14 horizon year of the general plan for that jurisdiction. There are exceptions which can be explored, 15 but first this simple planning concept should be examined further. By having the CAP’s horizon year 16 match the general plan’s horizon year, the CAP will capture the growth and level of activities that 17 will occur within the local jurisdiction. From a CEQA perspective this can be seen as engaging the 18 “whole of the project” (the project in this case being the future development allowed by the general 19 plan).
20 The horizon year for a CAP influences the rigor of the reduction targets within the CAP, which gets 21 back to the first aspect of target setting. As a general rule, CAPs being presently prepared should at 22 least have an AB 32-compliant reduction target for 2020. But there should also be a reduction target 23 that matches the horizon year as well. For this reason, it is common for CAPs to have multiple 24 reduction targets including one for year 2020, and one for the horizon year of the CAP. In setting the 25 rigor of a reduction target for a post-2020 horizon year, the concept of substantial progress toward 26 the 2030 interim milestone, or toward the ultimate 2050 goal, may need to be considered. 27 The current 2050 target (from S-03-05) is to reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 28 2050. A horizon year target could match the 2050 goal. That goal requires that GHG emissions are 29 reduced by approximately 95 to 99 percent compared to the typical baseline inventories of GHG emissions for a CAP. 30 47 This is why the Kyoto Protocol, the first international effort to mitigate GHG 31 emissions, set targets in a stair-step format toward the 2050 goal. The latest international effort, the 32 2015 Paris Accord, includes the following language:
33 “Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap 34 between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual 35 emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent 36 with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above 37 pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C 38 above pre-industrial levels, Also emphasizing that enhanced pre‐2020 ambition can lay 39 a solid foundation for enhanced post‐2020 ambition, . . . decides to adopt the Paris 40 Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as “the Agreement”) as contained in the annex. . .” 41 48

47 This assumption is based on baseline inventory years ranging from 2008 to 2015. 48 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Conference of the Parties 21st session, Paris France, Adoption of the Paris Agreement. December 2015.

Page 67 ends

October 2016
1 Use the Substantial Progress Paradigm to Identify the CAP Target 2 The third foundational principle in target setting is using “substantial progress” to address how the 3 CAP will continue to achieve GHG emissions post-2020. 4 The best measure of whether an individual jurisdiction is providing its fair share of GHG reductions 5 is whether that project supports “substantial progress” toward the statewide reduction targets over 6 time, not whether the project is meeting a milestone target many years in the future, such as for 7 2050. The reason that international agreements and state targets do not simply go directly to the 8 2050 goal is because the goal cannot be met without substantial advances in cost-effective 9 technological solutions related to GHG reductions. These advances require large-scale changes that 10 are beyond the capability of any local agency to achieve by itself. The significant reductions needed 11 in California to meet the 2050 goal can be seen in Figure 1 below:
12 Figure 1: Required GHG Reductions Needed to Meet the State’s 2050 Target 13 14 A “substantial progress” CAP target can be identified for a project horizon year that is interpolated 15 between the current milestone target for which an effective statewide plan exists (such as for 2020), 16 and the next milestone target for which an effective statewide plan does not yet exist (such as for 17 2030). This is a more realistic approach than setting a 2050 target that the local agency will be 18 incapable of meeting and whose implementation is dependent on future wide-scale advances that 19 are unknown at this time.
20 The Paris Accord agreement requires the “Parties” to continue the efforts toward the 2020 target of 21 reducing global GHG emissions down to 1990 levels and encourages post-2020 ambition toward 22 keeping global average temperature well below 2°C. Ultimately, that requires substantial progress 23 toward the 2050 goal.
24 In sum, thoughtful consideration needs to be made in target setting, so that the targets align with the 25 state’s efforts in GHG reductions, targets are included up to the horizon year of the CAP, and 26 substantial progress is made toward the 2050 goal. With these aspects in mind, different types of 27 targets are considered below.

Page 68 ends

October 2016
1 Show Your Work (Provide Substantial Evidence)
2 A final key foundational principle is to “show your work.” Transparent methodology and data ensure 3 that the CAP can be reviewed for adequacy prior to adoption, that it can be updated as needed, and 4 that, if litigated, the agency has substantial evidence to support the CAP. 5 CAP lead agencies should provide substantial evidence to support their CAP target identification in 6 order to support future CEQA tiering of consistent projects. 7 Mass Emissions CAP Targets
8 Mass emissions targets are the most common within existing CAPs and aim to reduce total 9 emissions within a jurisdictional area over a specified period of time. Since most CAPs used AB 32 in 10 target setting, mass emissions targets typically focus on 2020. 11 Reduction Relative to 1990 by 2020
12 This type of target exactly mirrors the AB 32 statewide target of reducing emissions down to 1990 13 levels of emissions by 2020. The simplicity and direct correlation between the state target and this 14 CAP target is its biggest advantage. The challenge in setting this type of mass emissions target is that 15 it requires a 1990 inventory of GHG emissions. Because much has changed between current best 16 practices in calculating transportation related GHG emissions and the traffic modeling, and record 17 keeping in 1990, creating a 1990 emissions inventory may be a significant challenge and is ripe for 18 error. Additional challenges in developing the 1990 inventory are data gaps related to energy use 19 and other sectors. A target based on 1990 emissions would be robust only if the 1990 GHG inventory 20 is accurate and represents best practices for emission calculations, and can be reasonably consistent 21 with the statewide 1990 inventory. Otherwise the target will reflect the same errors present in the 22 1990 inventory. This approach is recommended if a reasonably representative 1990 emissions can 23 be developed for the jurisdiction seeking to develop a CAP. 24 Reduction Relative to “Current Base Year” by 2020 to meet AB 32 Target 25 This is a very common reduction target within existing CAPs and often uses the recommendation 26 within the 2008 AB 32 Scoping Plan of reducing “current” GHG emissions by 15 percent by year 27 2020. Note that the term “current” within the 2008 Scoping Plan recommendation is interpreted to 28 mean a baseline year of 2004 to 2008. Some jurisdictions have applied the 15 percent reduction 29 relative to baseline years as late as 2010 to 2012. Other jurisdictions have adjusted the percent 30 reduction amount based on updated calculations of the reductions needed from a later base year to 31 meet the AB 32 target. As emissions are reduced over time, due to the progressive effect of local and 32 state regulations, the percent below the “current” base year emissions levels will in general be lower over time. 33 49
34 Reduction Relative to 2020 BAU
35 CAPs typically forecast GHG emissions based upon local population growth, economic growth, and 36 transportation-related growth anticipated within the general plan or by the Metropolitan Planning 37 Organization (MPO) for the region. These forecasts in emissions use BAU to determine the future 38 trajectory of GHG emissions absent any federal, statewide, regional or local GHG reductions. Often

49 Based on the most recent state inventory data (2015, excluding carbon sinks), 2005 emissions would have to be reduced by 11% to get to 1990 levels, 2010 emissions would have to be reduced by 5% to get to 1990 levels and 2013 emissions would have to be reduced by 6% to get to 1990 levels.

Page 69 ends

October 2016
1 targets are set based on the amount of BAU forecasted emissions that need to be reduced in order to 2 achieve or exceed the reduction targets of the state. Common BAU reduction targets range from 25 3 to 31 percent below forecasted BAU emissions for the local jurisdiction by year 2020. These BAU4 based reduction targets often directly or indirectly use the anticipated BAU reductions in the AB 32 5 Scoping Plan.
6 Post-2020 Mass Emission-Based CAP Targets
7 As noted above, California is at a point of transition between focus on the 2020 milestone and post8 2020 reduction targets. Thus, new CAPs will need to address the post-2020 period. Using the 9 foundational principles noted above, the post-2020 CAP targets will need to align with the statewide 10 reduction targets for the next milestone and/or substantial progress toward the next statewide 11 milestone.
12 Reduction Relative to 1990
13 Since statewide targets are articulated relative to 1990, a local CAP target benchmarked on 1990 14 will provide for the best consistency with statewide targets. For 2030, SB 32 includes a 40 percent 15 below 1990 target. Substantial progress targets between 2020 and 2030 could interpolate between 16 the AB 32 target and the SB 32 target. For example, a 2025 target of 20 percent below 1990 levels 17 would be consistent with substantial progress toward the 2030 target. A similar logic could apply to 18 interim years between 2030 and 2050.
19 Reduction Relative to 2020/AB 32
20 Many jurisdictions do not have a 1990 inventory and may find it difficult to accurately derive a 1990 21 inventory due to insufficient data. Thus, many existing CAP targets have been benchmarked to a 22 base year between 2004 and 2008, and have adopted a reduction target of 15 percent below base 23 year emissions, since the AB 32 Scoping Plan stated that this was a rough proxy value for 1990 24 emissions. Many CAPs have thus adopted this target for 2020. 25 Looking forward, if a local jurisdiction has adopted a target to meet AB 32 targets by 2020 using an 26 equivalent percent below a base year, then post-2020 targets could be based on that AB 32- 27 compliant 2020 target. For example, a 2030 target could be 40% below the 2020 AB 32 compliance 28 target (on the presumption that the 2020 target is roughly the equivalent of 1990 levels). 29 Reduction Relative to Future BAU
30 CAP targets could also be based on some percentage reduction relative to a future BAU. In order to 31 determine the percentage amount, the future milestone BAU emissions would need to be forecasted 32 along with a determination of what the reduction from that BAU total would have to be in order to 33 meet a post-2020 statewide target, or to make substantial progress toward that target. 34 As shown in the Technical Appendix, using 2013 data and roughly scaling up to 2030, statewide 35 reductions from 2030 BAU to meet SB 32 could be approximately 48 percent. Thus, a potential 36 target could be 48 percent below 2030 BAU. As noted above, the percent reduction amount is highly 37 sensitive to the chosen base year used for the forecast, as well to as the assumptions about future 38 growth. In addition, the level of uncertainty in forecasts increases with how far into the future the 39 forecast is estimating growth and emissions.

Page 70 ends

October 2016
1 Other CAP Target Concepts
2 CAP targets have usually consisted of some version of a mass emissions target, but there are a 3 number of other concepts that could be used as the CAP target, or as a supplementary metric to a 4 mass emissions-based CAP target. The following are some examples of alternative approaches. 5 Sectoral-Based Targets
6 Different sector-by-sector targets could be established instead of or in addition to an overall CAP 7 target. The benchmarking for those targets could be based on an analysis of the reductions needed 8 in each different sector statewide, based on the updated Scoping Plan in preparation for 2030. 9 However, estimating the precise amount of sector-by-sector reduction without access to all the 10 backing data in ARB’s analysis supporting the Scoping Plan update would be challenging due to the 11 overlap of many measures.
12 Per Capita or Per Service Population Targets
13 As described earlier, there are efficiency thresholds used for CEQA project evaluation, and in some 14 cases for land use plan evaluations. Likewise, one could use a CAP target for efficiency instead of a 15 mass emissions reduction target. The efficiency target would need to be based on the statewide 16 profile of emissions, but with removal of emissions that are not related to the jurisdiction in 17 question (e.g., if the jurisdiction has no port, then marine vessel emissions should be excluded from 18 the efficiency target).
19 While an efficiency target can be readily calculated for post-2020 milestones, one criticism of this 20 approach is that it would not necessarily result in net GHG reductions in particular jurisdictions, 21 compared to current or past GHG emissions levels in that jurisdiction, particularly in high growth 22 areas. If the statewide efficiency target anticipates that growth, this may not be an issue. 23 Unit-Based Targets
24 While not suitable for GHG reduction targets, a CAP could also propose and monitor any number of 25 unit-based metrics to measure accomplishments in different sectors. For example, energy use per 26 household, or VMT/capita, or VMT/SP, could be an additional metric that a lead agency may want to 27 consider. Other metrics could be identified for waste generation and water use, or other key driving 28 activity that results in a substantial amount of GHG emissions for that jurisdiction. However, if unit29 based targets were used for CAPs intended to provide CEQA tiering, then substantial evidence would 30 need to be provided to connect these targets to statewide GHG reduction targets. 31 CAP Preparation Considerations in Light of the Sierra Club vs. San 32 Diego County Ruling
33 The Sierra Club v. San Diego County decision points out the potential pitfalls in CAP preparation. It is 34 often challenging for a CAP to provide meaningful evidence that the GHG emissions targets proposed 35 will be met, since that evidence often depends on the rigor of technical analyses prepared in support 36 of the CAP, the number of voluntary and mandatory reduction measures, the implementation 37 strategy including the enforceability of the measures, overall transparency, and the thoroughness of 38 emission inventories. CAPs must focus on implementation and mitigation measures that are 39 mandatory rather than voluntary to ensure that GHG emissions reductions targets are indeed 40 achieved within a specified timeframe.

Page 71 ends

October 2016
1 Opportunities for improving CAPs include developing more comprehensive tools for calculating and 2 estimating baseline GHG emissions inventories, and projected emissions reductions from more 3 sectors so that more specific and realistic GHG emissions reductions targets can be achieved. As 4 more CAPs are developed and implemented over longer periods of time, the natural progression of 5 knowledge in regards to best practices will begin to emerge. Finally, providing CEQA guidelines and 6 thresholds of significance consistent with AB 32, SB 32, and future legislative GHG emissions targets 7 will help to ensure that CAPs are aimed at achieving a common GHG emission target. The success of 8 CAPs will depend on adoption of GHG emissions thresholds, associated mandatory mitigation 9 measures, and meeting targets set forth by AB 32 for 2020, SB 32 for 2030 and beyond. CAPs should 10 be an integral aspect of the CEQA review process because they provide a practical method for 11 benchmarking GHG emissions through a method other than percent below BAU. 12 CAP Target Considerations in Light of the Newhall Ranch Ruling 13 As noted above, the Newhall Ranch ruling specifically referenced compliance with a GHG Reduction 14 Plan as one appropriate approach for determining the significance of project GHG emissions under 15 CEQA. Thus, the concern here is whether the ruling would affect the ability of lead agencies to use 16 different CAP target approaches when developing CAPs that are intended to be used as the basis for 17 tiering. It should be noted that a CAP deals with the entire emissions (both existing and future) for 18 an entire jurisdiction, which is a very different evaluation than a for new development project 19 (which was the specific subject of the Newhall Ranch case). Generally speaking, much of the Newhall 20 Ranch ruling does not apply to CAPs. A CAP deals with a much broader set of emissions, including 21 both existing and new development. CAPs address new development GHG emissions in the context 22 of achieving an overall reduction in GHG emissions over time to support statewide targets. 23 The implications for different CAP target approaches are discussed below:
24  Reduction Relative to 1990 Levels: The Newhall Ranch ruling would have no effect on the 25 approach of benchmarking jurisdiction emissions using a 1990 base year. The state is using 26 1990 emissions as a base year for setting GHG reduction targets. A CAP that will reduce overall 27 emissions (including both existing and new emissions) for a jurisdiction relative to 1990 28 levels in the same way as statewide GHG reduction targets will be an appropriate basis for 29 project-level tiering, and that tiering will be an appropriate evaluation under CEQA based on 30 substantial evidence.
31  Reduction Relative to “Current Base Year:” While not as straightforward as the use of a 1990 32 base year, CAP targets that are keyed to a “current” base year should be unaffected by the 33 Newhall Ranch ruling. As noted above, CAP targets using a base year other than 1990 should 34 be at least as stringent as the reductions needed on a statewide level. Evidence should be 35 provided in the CAP to clearly show how the reductions relative to the base year are the 36 functional equivalent of the state reductions to (or below) 1990 emissions levels. The CAP 37 should explain why a 1990 inventory was not prepared. 38  Reduction Relative to 2020 BAU: Since the Newhall Ranch ruling, concerning the 39 appropriateness of a percent below BAU CEQA threshold, some may be concerned that use of a 40 percent below BAU CAP target may affect the ability of the CAP to be used in CEQA tiering. 41 While this approach remains valid (as discussed below), the Committee recommends that new 42 CAPs benchmark their targets using 1990 emissions (if possible), or a “current” base year 43 instead of below future BAU emissions, to avoid potential challenges that might be raised to 44 the CAP based on the Newhall Ranch ruling.
45 A CAP is intended to deal with the totality of emissions related to an entire jurisdiction, not 46 merely new development emissions. As such, provided there is evidence that the CAP target 47 benchmarked to a future BAU condition is functionally equivalent to statewide reduction Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 72 ends

October 2016
1 targets, then the review of the consistency of a development project with the CAP should still 2 be valid for CEQA review of GHG emissions. The Newhall Ranch ruling did not question the use 3 of a statewide reduction target as a threshold, nor the percent below BAU methodology in 4 general, only whether there was evidence to show why the statewide reduction level is 5 appropriate to be used as the reduction level for new development projects. Consistency with 6 a CAP in a percent below BAU target puts new development GHG emissions into the proper 7 context and allows the lead agency to show how new development GHG emissions reductions 8 fit in with the jurisdiction’s overall approach to reduce all emissions consistent with statewide 9 targets. Thus, the CAP can provide substantial evidence that can support the use of a 10 consistency with CAP approach, even for a CAP using a percent below BAU reduction target. In 11 addition, the CAP should explain why a 1990 inventory was not prepared. 12  Per Capita or Per Service Population Efficiency Targets: The Newhall Ranch ruling would have 13 no direct effect on the approach of benchmarking jurisdiction emissions using a per capita or a 14 per service population target, provided there is evidence that the selected target is consistent 15 with overall efficiency levels needed to meet statewide reduction targets. The Newhall Ranch 16 ruling specifically described that CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions are aimed at promoting 17 efficiency improvements over time, and thus this approach would be consistent with the 18 ruling. However, one concern about an efficiency CAP target, unrelated to the Newhall Ranch 19 ruling, is that in rapidly growing jurisdictions, the use of an efficiency target may not result in 20 absolute reductions in GHG emissions. Since statewide emissions reduction targets are 21 absolute reductions in GHG emissions, if using an efficiency CAP target would result in 22 increase in GHG emissions over base years, then this approach may be subject to challenge. 23 Lead agencies considering this approach would be advised to instead use a CAP target based 24 on 1990 emissions or “current” year emissions to avoid this potential challenge. If this 25 approach were to be used for a CAP, and the CAP would result in a net increase in emissions, 26 then the lead agency should demonstrate why the use of the efficiency target would result in 27 GHG emissions that would be consistent with statewide-GHG reduction targets overall. 28  Sector-Based or Unit-Based Targets: While these approaches have not been used in CAPs to 29 date, the Newhall Ranch ruling should have no effect on the approach of deriving individual 30 sector-by-sector GHG reduction targets, or on unit-based targets, provided there is evidence 31 that the CAP will reduce jurisdictional emissions overall consistent with statewide reduction 32 targets.

Page 73 ends

October 2016
1 VII. Additional Recommendations
2 Rich Walter, ICF
3 When considering climate action planning in this transitional period for CEQA, and as GHG reduction 4 plans face new challenges, the AEP Climate Change Committee offers the following additional 5 recommendations:
6  Use a Plan Approach instead of a Project Approach: CEQA is not the best or even a particularly 7 effective tool to address cumulative impacts, such as GHG emissions. It is more effective to 8 address GHG emissions comprehensively in a forum that can address all sources of GHG 9 emissions, including emissions from existing and new development, and regardless of 10 whether or not they are subject to CEQA review. Thus, the development of comprehensive 11 statewide reduction plans complemented by regional and local GHG reduction plans that are 12 updated over time to address progressively more ambitious GHG reduction targets, will be 13 more effective and efficient than spending the time and effort involved in project-by-project 14 GHG reduction analysis under CEQA. SB 97 has established, and the Newhall Ranch ruling 15 confirms, that tiering from a qualified GHG reduction plan is the superior approach to CEQA 16 compliance, because it prioritizes approaching GHG reduction from an advanced planning 17 perspective and not from a CEQA after-the-fact project perspective. 18  Coordinate efforts among ARB, Air Districts, CAPCOA, and CEQA Lead Agencies: To date, ARB has 19 focused on statewide GHG reduction planning, whereas regional air districts have taken up the 20 challenge of developing CEQA guidelines and thresholds for use by CEQA lead agencies. 21 CAPCOA has, in the past, produced highly useful guidance materials used to analyze GHG 22 emissions. Many individual jurisdictions have developed GHG reduction plans, and some have 23 developed methods of determining significance of GHG emissions. If ARB continues to focus on 24 statewide GHG planning, and does not identify project-level GHG thresholds for post-2020 25 emissions, regional air districts are best suited to develop and recommend new thresholds, 26 with support and guidance from CAPCOA.
27  Keep your Eyes on the Ball in a Time of Rapid Change: Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 500 BCE) 28 famously said “everything flows”, which is often commonly referenced as “the only constant is 29 change.” When AB 32 was adopted in 2006, it took a number of years and a lot of hard work by 30 CEQA practitioners, lead agencies, CAPCOA, and air districts to develop the concepts presently 31 used for GHG reduction plans and for CEQA GHG analysis. With the new challenges of the post32 2020/post-Newhall Ranch ruling era, climate action planning will need to evolve again. We 33 can expect that there will be new, unarticulated challenges in the future. However, despite the 34 confusion and uncertainty that inevitably arises at times of rapid change, we should not lose 35 sight of the real accomplishments being made across California to reduce GHG emissions. 36 Moreover, we should seek to incentivize and support local jurisdictions, residents, businesses, 37 and organizations with positive reinforcement when they make substantial progress to reduce 38 GHG emissions under their control or influence. We should resolve current impediments and 39 vulnerabilities resulting in disincentives, wasted time and effort, and CEQA lawsuits, so that 40 we can focus more time identifying ways to support positive action on the ground in local 41 communities across California.

Page 74 ends

October 2016
1 VIII. References
2 Basset E. and Shandas V. 2010. Innovation and Climate Action Planning. Journal of the American 3 Planning Association, 76, pp. 435-450. Available:
4 http://fyi.uwex.edu/climate/files/2012/06/Bassett-and-Shandas-2010.pdf 5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality 6 Guidelines. Updated May 2011. http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and7 Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx 8 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Summary 1990. 9 Version 1. Last Updated on 11/19/2007. Available:
10 http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/ghg/1990_1990/ghg_sector_data.php 11 ____. 2008. AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available:
12 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm 13 _____. 2011. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures. Available:
14 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf 15 _____. 2014. First Update to the Scoping Plan. Available:
16 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm 17 _____. 2015. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory – 2015 Edition. Available:
18 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
19 California County-Level Economic Forecast 2015 – 2040. Prepared by the Economic Analysis 20 Branch Office of State Planning, California Department of Transportation: Available:
21 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic_files/2015/2015%20California%2 22 0county-level%20Full%20Report.pdf
23 California Department of Finance. 2014. Report P1: Summary Population Projections by 24 Race/Ethnicity and by major Age Groups. December. Available:
25 http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/P-1/ 26 California Economic Forecast. 2015. California County-Level Economic Forecast 2015-2040. 27 Prepared for Caltrans Economic Analysis Branch. September. Available:
28 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic_files/2015/2015%20California%2 29 0county-level%20Full%20Report.pdf
30 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2009. California Energy Demand 2010-2020 Commission31 Adopted Forecast: Statewide Demand Forecast Forms. Available:
32 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-012/CEC-200-2009-012-CMF.PDF 33 California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 1999 (December). California 1999 34 Statewide Waste Composition Study. Available:
35 http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/LocalAsst/34000009.pdf 36 Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District. 2012. Addendum to CEQA Guidelines Addressing GHG 37 Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects when Serving as Lead CEQA Agency. Adopted 38 March 8, 2012.
39 http://www.kernair.org/Documents/CEQA/EKAPCD%20CEQA%20GHG%20Policy%20Adopte 40 d%203-8-12.pdf
Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 75 ends

October 2016
1 Energy & Environmental Economics (E3). 2014. California State Agencies’ Pathways Project: Long – 2 Term Greenhouse Gas Reductions Scenarios. Available:
3 https://ethree.com/public_projects/energy_principals_study.php 4 http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/ceqaguideupdate.shtml
5 https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Revised_VMT_CEQA_Guidelines_Proposal_January_20_2016.pdf 6 Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 7 and Federal Conformity Guidelines. August.
8 http://www.mdaqmd.ca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2910 9 Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. 2011. Staff Report: Consider Adoption of a 10 Resolution Approving Thresholds of Significance for Greenhouse Gasses. 11 http://www.mbuapcd.org/mbuapcd/pdf/Board_Reports/06152011/20.pdf 12 Office of Planning and Research. 2016. Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on 13 Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Implementing Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) 14 January 20, 2016
15 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2014. CEQA Guide to Air Quality 16 Assessment. Last updated November 2014 relative to GHG thresholds. 17 San Diego County. 2012 Guidelines for Determining Significance: Climate Change. Land Use and 18 Environment Group. Department of Planning and Land Use. Department of Public Works. June 19 20.
20 http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/pds/advance/Draft_Guidelines_for_Determining_Significance_Clim 21 ate_Change.pdf
22 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2009. Guidance for Valley Land Use Agencies in 23 Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA. December 17. 24 http://www.valleyair.org/programs/CCAP/CCAP_idx.htm#SJAVPCD 25 San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. 2012. CEQA Handbook. 26 http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v1.pdf 27 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Environmental Review Guidelines for the 28 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. April 30. https://www.ourair.org/wp29 content/uploads/APCDCEQAGuidelinesApr2015.pdf 30 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA 31 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance threshold. 2008.
32 http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2008/December/081231a.htm
33 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold 34 Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15. Diamond Bar, California. September 28. 35 http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/ghgmtg15-web.pdf 36 Strem C. and Kirk C. Climate Action Plans and CEQA. Available:
37 http://cahigheredusustainability.org/documents/strem_kirk_monjune17_930am_parkboulevar 38 d.pdf
39 Young A. 2011. Next Generation Climate Action Plans – Are they Ready for CEQA Compliance? 40 Available:
41 http://events.awma.org/GHG2011/Abstracts/Session_1/Abstract%20%2349/Extended%20Ab 42 stract_49.pdf
43 Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 76 ends

October 2016
1 Technical Appendix: Tables
2 This appendix provides the data supporting the calculations of certain thresholds described in text 3 above.
4 Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 77 ends

October 2016
1 Table T-1: Adjusted Statewide 1990 Land Use Sector Emissions Inventory (MMT CO2e/yr.) Emissions
Sector
Total
Emissions
Excluded
Emissions
Adjusted Land
Use Sector
Emissions Notes/Adjustments
Electricity 110.5 36.5 (33%) 74.0
Applied CEC 1990 electricity
consumption rates for industrial land
uses to remove industrial electricity
consumption (33% per CEC 2009).

Transportation 150.6 12.7 (8%) 137.9
Removed aviation, non-specified
transportation, rail, and water borne
transportation.

Landfills 7.5 0.9 (12%) 6.6 Removed industrial solid waste disposal (12% per CIWMB 1999)
Wastewater
Treatment

3.6 0.4 (11%) 3.2
Removed industrial wastewater
treatment emissions (i.e., fruits and
vegetables, poultry, and red meat
processing).

Commercial 14.4 0.6 (4%) 13.9 Removed national security emissions.

Residential 29.7 None 29.7 Land use sector includes all emissions.

Agriculture &
Forestry 18.9 18.9 (100%) 0.0 Not included in land use sector Industrial 94.3 93.6 (100%) 0.7
Separated landfills and wastewater
treatment from sector. Only included
construction in land use sector
Not Specified 1.3 0.0 (0%) 1.3 Included in land use sector Total 430.7 163.5 (38%) 267.2
Sources: GHG Emissions from ARB 2007, Adjustment for Industrial Electricity = CEC 2009, Adjustment for Industrial landfill = CIWMB 1999
2 Table T-2: Example 2020, 2030 and 2050 GHG Efficiency Metrics for the Land Use Sector 1990
(Actual)
2020
(per AB 32)
2030
(per SB 32)
2050
(per S-03-05)
Adjusted Land Use Sector
Emissions (MTCO2e) 267,249,666 267,249,666 160,349,800 53,449,933 Population 29,758,213 40,619,346 44,085,600 49,779,362
Adjusted Employment 11,860,900 15,834,000 17,441,000 20,935,000 Service Population (SP) 41,619,113 56,453,346 61,526,600 70,714,362 GHG Efficiency MTCO2e/SP) =
Land Use Sector Emissions/SP 6.3 4.7 2.6 0.8
Sources: Land Use sector emissions for 1990 from Table T-1, Population from Department of Finance 2014, Employment for 1990 from EDD. Employment for 2020 and 2030 from California Economic Forecast 2015. 2050 employment estimate extrapolated based on 2030 to 2040 trend.

Notes:

1. Emissions for 2020 assumed to be same as 1990 emissions to meet AB 32.

2. Emissions for 2030 assumed to be 40 percent below 1990 emissions to meet SB 32.

3. Emissions for 2050 assumed to be 80 percent below 1990 emissions to meet S-03-05.

4. Adjusted Employment excludes farm and manufacturing employment.

5. Includes construction emissions and employment. If using these thresholds, will need to amortize construction emissions over life of project and include in total project emissions. 3 Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 78 ends

October 2016
1 Table T-3: Adjusted 1990 Statewide Land Use Sector Emissions Inventory, Excluding On-Road 2 Passenger and Light Duty Transportation Emissions
Emissions
Sector
Total
Emissions
Excluded
Emissions
Adjusted Land
Use Sector
Emissions Notes/Adjustments
Electricity 110.5 36.5 (33%) 74.0 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Transportation 150.6 121.6 (81%) 29.0
Removed passenger/light-duty trucks,
aviation, non-specified transportation,
rail, and water borne transportation.

Landfills 7.5 0.9 (12%) 6.6 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Wastewater
Treatment

3.6 0.4 (11%) 3.2 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Commercial 14.4 0.6 (4%) 13.9 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Residential 29.7 None 29.7 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Agriculture &
Forestry 18.9 18.9 (100%) 0.0 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Industrial 94.3 93.6 (100%) 0.7 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Not Specified 1.3 0.0 (0%) 1.3 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Total 430.7 272.3 (63%) 158.4
Sources: GHG Emissions from ARB 2007, Adjustment for Industrial Electricity = CEC 2009, Adjustment for Industrial landfill = CIWMB 1999
3 Table T-4: Example 2020, 2030, 2050 Statewide GHG Efficiency Metrics for the Land Use Sector, 4 Excluding Passenger/Light-Duty Truck GHG Emissions
1990
(Actual)
2020
(per AB 32)
2030
(per SB 32)
2050
(per S-03-05)
Adjusted Land Use Sector Emissions
(MTCO2e) 158,375,500 158,375,500 95,025,300 31,675,100
Population 29,758,213 40,619,346 44,085,600 49,779,362
Adjusted Employment 11,860,900 15,834,000 17,441,000 20,935,000 Service Population (SP) 41,619,113 56,453,346 61,526,600 70,714,362 GHG Efficiency MTCO2e/SP) = Land Use
Sector Emissions/SP 3.6 2.8 1.5 0.4
Sources: Land Use sector emissions for 1990 from Table T-3, Population from Department of Finance 2014, Employment for 1990 from EDD. Employment for 2020 and 2030 from California Economic Forecast 2015. 2050 employment estimate extrapolated based on 2030 to 2040 trend.

Notes:

1. Emissions for 2020 assumed to be same as 1990 emissions to meet AB 32.

2. Emissions for 2030 assumed to be 40 percent below 1990 emissions to meet SB 32.

3. Emissions for 2050 assumed to be 80 percent below 1990 emissions to meet S-03-05.

4. Adjusted Employment excludes farm and manufacturing employment.

5. Includes construction emissions and employment. If using these thresholds, will need to amortize construction emissions over life of project and include in total project emissions. 5 6
Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 79 ends

October 2016
1 Table T-5: Adjusted 1990 Statewide Land Use Sector Emissions Inventory, Excluding On2 Transportation Emissions Emissions
Sector
Total
Emissions
Excluded
Emissions
Adjusted Land
Use Sector
Emissions Notes/Adjustments
Electricity 110.5 36.5 (33%) 74.0 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Transportation 150.6 150.6 (100%) 0.0 Removed all transportation Landfills 7.5 0.9 (12%) 6.6 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Wastewater
Treatment

3.6 0.4 (11%) 3.2 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Commercial 14.4 0.6 (4%) 13.9 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Residential 29.7 None 29.7 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Agriculture &
Forestry 18.9 18.9 (100%) 0.0 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Industrial 94.3 93.6 (100%) 0.7 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Not Specified 1.3 0.0 (0%) 1.3 Same Adjustments as Table T-1.

Total 430.7 301.4 (70%) 129.3
Sources: GHG Emissions from ARB 2007, Adjustment for Industrial Electricity = CEC 2009, Adjustment for Industrial landfill = CIWMB 1999
3 Table T-6: Example 2020, 2030, and 2050 Statewide GHG Efficiency Metrics for the Land Use 4 Sector, Excluding On-Road GHG Emissions
1990
(Actual)
2020
(per AB 32)
2030
(per SB 32)
2050
(per S-03-05)
Adjusted Land Use Sector Emissions
(MTCO2e) 129,332,462 129,332,462 77,599,477 25,866,492
Population 29,758,213 40,619,346 44,085,600 49,779,362
Adjusted Employment 11,860,900 15,834,000 17,441,000 20,935,000 Service Population (SP) 41,619,113 56,453,346 61,526,600 70,714,362 GHG Efficiency MTCO2e/SP) = Land Use
Sector Emissions/SP 3.0 2.3 1.3 0.4
Sources: Land Use sector emissions for 1990 from Table T-5, Population from Department of Finance 2014, Employment for 1990 from EDD. Employment for 2020 and 2030 from California Economic Forecast 2015. 2050 employment estimate extrapolated based on 2030 to 2040 trend.

Notes:

1. Emissions for 2020 assumed to be same as 1990 emissions to meet AB 32.

2. Emissions for 2030 assumed to be 40 percent below 1990 emissions to meet SB 32.

3. Emissions for 2050 assumed to be 80 percent below 1990 emissions to meet S-03-05.

4. Adjusted Employment excludes farm and manufacturing employment.

5. Includes construction emissions and employment. If using these thresholds, will need to amortize construction emissions over life of project and include in total project emissions. 5 6
Association of Environmental Professionals Climate Change Committee White Paper Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California

Page 80 ends

October 2016
1 Table T-7: Example 2020, 2030, 2050 GHG Efficiency Metrics for General Plans 1990
(Actual)
2020
(per AB 32)
2030
(per SB 32)
2050
(per S-03-05)
Statewide GHG Emissions
(MMTCO2e) 430,724,004 430,724,004 258,434,402 86,144,801 Population 29,758,213 40,619,346 44,085,600 49,779,362
Employment 14,099,000 17,588,000 19,235,000 22,557,000
Service Population (SP) 43,857,213 58,207,346 63,320,600 72,336,362 GHG Efficiency (MMTCO2e/SP) 9.8 7.4 4.1 1.2
Sources:

1. GHG Emissions for 1990 from CARB 2007.

2. Population from Department of Finance. 2014

3. Employment from EDD for 1990 and California Economic Forecast 2015 for 2020 and 2030. 2050 employment estimate extrapolated based on 2030 to 2040 trend in California Economic Forecast for 2015.

Notes:

1. Emissions for 2020 assumed to be same as 1990 emissions to meet AB 32.

2. Emissions for 2030 assumed to be 40 percent below 1990 emissions to meet SB 32.

3. Emissions for 2050 assumed to be 90 percent below 1990 emissions to meet S-03-05. 2 Table T-8: Percent below BAU Emissions Needed to Meet AB 32 and SB 32 Targets Metric MMTCO2e Notes
Calculation of Percent below 2020 BAU Target Using 2008 AB 32 Scoping Plan Data 1990 emissions 426.6 Statewide emissions estimate, including sinks 2020 BAU emissions 596.2 2020 forecast from AB 32 Scoping Plan, including sinks 2020 target 426.6 1990 emissions
Percent Below 2020 BAU 28% Calculation
Calculation of Percent below 2020 BAU Target Using Current Data 1990 emissions 430.7 Statewide emissions, excluding sinks (ARB 2007) 2013 emissions 459.3 Actual emissions, excluding sinks
2020 BAU emissions 539.0 2014 forecast, excluding Pavley I/LCFS/Advanced Clean Cars 2020 target 430.7 1990 emissions (ARB 2007)
Percent Below 2013 6% Calculation
Percent Below 2020 BAU 20% Calculation
Calculation of Percent below 2030 BAU Target
2030 BAU emissions 511.9
CA Pathways Forecast (E3, 2014), but adjusted to exclude current policy effects. CA Pathways Forecast for 2030 is 409.06 MMTC02e. Current policy effect calculated by
comparing 2020 BAU from above to 2020 target as current policies expected to meet AB 32 target. Calculated policy effect is 20.09%.
2030 target 258.4 40% below 1990 emissions levels
Percent Below 2013 44% Calculation
Percent Below 2030 BAU 50% Calculation
3 -
BOARD MEETING DATE: December 5, 2008 AGENDA NO. 31
PROPOSAL: Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans
SYNOPSIS: This action is to adopt a resolution approving the Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans where AQMD is the lead agency. This interim threshold will be used for determining significant impacts for proposed projects.

Once CARB adopts the statewide significance thresholds, staff will report back to the Board regarding any recommended changes or additions to the AQMD’s interim threshold.

COMMITTEE: Climate Change, September 19, 2008 and October 29 2008 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the attached resolution approving the Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans for use by the AQMD.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.

Executive Officer
EC:LT:SN:SS
Background
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies in California to analyze potential adverse impacts from proposed projects undertaken by a public agency, funded by a public agency, or requiring discretionary approval by a public agency. To disclose potential adverse impacts from a proposed project, pursuant to CEQA, lead agencies typically prepare a multidisciplinary environmental impact analysis and make decisions based on the analysis regarding the environmental effects of the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines §15002[a]).

In the past, air quality analyses tended to focus on potential adverse impacts from criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Subsequent to the adoption of Assembly -2-
Bill (AB) 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, lead agencies have increasingly faced legal challenges to their CEQA documents for failure to analyze greenhouse gases (GHGs) or failure to make a determination of significance regarding GHG emission impacts.

Subsequent to the adoption of AB 32, there had been little regulatory guidance with regard to analyzing GHG emission impacts in CEQA documents until the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released its Technical Advisory on CEQA and Climate Change (June 19, 2008). Consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 97, OPR’s Technical Advisory was developed in cooperation with the Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). According to OPR, the Technical Advisory offers informal interim guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents, until CEQA guidelines are developed pursuant to SB 97 on how state and local agencies should analyze, and when necessary, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Because of its expertise in establishing air quality analysis methodologies and comprehensive efforts to establish regional and localized significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, local public agencies have asked the AQMD for guidance in quantifying GHG impacts and recommending GHG significance thresholds to assist them with determining whether or not GHG impacts in their CEQA documents are significant. In response to these requests from the various stakeholders, AQMD established a stakeholder working group to receive input on establishing a GHG significance threshold. In the meantime, AQMD staff has joined many other stakeholders urging CARB to establish a statewide threshold for GHGs. AQMD has been making GHG significance determinations for its CEQA documents on a case-bycase basis. Staff believes it is more prudent to make GHG significance determinations using a GHG significance threshold that has gone through a public process and has been adopted by resolution by the Board than making GHG significance determinations on a case-by-case basis. In the absence of a statewide threshold, AQMD staff recommends its interim approach to the Board for consideration and it will also become part of the AQMD’s input to the statewide process. The interim GHG significance threshold proposal recommended by staff to the Board that applies only to industrial (stationary source) projects where the AQMD is the lead agency is a narrower recommendation than the version presented at the October 29, 2008 Climate Change Committee meeting.

GHG Working Group – The GHG significance threshold Working Group was formed to assist staff’s efforts to develop an interim GHG significance threshold and is comprised of a wide variety of stakeholders including: state agencies, OPR, CARB, and the Attorney General’s Office; local agencies, city and county planning departments, utilities such as sanitation and power, etc.; regulated stakeholders, industry and industry groups; and organizations, both environmental and professional. Working group meetings are also open to the public. Part of the purpose of the Working Group is to -3-
provide a forum to solicit comments and suggestions from the various stakeholders to assist AQMD staff with developing an interim GHG significance threshold that is consistent with CEQA requirements for developing significance thresholds, is supported by substantial evidence, and provides guidance to CEQA practitioners with regard to determining whether GHG emissions from a proposed project are significant. Since April 2008, seven Working Group meetings have been held. Detailed information on the GHG Working Group process is contained in Attachment E to this Board letter – Draft Guidance Document – Interim Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold.

The staff-proposed interim GHG significance threshold resulting from the Working Group process is described later in this Board letter.

Legal Authority
CEQA Guidelines §15022(a) states that a public agency shall adopt objectives, criteria, and specific procedures consistent with CEQA and these [State] Guidelines for administering its responsibilities under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines §15022(d) states further, “In adopting procedures to implement CEQA, a public agency may adopt the State CEQA Guidelines through incorporation by reference. The agency may then adopt only those specific procedures or provisions described in subsection [15022] (a) which are necessary to tailor the general provisions of the guidelines to the specific operations of the agency.” AQMD previously adopted the state guidelines and has since adopted specific provisions such as regional and localized are quality significance thresholds. Adopting GHG significance thresholds would be consistent with the CEQA Guidelines §15022 provision to tailor a public agency’s implementing guidelines by adopting criteria relative to the specific operations of the AQMD.

Specifically with regard to thresholds of significance, CEQA Guidelines §15064.7(a) states, "Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects.” Subsection (b) of the same section states further, “Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence.” Staff’s recommended GHG significance threshold has undergone a public review process as part of stakeholder working group meetings that are open to the public. The currently proposed interim GHG significance threshold will be for projects where the AQMD is the lead agency.

Proposal
Policy Objective – The overarching policy objective with regard to establishing a GHG significance threshold for the purposes of analyzing GHG impacts pursuant to CEQA is to establish a performance standard or target GHG reduction objective that will ultimately contribute to reducing GHG emissions to stabilize climate change. Full implementation of the Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05 would reduce GHG -4-
emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels or 90 percent below current levels by 2050. It is anticipated that achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap GHG concentrations at 450 ppm, thus, stabilizing global climate.

As described below, staff’s recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal uses a tiered approach to determining significance. Tier 3, which is expected to be the primary tier by which the AQMD will determine significance for projects where it is the lead agency, uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level. To avoid hindering attaining this goal, new or modified projects will need to be analyzed under CEQA and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.

Specifically, the Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to a CEQA analysis, including a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact report, which includes analyzing feasible alternatives and imposing feasible mitigation measures.

Therefore, the policy objective of staff’s recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal is to achieve an emission capture rate of 90 percent of all new or modified stationary source projects. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because most projects will be required to implement GHG reduction measures. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for slightly less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO2eq/yr). In addition, these small projects may be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory. Finally, these small sources are already subject to BACT for criteria pollutants and are more likely to be single-permit facilities, so they are more likely to have few opportunities readily available to reduce GHG emissions from other parts of their facility.

Staff does not believe a zero threshold, as recommended by some working group members would be feasible to implement. A 90 percent emissions capture rate will assure that all feasible GHG reduction measures will be implemented for a large majority of emissions from new or modified GHG stationary sources, while avoiding overwhelming the AQMD’s capabilities to process environmental documents.

Implementing the interim GHG significance threshold is expected to at least double or -5-
triple the number of CEQA documents for permit application projects that are prepared by the AQMD each year (from approximately 10 to 15 to more than 45). Based on the number of permit applications received per year, it is likely that a zero GHG significance threshold would require preparing hundreds of additional CEQA documents per year with minimal additional environmental benefits.

Applicability – At this time, staff is recommending consideration of an interim GHG significance threshold that would apply to stationary source/industrial projects where the AQMD is the lead agency under CEQA. The types of projects that the staff proposal would apply to include: AQMD rules, rule amendments, and plans, e.g., Air Quality Management Plans. In addition, the AQMD may be the lead agency under CEQA for projects that require discretion approval, i.e., projects that require discretionary air quality permits from the AQMD. It should be noted that stationary source equipment associated with these projects are either at BACT or must comply with source-specific rules that reduce criteria pollutants and/or air toxics.

Emission Calculations and Significance Threshold Proposal – For the purposes of determining whether or not GHG emissions from affected projects are significant, project emissions will include direct, indirect, and, to the extent information is available, life cycle emissions during construction and operation. Construction emissions will be amortized over the life of the project, defined as 30 years, added to the operational emissions, and compared to the applicable interim GHG significance threshold tier. The following bullet points describe the basic structure of staff’s tiered GHG significance threshold proposal for stationary sources.
 Tier 1 – consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA. For example, SB 97 specifically exempts a limited number of projects until it expires in 2010. If the project qualifies for an exemption, no further action is required. If the project does not qualify for an exemption, then it would move to the next tier.
 Tier 2 – consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that may be part of a local general plan, for example. The concept embodied in this tier is equivalent to the existing concept of consistency in CEQA Guidelines §§15064(h)(3), 15125(d), or 15152(a). The GHG reduction plan must, at a minimum, comply with AB 32 GHG reduction goals; include emissions estimates agreed upon by either CARB or the AQMD, have been analyzed under CEQA, and have a certified Final CEQA document. Further, the GHG reduction plan must include a GHG emissions inventory tracking mechanism; process to monitor progress in achieving GHG emission reduction targets, and a commitment to remedy the excess emissions if GHG reduction goals are not met (enforcement).

If the proposed project is consistent with the qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions. If the project is not consistent with a local -6-
GHG reduction plan, there is no approved plan, or the GHG reduction plan does not include all of the components described above, the project would move to Tier 3.  Tier 3 – establishes a screening significance threshold level to determine significance using a 90 percent emission capture rate approach as described above.

The 90 percent capture rate GHG significance screening level in Tier 3 for stationary sources was derived using the following methodology. Using AQMD’s Annual Emission Reporting (AER) Program staff compiled reported annual natural gas consumption for 1,297 permitted facilities for 2006 through 2007 and rank-ordered the facilities to estimate the 90th percentile of the cumulative natural gas usage for all permitted facilities. Approximately 10 percent of facilities evaluated comprise more than 90 percent of the total natural gas consumption, which corresponds to 10,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions per year (MTCO2eq/yr) (the majority of combustions emissions is comprised of CO2). This value represents a boiler with a rating of approximately 27 million British thermal units per hour (mmBtu/hour) of heat input, operating at a 80 percent capacity factor. It should be noted that this analysis did not include other possible GHG pollutants such as methane, N2O; a life-cycle analysis; mobile sources; or indirect electricity consumption. Therefore, when implemented, staff’s recommended interim proposal is expected to capture more than 90 percent of GHG emissions from stationary source projects.

If the project exceeds the GHG screening significance threshold level and GHG emissions cannot be mitigated to less than the screening level, the project would move to Tier 4.
 Tier 4 – consists of a decision tree approach that allows the lead agency to choose one of three compliance options based on performance standards. (For the purposes of Board consideration, Tier 4 is not recommended for approval at this time.).

The purpose of Tier 4 is to provide a means of determining significance relative to GHG emissions for very large projects that include design features and or other measures to mitigate GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible, but residual GHG emissions still exceed the interim Tier 3 screening levels. In this situation, since no additional project-related GHG emission reductions are feasible, staff is considering whether it is reasonable to consider that residual emissions are not significant. The intent of the Tier 4 compliance options is to encourage large projects to implement the maximum feasible GHG reduction measures instead of shifting to multiple smaller projects that may forego some design efficiencies that can more easily be incorporated into large projects than small projects. CARB’s interim GHG significance threshold proposal incorporates a similar, but modified approach for determining GHG significance along with other suggested approaches that may have merit to consider and incorporate into AQMD staff’s recommended -7-
interim proposal. There are also policy and legal questions that need to be further resolved before adopting such an approach.
 Tier 5 – under this tier, the project proponent would implement offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level. Any offsite mitigation measures that include purchase of offsets would require the project proponent provide offsets for the life of the project, which is defined as 30 years. If the project proponent is unable to implement offsite GHG reduction mitigation measures to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the screening level, then GHG emissions from the project would be considered significant. Since it is currently uncertain how offsite mitigation measures, including purchased offsets, interact with future AB 32 Scoping Plan measures, the AQMD would allow substitution of mitigation measures that include an enforceable commitment to provide mitigation prior to the occurrence of emissions. The intent of this provision is to prevent mitigating the same emissions twice.

Mitigation Preference – If a project generates significant adverse impacts, CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 requires identification of mitigation measures to minimize potentially significant impacts. Because GHG emissions contribute to global change, mitigation measures could be implemented locally, nationally, or internationally and still provide global climate change benefits. Because reducing GHG emissions may provide co-benefits through concurrent reductions in criteria pollutants, when considering mitigation measures when the AQMD is the lead agency under CEQA, staff recommends that mitigation measures that are real, quantifiable, verifiable, and surplus be selected in the following order of preference.
 Incorporate GHG reduction features into the project design, e.g., increase a boiler’s energy efficiency, use materials with a lower global warming potential than conventional materials, etc.
 Implement onsite measures that provide direct GHG emission reductions onsite, e.g., replace onsite combustion equipment (boilers, heaters, steam generators, etc.) with more efficient combustion equipment, install solar panels on the roof, eliminate or minimize fugitive emissions, etc.
 Implement neighborhood mitigation measure projects that could include installing solar power, increasing energy efficiency through replacing low efficiency water heaters with high efficiency water heaters, increasing building insulation, using fluorescent bulbs, replacing old inefficient refrigerators with efficient refrigerators using low global warming potential refrigerants, etc.
 Implement in-district mitigation measures such as any of the above identified GHG reduction measures; reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through greater rideshare incentives, transit improvements, etc.
-8-
 Implement in-state mitigation measures, which could include any of the above measures.
 Implement out of state mitigation measure projects, which may include purchasing offsets if other options are not feasible.

GHG Significance Threshold Components Deferred to the Future Tier 4 Performance Standards – Based on reasons stated earlier, staff recommends that further evaluation be conducted to address comments raised and to consider other approaches as appropriate. Specifically, CARB staff proposed a hybrid approach in their Draft Proposal that combines the AQMD’s Tier 3 and Tier 4 concepts for stationary source projects. If CARB’s board does not take final action on their interim GHG significance threshold proposal by February 2009, AQMD staff will report back in the following month regarding the viability of the Tier 4 performance standards and recommended actions, if any.

Residential/Commercial Sectors GHG Significance Threshold – To achieve the same policy objective of capturing 90 percent of GHG emissions from new development projects in the residential/commercial sectors and implement a “fair share” approach to reducing emission increases from each sector, staff discussed with the working group a proposal combining performance standards and screening thresholds.

The performance standards primarily focus on energy efficiency measures beyond Title 24 and a screening level of 3,000 MTCO2eq/yr based on the relative GHG emissions contribution between residential/commercial sectors and stationary source (industrial) sectors. Additional analysis is needed to further define the performance standards and to coordinate with CARB staff’s interim GHG proposal. Staff, therefore, recommends bringing this item back to the Board for discussion and possible action in March 2009 if the CARB board does not take its final action by February 2009.

A comparison between CARB staff’s initial concepts and AQMD staff’s recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal for stationary projects and approaches for residential/commercial sectors is summarized in Table 1 for reference. A more detailed discussion is contained in the Draft Guidance Document in Attachment E. -
Table 1
Comparison of CARB’s and AQMD Staff’s Interim GHG Significance Threshold Approaches Stationary/Industrial Sector Projects

CARB AQMD
Policy
Objective
Capture 90% of statewide stationary project emissions
Capture 90% of district wide GHG emissions (industrial) Exemption Apply applicable
exemption
Apply applicable exemption
Regional GHG
Reduction
Plan
N.A. Project Consistent with
Applicable GHG Reduction Plan with GHG inventorying, monitoring, enforcement, etc.

Thresholds Project < 7,000
MTCO2eq/yr & meets construction & transportation performance standards GHG emissions from industrial project is < 10,000 MTCO2eq/yr, includes construction emissions amortized over 30 years & added to operational GHG emissions Performance
Standards
See above N.A.

Offsets Offsite substitution allowed Implement offsite mitigation for life of project, i.e., 30 years, with mitigation preference Determination GHG emissions significant,
EIR is prepared, if meeting none of the above
GHG emissions significant, EIR is prepared, if meeting none of the above -
Since not recommending specific GHG significance thresholds for residential/commercial sectors at this time, staff will perform its intergovernmental review (IGR) commenting function as a commenting and responsible agency by providing technical assistance in quantifying GHG emissions and making reference materials available to lead agencies. Reference materials from organizations other than AQMD may include the following:
 CAPCOA’s CEQA and Climate Change white paper
(http://www.capcoa.org/ceqa/CAPCOA%20White%20Paper%20-
%20CEQA%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf),
 CARB’s Interim GHG significance threshold proposal
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgov/ceqa/meetings/102708/wkspslides102708.pdf), and
Future Activities – To assist other public agencies and CEQA practitioners with preparing a scientifically sound GHG analysis as part of preparing a CEQA document, staff will perform surveys of available data bases to compile GHG emission factors for as many GHG emission sources as possible. Staff has already compiled CO2 and methane emission factors for on-road and off-road mobile sources. Other GHG emission factors would be compiled and listed on the AQMD’s CEQA webpages.

In addition to compiling GHG emission factors, staff will compile GHG mitigation measures to the extent specific measures with GHG control efficiencies are available.

Mitigation measures will be compiled by source category and uploaded to the AQMD’s CEQA webpages. Staff will continue the stakeholder working group process to seek input from working group members.

Finally, to further evaluate and refine the interim GHG significance threshold for residential/commercial projects and evaluate the compliance options in Tier 4, staff will participate in the statewide efforts and continue to work with stakeholders.

Resource Impacts
The AQMD periodically carries out the role of lead agency for permit application projects that have the potential to generate significant adverse impacts. On average, AQMD staff prepares 10 – 15 CEQA documents per year for permit application projects. In addition, all new and amended AQMD rules and regulations and Plans, e.g., Air Quality Management Plan, are evaluated for CEQA applicability and CEQA documents are prepared as necessary. If AQMD staff’s proposed interim screening threshold of 10,000 MTCO2eq./yr is implemented, based on the permitting activities for 2006-2007 it will result in at least 31 additional CEQA documents per year, either MNDs or EIRs, being prepared by the AQMD as the lead agency unless another tier option is selected to demonstrate that the project is exempt or is consistent with a GHG reduction plan.
-11-
Attachments
A. Flow Chart of Staff’s Recommended Interim GHG Significance Threshold Proposal
B. Development of Interim GHG Significance Thresholds
C. Resolution
D. GHG Significance Thresholds – Key Issues/Comments
E. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse (GHG) Significance Threshold Document

Beverly Hills City CouncilNovember 1, 2022

Beverly Hills City Council
November 1, 2022