Beverly Hills City Council
November 1, 2022

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
October 31, 2022
Jordan Sisson
Law Office of Gideon Kracov
801 S. Grand Ave., 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills Specific Plan (SCH No. 2020110223) Dear Mr. Sisson,
We have reviewed the September 2022 Response to Unite Here Local 11 Comments (“RTC”) and September 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Beverly Hills (“City”). Upon review, we find that the RTC is insufficient in addressing our concerns regarding the Project’s greenhouse gas impacts. As asserted in our February 24th, 2022 comment letter, an updated EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential impacts on the environment.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
As discussed in our February 24th letter, the DEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 1,966 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”) (p. 4.6-71, Table 4.6-10). As such, the DEIR concludes that the Project’s annual GHG emissions would not exceed the 2008 SCAQMD draft screening threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e per year” (p. 4.6-74 – 4.6-75). Furthermore, the DEIR’s analysis relies upon the Project’s consistency with CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Strategies, and the City’s General Plan and Sustainable City Plan (p. 4.6-51 – 4.6-64). Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to adequately evaluate potential GHG impacts. As discussed below, we maintain that the DEIR’s and RTC’s GHG analyses, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, are incorrect for two reasons:
(1) The DEIR and RTC rely upon an unsupported quantitative threshold; and (2) The DEIR and RTC fail to identify a potentially significant GHG impact.

F-1 Add'l
Correspondence
2 1) Incorrect Reliance Upon an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As discussed in our February 24th comment letter, the DEIR relies upon an unsupported GHG threshold.

Review of the RTC demonstrates that the Project again fails to adequately justify or correct this error. As discussed below, we find the DEIR and RTC to be inadequate and maintain that the Project’s less-thansignificant GHG impact determination is unsubstantiated.

As previously stated, the DEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 1,966 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the 2008 SCAQMD interim screening threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 4.6-74 – 4.6-75). Regarding the DEIR’s use of an interim threshold, the RTC states:
“The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions nor has any other state or regional agency adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the Project. As discussed above, since there is no applicable adopted or accepted numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the City relies on the use of the SCAQMD draft GHG thresholds. In addition, the Projects impacts related to GHG emissions are evaluated based on its consistency with statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions. The evaluation of consistency with such plans is another component for determining the significance of the Project s GHG emissions-related impacts on the environment.

As shown in Table 4.6-10 on page 4.6-73 in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Final EIR, the Project’s GHG annual emissions would not exceed the 2008 SCAQMD draft screening threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. The 2008 SCAQMD Draft thresholds is structured on separate tiers. Under this tiered structure, Projects may evaluate GHG impacts starting with tier 1 and move on to the next tier if it is determined the Project may result in a significant impact. The 3,000 MTCO2 per year threshold is based on Tier 3 thresholds. As the Project would remain below the 3,000 MTCO2 per year threshold, it is not necessary and it would be inappropriate to move to the next tier (4) (i.e., service population efficiency target) as suggested by the commenter.” (p. 329).

However, the DEIR’s use of this threshold remains incorrect. Regardless of the RTC’s claims, the Association of Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) guidance states:
“[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone (2030 or 2050).1
As discussed in our February 24th comment letter, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, rather than relying upon the outdated 2008 SCAQMD Draft thresholds, we recommend that the Project evaluate 1 “Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at:
https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 39. 3 GHG emissions per the next tier and apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets, as referenced by the RTC (p. 329).2
2) Unsubstantiated Air Model Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact When applying the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, the Project’s air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact.
3 As previously stated, the DEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 1,996 MT CO2e/year (p. 4.6-71, Table 4.6-10). According to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, a service population is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project.”4 The DEIR indicates that the Project would generate approximately 250 employees (p. 4.1-46). Thus, as the Project does not propose any residential land uses, we estimate a service population of 250 people. 5 When dividing the Project’s net
annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the DEIR, by a service population of 250 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 8.0 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).6 DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 1,996
Service Population 250
Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 8.0
SCAQMD Population Efficiency 2035 Target 3.0
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the RTC or DEIR. As such, we find the RTC to be inadequate and maintain our February 24th comment that the DEIR’s less-than-significant GHG impact determination should not be relied upon, as it is based on an outdated significance threshold. As a result, an updated EIR should be prepared, which includes an updated GHG analysis, and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines.
2 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 3 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 4 CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71-72, http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf. 5 Calculated: 0 residents + 250 employees = 250 service population. 6 Calculated: (1,996 MT CO2e/year) / (250 service population) = (8.0 MT CO2e/SP/year). 4 Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions As previously discussed in our February 24th comment letter, our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant GHG impact that should be mitigated further. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-GHG-1”), as described below: 7
Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
i. Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; 7 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 5 iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ridematching services; iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible.
l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
6 m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii. Event promotions
iii. Publications
o) Implement preferential parking permit program
p) Implement school pool and bus programs
q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v. Educating employees about available alternatives.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. We reiterate our February 24th comment that an updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include an updated GHG analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
7 Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

ProfessionalCertifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
ProfessionalExperience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment A
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
1 Michael Dunn
Subject: CB/BH: Response to October 31, 2022 SWAPE Correspondence Attachments: SCAQMD Boad Ltr 2008 12 08.pdf; AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf From: Quick, Deborah (SFO) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 6:08 PM
To: Masa Alkire <[email protected]>
Cc: RWG DavidSnow <[email protected]>
Subject: CB/BH: Response to October 31, 2022 SWAPE Correspondence

CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Masa,

This e‐mail responds to a letter dated October 31, 2022, addressed to Jordan Sisson, Esq., in which Mr. Mark Hagemann and Dr. Paul Rosenfeld of SWAPE (SWAPE) assert the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) analysis in the Final EIR for the Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills is inadequate.

SWAPE does not dispute that the Project’s quantified GHG emissions are 1,966 MT CO2 per year, see Final EIR Table 4.6‐ 10 at page 4.6‐72.  This puts the Project below the Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MT CO2/per year per the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) interim GHG thresholds.  SWAPE argues that the Project should be subject to the service population efficiency target threshold, which is only appropriate for projects that exceed the Tier 3 threshold and are therefore subject to the Tier 4 SCAQMD interim GHG Thresholds.

SWAPE argues the October 18, 20165 AEP White Paper (attached) disallows the use of the Tier 3 threshold for projects with a post‐2020 horizon.  Not so.  At page 44, the White Paper states:

“The bright line thresholds in use around the state to evaluate land use projects were primarily derived in one of two ways : 1) by estimating a level that would capture 90 percent of the land use sector emissions that would arise from new development out to the milestone year for a region, or 2) by conducting a regional gap analysis, assuming an approximate amount of reductions feasible due to state measures and project‐level measures, and by identifying a level that would result in the application of project mitigation sufficient to close the identified gap. For the post‐2020 world, the first approach is still conceptually sound, in that meaningful emissions reductions will come from larger projects and one may not desire to apply additional mitigation requirements (other than state mandates) to smaller projects.”

SCAQMD’s Tier 3 threshold is based on a 90% capture of the region’s land use sector emissions, as discussed at page 4 in the Board Letter (attached) accompanying the SCAQMD Governing Board’s adoption of the interim thresholds, including the Tier 3 threshold:

“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.”
2 Thus, the White Paper endorses the EIR’s use of the Tier 3 threshold and no Tier 4 service population efficiency analysis is warranted.

I note as well that many of the mitigation measures recommended for consideration by SWAPE are already incorporated into the Project.

Regards,

Deborah Quick | Perkins Coie LLP

SENIOR COUNSEL
D. +1.415.344.7157
E. [email protected]

NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

Final White Paper
Beyond 2020 and Newhall:

A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse
Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan
Targets for California
October 18, 2016
Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP)
This Page is Intentionally Blank
Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA
Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California
October 2016
1 AEP White Paper
2 Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New
3 CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action
4 Plan Targets for California
5 Prepared by members of the AEP Climate Change Committee. The AEP Climate Change Committee 6 consists of leaders of climate action planning practices from consulting firms and agencies that have lead 7 many of the local greenhouse gas reduction planning efforts across California. The Committee focuses on 8 advancing the professional practice of local climate action planning through periodic publication of 9 white papers and conference presentations, as well as interaction with state, regional and local agencies. 10 AEP White Paper Management
11 Michael Hendrix (LSA Associates), Project Director; Nicole Vermilion (PlaceWorks), Project Manager 12 Lead Author
13 Rich Walter (ICF)
14 Contributing Authors
15 Hillary Haskell (San Diego Gas and Electric), Michael Hendrix (LSA Associates), Dave Mitchell (Mitchell 16 Air Quality Consulting), Nicole Vermilion (PlaceWorks) 17 Technical Reviewers
18 Terry Rivasplata (ICF), Laura Yoon (ICF), Brian Schuster (ICF), Chris Gray (WRCOG). 19 Copyeditor
20 Susan Scharf
21 Graphic Design: Front Cover
22 Matt Phillips (LSA Associates)
23 AEP Climate Change Committee
24 Michael Hendrix, Chair (LSA Associates), Chris Gray (WRCOG), Hillary Haskell (San Diego Gas and 25 Electric), Cheryl Laskowski, Ph.D. (California Air Resources Board), Dave Mitchell (Mitchell Air Quality 26 Consulting), Tammy Seale (Michael Baker), Nicole Vermilion (PlaceWorks), Rich Walter (ICF ) 27 AEP Executive Board
28 Devon Muto (President), Bill Halligan (Executive Vice President), Christina Ryan (Administrative Vice 29 President), Lynn Calvert-Hayes (Financial Vice President and CFO) 30 Limitation and Disclaimer
31 The views expressed in this paper are the personal opinions of the authors and do not represent the 32 opinions or judgment of their respective firms, agencies, or of AEP. Furthermore, the views expressed in 33 this paper do not constitute legal advice. CEQA lead agencies are advised to consult with their counsel 34 before making any decisions as to thresholds or significance determinations concerning greenhouse gas 35 emissions in their CEQA documents.

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
i
October 2016
1 Table of Contents
2 3 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1 4 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1 5 Foundational Principles ................................................................................................................... 2 6 GHG Thresholds Concepts ............................................................................................................... 5 7 CEQA GHG Thresholds for the Post-Newhall and Post-2020 Era..................................................... 5 8 New CAP Targets............................................................................................................................ 11 9 I. Background........................................................................................................................................ 14 10 Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................................... 14 11 CEQA Guidelines on Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................... 18 12 CEQA Case Law............................................................................................................................... 19 13 II. Current CEQA GHG Thresholds......................................................................................................... 24 14 III. Foundational Principles for Developing and Using CEQA GHG Thresholds ....................................30 15 Use a Threshold that Applies to All GHG Emissions....................................................................... 30 16 Include the Appropriate Project GHG Emissions in the Comparison to a Threshold ....................31 17 Count State and Federal Actions ................................................................................................... 32 18 Use a Threshold that Applies to Your Project................................................................................ 32 19 Identify the Project Horizon Year................................................................................................... 33 20 Identify the Next Statewide Milestone Target Relevant to the Project ........................................33 21 Use the “Substantial Progress” Paradigm to Identify the Threshold.............................................34 22 Show Your Work (Provide Substantial Evidence) .......................................................................... 35 23 IV. New CEQA Thresholds for the Post-Newhall and Post-2020 Era .................................................... 36 24 Construction Emissions.................................................................................................................. 36 25 Operational Emissions from Land Use Development Projects...................................................... 37 26 General Plans................................................................................................................................. 46 27 Operational Emissions from Industrial Projects ............................................................................ 47 28 Operational Emissions from Transportation Projects.................................................................... 48 29 V. The Percent below BAU Threshold .................................................................................................. 53 30 Key Aspects of the Newhall Ranch Ruling...................................................................................... 53 31 Changing the Percent below BAU Threshold? ............................................................................... 53 32 Keeping the Percent below BAU Threshold?................................................................................. 55 33 Post-2020 Considerations.............................................................................................................. 61 34 VI. Climate Action Plan Targets ............................................................................................................ 63 35 Current CAP Practice and Targets.................................................................................................. 63 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 ii
October 2016
1 Foundational Principles for CAP Targets........................................................................................ 65 2 Mass Emissions CAP Targets.......................................................................................................... 68 3 Other CAP Target Concepts ........................................................................................................... 70 4 CAP Preparation Considerations in Light of the Sierra Club vs. San Diego County 5 Ruling ............................................................................................................................................. 70 6 CAP Target Considerations in Light of the Newhall Ranch Ruling .................................................71 7 VII. Additional Recommendations........................................................................................................ 73 8 VIII. References..................................................................................................................................... 74 9 Technical Appendix: Tables.................................................................................................................. 76 10 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

October 2016
1 Executive Summary
2 Rich Walter, ICF
3 The focus of greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 4 and climate action planning in California since 2006 has focused on achieving the 2020 GHG 5 reduction target established by Assembly Bill (AB) 32. In March 2015, the Association of 6 Environmental Professionals (AEP) Climate Change Committee (Committee) released a white paper, 7 Beyond 2020: The Challenge of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Planning by Local Governments in California 8 (Beyond 2020), which identified the need to consider more ambitious post-2020 reduction targets in 9 adopted California Executive Orders and targets under consideration in the California legislature. In 10 September 2016, California established a GHG emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 11 2030 when Gov. Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law. The November 2015 California Supreme 12 Court ruling in the Center for Biological Diversity vs. California Department of Fish and Wildlife 13 (commonly referred to as Newhall Ranch) case also raised new questions about what type of 14 substantial evidence is needed to support the use of GHG thresholds in CEQA evaluations. 15 The purpose of this white paper is to suggest defensible GHG thresholds for use in CEQA analyses 16 and GHG reduction targets (respectively) in climate action plans (CAPs), in light of the change in 17 focus on the 2030 reduction target and in the questions raised in the Newhall Ranch holding. 18 Sections I through V below address CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions. Section VI addresses CAP 19 targets.
20 Background
21 Since 2006, local GHG reduction planning by California’s cities and counties has been focused on 22 adopting local measures supporting the state in reaching the GHG emissions reduction target 23 established in The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which calls for reducing statewide 24 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The California Air Resources Board’s (ARB’s) AB 32 25 Scoping Plan (2008) and First Update (2014) identify the state programs necessary to meet the 26 2020 target. Similarly, GHG analysis and mitigation for discretionary projects reviewed under CEQA 27 has been conducted under the rubric of thresholds that are consistent with the 2020 AB 32 28 reduction target. AB 32’s 2020 reduction target is only a start for GHG reduction planning, given that 29 the long-term global imperative to limit the more extreme effects of global warming on climate 30 change will require much more substantial reductions than those required by AB 32. 31 California adopted a 2030 reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels through SB 32. SB 350 32 requires electrical utilities to increase their renewables portfolio to 50 percent of their energy by 33 2030 and reduction in building energy use by 50 percent. SB 1383, also adopted in September 2016, 34 has established target of reducing methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases (HFCs) by 40 35 percent and anthropogenic black carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. 36 Some state and national governments have identified a long-term goal to reduce their 2050 37 emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels. For example, in California, this goal is reflected in 38 Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order (EO) S-03-05 (2005). However, no legislation has yet 39 been enacted to establish 2050 targets in California. The California Supreme Court is expected to 40 render its decision in Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments 41 shortly on the question of the extent to which CEQA review must conform, if at all, to the 2050 goal 42 established EO S-03-05. There are no GHG reduction plans anywhere that have adopted enforceable 43 measures to meet ambitious 2050 targets.

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

October 2016
1 Cities and counties in California intending to prepare CAPs or conduct CEQA analysis of projects 2 with emissions that go beyond 2020 will face substantial challenges regarding long-term emissions 3 forecasting, regulatory uncertainty, reduction target determination, fair-share mitigation 4 identification, and feasibility in reducing GHG emissions to match the post-2020 targets. 5 Achieving the deep reductions needed by 2050 will require systemic changes in California electricity 6 production, transportation fuels, and industrial processes, which are often outside the jurisdiction of 7 individual cities and counties. In nearly all the deep reduction scenarios analyzed by private and 8 government entities, the rate of transition—such as deployment of better vehicles or increasing the 9 use of renewable electricity—far exceeds the historical rate of change in California. This intensifies 10 the challenges for local jurisdictions seeking to identify their role in GHG reductions within a context 11 of shifting technologies, energy/technology prices, and regulations; and these uncertainties increase 12 as one proceeds from 2020 out to 2050.
13 A further challenge to CEQA analysis of GHG emissions is the California Supreme Court’s holding in 14 the Newhall Ranch case. The court ruled that, while the use of the state reduction target set out in 15 the AB 32 Scoping Plan is an acceptable CEQA threshold, lead agencies using the so-called “percent 16 below Business as Usual” (percent below BAU) approach must provide substantial evidence as to 17 how the amount of reduction of GHG emissions at a project level relates to the achievement of 18 statewide reduction targets in the Scoping Plan. This ruling has opened several challenging 19 questions as to what constitutes valid local thresholds under CEQA and how such thresholds are 20 used for project-level evaluation.
21 Foundational Principles
22 There are many different opinions on how best to complete CEQA evaluations of GHG emissions. 23 This White Paper provides the Committee’s recommendations on approaches that we think are 24 appropriate. There are alternative approaches that others may propose. Lead agencies are advised 25 to consider the range of views on the topic.
26 The CEQA Guidelines offer two paths to evaluating GHG emissions impacts in CEQA documents:
27  Projects can tier off a “qualified” GHG Reduction Plan (“qualified” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5). 28 1
29  Projects can determine significance by calculating GHG emissions and assess their significance 30 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4).
31 In the Beyond 2020 white paper, the Committee made the following recommendations concerning 32 CEQA and GHG analyses:
33  Allow CEQA Tiering from GHG Reduction Plans that make “Substantial Progress” in 34 Reducing GHG Emissions. The appellate Court ruling in Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152 [EIR for the San Diego County Climate Action Plan (CAP) 35 2 must

1 Tiering allows project-level evaluation of GHG emissions to utilize a comparison of the project’s consistency with a qualified GHG reduction plan instead of evaluating the project in isolation. This approach can avoid the need for project-level emissions quantification (as is done in the City of San Francisco), a more streamlined evaluation of consistency, and an evidence-based method to make significance conclusions in a broader context. This approach is the most defensible approach presently under CEQA to determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions. 2 “Climate Action Plan” or “CAP” is a term of art commonly used to refer to a local greenhouse gas reduction plan.

Some CAPs also include a plan for adaptation to expected climate change. Some jurisdictions use “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan” instead. In this white paper the terms are used interchangeable in relation to greenhouse gas reductions.

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

October 2016
1 address how the CAP is to meet the EO-3-05 reduction target] has the potential to deter local 2 jurisdictions from preparing and implementing GHG reduction plans because the ruling 3 effectively removed the “carrot” for CEQA streamlining, and created much uncertainty. To 4 promote CEQA streamlining and encourage local agencies to prepare GHG reduction plans for 5 communitywide GHG emissions, legislation should require that CEQA Guidelines Section 6 15183.5 be amended to allow for tiering off GHG Reduction Plans that make “substantial 7 progress” toward reducing GHG emissions on a path toward long-term reduction targets, 8 without requiring such plans to meet a 2050 reduction target. This concept is not new, and is 9 similar to the language referring to tiering off infill developments using development 10 standards that “substantially mitigate” impacts added to the CEQA Guidelines under SB 226 11 (2011).
12  Establish "Substantial Progress" as the CEQA significance criteria. All the prior thresholds 13 used in CEQA documents in California, and nearly all qualified GHG reduction plans used for 14 CEQA tiering, are based on meeting or exceeding the AB 32 target requiring that statewide 15 GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. There are no local GHG reduction plans 16 with an actual plan to meet a 2050 target of 80 percent below 1990 levels. In the Beyond 2020 17 white paper, the Committee recommended that Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines be 18 amended to provide the following new CEQA significance threshold for GHG emissions:
19  “Does the project impede substantial progress in local, regional, and State GHG emissions 20 reductions over time toward long-term GHG reduction targets adopted by the State 21 Legislature?”
22  Limit CEQA GHG Analysis to the State GHG Planning Horizon based on a State 23 Legislatively Mandated Target. The Beyond 2020 paper presents substantial evidence for 24 the infeasibility of a local jurisdiction to meet the 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 in the 25 near-to-medium term absent a post-2020 State plan of action. Thus, requiring compliance 26 with the 2050 goal in EO S-03-05 as a de facto significance threshold in CEQA documents is 27 impractical. Nothing is served by establishing an impossible threshold or analyzing impacts so 28 far in the future that they require substantial speculation. Instead, the limit of GHG analysis for 29 CEQA documents should be the current State GHG planning horizon. At present, the only true 30 State reduction plan is the AB 32 Scoping Plan, which has a verified and quantified reduction 31 plan out to only 2020. Once the State has a defined a plan for 2030 (which is expected in 32 2017), then CEQA analysis and thresholds should shift from the current 2020 horizon to the 33 2030 horizon. Once a post-2030 plan is in effect, the horizon should shift again. 34 This white paper builds on the progress of the Beyond 2020 paper to identify the following 35 foundational principles for GHG threshold identification and application:
36  Use a Threshold for All GHG Emissions: CEQA quantitative analysis should be focused on 37 evaluating the combined long-term effect of GHG emissions using a single threshold that is 38 related to statewide long-term emissions reduction targets adopted by the legislature. 39 Qualitative analysis of consistency with state emissions reduction strategies for short-lived 40 climate pollutants should also be provided.
41  Include the Appropriate Project GHG Emissions in the Comparison to a Threshold: CEQA analysis 42 of GHG emissions should include all major project emissions sources, including construction 43 emissions (such as off-road equipment, haul trucks, and stationary fuel combustion) and 44 operational emissions (such as on-road transportation, electricity and natural gas use, area 45 sources, water use, wastewater generation, solid waste disposal, and land use cover change, as 46 applicable).
47  Count State and Federal Actions: CEQA analysis should take into account GHG reductions due 48 to state- and federally-adopted regulations that directly apply to the project and are certain to 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

October 2016
1 occur. Depending on the type of threshold concept utilized, emissions may need to be 2 estimated both before and after application of state and federal measures. 3  Identify the Project Horizon Year: The horizon year should be defined as the year in which the 4 project is fully built or realized. GHG emissions impacts should be identified for the project 5 horizon year and lead agencies should consider the project horizon year when applying a 6 threshold of significance.
7  Use a Threshold that Applies to Your Project: Thresholds used for project evaluation should 8 apply to the type of project being evaluated. Residential and commercial projects should use 9 thresholds designed for residential and commercial projects. Transportation projects should 10 use threshold designed for transportation projects. Industrial projects should use thresholds 11 designed for use by industrial projects.
12  Identify the Next Statewide Milestone Target Relevant to the Project’s Horizon: The threshold 13 should be based on the state-adopted target for the next milestone (i.e., 2020, 2030, or 2050) 14 for which the state has completed adequate GHG reduction planning (such as a fully realized 15 Scoping Plan Update for that milestone). Specifically, the target should be for a milestone that 16 follows the project’s horizon. For example, a project that will be fully built out in 2019 should 17 use the 2020 milestone (for which the state already has a full plan [in the form of the AB 32 18 Scoping Plan] to achieve the 2020 AB 32 target). A more conservative approach would be to 19 use a threshold based on the most aggressive state legislated target (which is the 2030 target 20 in SB 32) regardless of project horizon.
21  Use the Substantial Progress Paradigm to Identify the Threshold: The best measure of whether 22 an individual project is providing its fair share of GHG reductions or efficiency levels is 23 whether that project is supporting “substantial progress” toward the statewide reduction 24 targets over time, not whether the project is meeting a milestone target many years in the 25 future, such as for 2050. When the state has comprehensive planning to achieve a reduction 26 target (as exists now for 2020 and will exist for 2030 soon) and a project will be fully built 27 before that milestone year, then the milestone year should be used as a threshold basis. When 28 a project’s horizon is beyond the milestone for which the state has comprehensive planning, a 29 “substantial progress” threshold can be identified that is linearly interpolated between the 30 current milestone target for which an effective statewide plan exists (such as for 2020), and 31 the next milestone target for which an effective statewide plan does not exist (such as for 32 2050). For example, since the state does not yet have an adequate GHG reduction plan for 33 2050, a current project that will be fully built out in 2035 could use a 2035 threshold that was interpolated between the SB 32 2030 target and the E-03-05 target for 2050. 34 3 35  Show Your Work (Provide Substantial Evidence): The key lesson from the Newhall Ranch 36 ruling, it is that CEQA lead agencies should provide substantial evidence to support their 37 significance determinations concerning their findings on GHG emissions in their CEQA 38 documents. Substantial evidence in this case should consist of a logical explanation of how a 39 given project’s compliance with a particular threshold would—in combination with 40 application of the threshold jurisdiction wide, regionwide, or statewide—result in GHG 41 emissions consistent with statewide GHG reduction targets over time. The rationale provided

3 A commenter on the April 2016 Draft of this White Paper objected to the substantial progress paradigm as insufficiently stringent. Instead, this commenter recommended that projects should implement all currently feasible GHG emissions reduction measures (which is referred to in this White Paper as the “Best Available Mitigation” or BAM) in order to be determined to be less than significant. The commenter suggested that this more stringent mitigation standard is warranted given the long-term challenge in reducing GHG emissions, which will ultimately require more GHG emissions reductions than those called for in AB 32 and SB 32.

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

October 2016
1 in many of the current air district thresholds (such as those from BAAQMD or SLOAPCD) gives 2 an example of the type of evidence that can support CEQA determinations. 3 GHG Thresholds Concepts
4 The following GHG threshold concepts are in use presently, or have been proposed. 5  Construction Emissions: These GHG emissions are evaluated by examining whether Best Management Practices (BMPs) are applied, or by amortizing4 6 construction emissions over the 7 project lifetime and combining with operational emissions to allow a single comparison of 8 project emissions to an annual emissions threshold.
9  Operational Emissions (Land Use Development Projects) 10  Consistency with a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan: This approach consists of evaluating a 11 project’s consistency with a “qualified” GHG reduction plan that meets the requirements in 12 CEQA Guidelines 15183.5, and includes a reduction target consistent with statewide GHG 13 reduction plan.
14  Bright Line Thresholds: This approach consists of identifying, through various means 15 explained in this white paper, emissions levels below which a project would not have 16 significant GHG emissions, and above which a project would require further evaluation 17 using other thresholds. .
18  Efficiency Thresholds: This approach consists of identifying a GHG efficiency level needed 19 for new development that would support statewide reduction planning for future 20 milestones.
21  Best Management Practices/Best Available Mitigation: This is a new concept that would 22 include the creation of an approved list of quantified BMPs or identification of the current 23 best available feasible mitigation (by an air district or land use jurisdiction, or other public 24 entity) that address all the significant sources of project emissions. 25  Compliance with Regulations: This approach consists of reviewing a project’s consistency 26 with existing adopted GHG reduction regulations.
 Percent below “Business as Usual” 5 27 (BAU): This approach consists of comparing a project’s 28 BAU emissions to a specified percent reduction level, commonly defined to date as the 29 statewide reduction level needed to meet AB 32 targets in 2020. 30 CEQA GHG Thresholds for the Post-Newhall and Post-2020 Era 31 The 2020 reduction target embodied in AB 32 is the most common thread among the significance 32 thresholds developed by expert agencies to date. AB 32 and the California Air Resources Board’s 33 (ARB) AB 32 Scoping Plan provide a path for achieving the statewide GHG emissions target for 2020.

4 Amortizing means dividing the construction emissions over the project lifetime in years to derive an annual average of construction emissions per year. This method allows combining the construction emissions with the operational emissions in order to compare with a single threshold for annual emissions. 5 “Business as Usual” or BAU emissions are defined as the GHG emissions that would occur in the future without any project, local, state, or federal efforts to control the emissions. BAU emissions are defined using a specified past or current base year and then forecasting future emission to a fixed milestone year without applying any efforts to control GHG emissions after the base year.

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

October 2016
1 For projects with a horizon beyond 2020, the project-level CEQA significance threshold utilized by 2 lead agencies will now need to be updated to address the adopted 2030 target in SB 32 (once a 3 Scoping Plan Update for 2030 is adopted). In the future, thresholds will need to be updated to 2050 4 (once a legislated target for 2050 is adopted and a Scoping Plan Update for 2050 is adopted). 5 The Committee provides the following specific recommendations concerning GHG thresholds for the 6 post-Newhall Ranch and the post-2020 era:
7  Construction Emissions: The Committee recommends that CEQA lead agencies include 8 construction emissions in their CEQA documents, and evaluate their significance using one of 9 the following two methods:
10  Use Best Management Practices: Review the construction emissions and require the 11 application of all feasible BMPs for construction.
12  Amortize Construction Emissions Over the Operational Lifetime: Identify the total 13 construction emissions for all years of construction, divide them by the total number of 14 years for the operational lifetime, and then combine with the operational annual emissions 15 to make a single significance determination.
16  Operational Emissions (Land Use Development Projects): The following thresholds are reviewed 17 in this paper for use in the evaluation of land use projects. 18  Consistency with Qualified GHG Reduction Plan: This threshold approach was endorsed by 19 the California State Supreme Court in the Newhall Ranch ruling as an appropriate method to 20 determine significance of GHG emissions; it can be used in the future, provided the qualified 21 GHG reduction plan uses a GHG reduction target consistent with the state reduction 22 planning to at least the project horizon year. Current GHG reduction plans typically employ a 23 2020 target that meets or exceeds the AB 32 target for 2020; these plans will need to be 24 updated when statewide reduction planning is completed for 2030, to allow for continued 25 tiering. The Committee recommends that documentation, in the form of a line-by-line 26 review of the project’s consistency with the plan measures and requirements, be provided 27 within the CEQA document or as an attachment. The Committee recommends that projects 28 with a horizon past 2020 should only tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan that provides 29 substantial progress toward meeting the next milestone statewide planning reduction target 30 for the jurisdiction in which the project is located 31  Bright Line Thresholds: The California State Supreme Court noted in the Newhall Ranch 32 ruling that numeric threshold approaches may be appropriate for determining significance 33 of GHG emissions. Accordingly, this threshold approach can continue to be used. Beyond the 34 2020 period, bright line thresholds will need to be based on market capture calculations for 35 2030, to take into account expected development and the amount of market capture 36 necessary to support GHG reduction efforts through further project-level evaluation and 37 mitigation.
38  Efficiency Thresholds: These thresholds will need to be revised for use beyond 2020 to take 39 into account a more stringent 2030 reduction target, and to account for changes in service 40 population over time. The Newhall Supreme Court noted that numeric threshold approaches 41 may be appropriate for determining significance of GHG emissions, and emphasized the consideration of GHG efficiency. 42 6 The Committee recommends using the most current state

6 Since SB375 provides relief for certain residential/mixed-use residential from analyzing car/light-duty truck GHG emissions if they are consistent with an approved SB 375 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainability Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the non-transportation GHG emissions could be analyzed using a nontransportation GHG efficiency threshold as explained later in this white paper.

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

October 2016
1 forecasts for population and employment when identifying an efficiency threshold, as well 2 as documenting clearly any adjustments in the land use sector emissions inventory. An 3 alternative approach would be to calculate efficiency thresholds based on jurisdictional 4 emissions and population and employment instead of statewide data. 5  Hybrid Threshold Concept: Separate Transportation and non–Transportation Thresholds: A 6 new threshold concept would need to separate evaluation criteria for transportation GHG 7 emissions from non-transportation GHG emissions. One concept would be to determine that 8 GHG emissions for residential/mixed-use residential projects that qualify for relief from 9 analysis of GHG emissions from car/light-duty trucks (per SB 375), have less than significant 10 transportation GHG emissions. This would be followed by then evaluating the non11 transportation GHG emissions using a revised GHG efficiency threshold that excludes 12 emissions from car/light-duty trucks. A second concept would be to evaluate the 13 transportation GHG emissions for consistency with an appropriate SB 743-based VMT 14 threshold (such as 15 percent lower VMT than a regional and city average), and then use a 15 revised GHG efficiency threshold that excludes on-road GHG emissions. 16  Best Management Practices (BMPs) or Best Available Mitigation (BAM): This is a new 17 concept that would require development of an approved list of quantified BMPs or BAM that 18 if implemented for new projects would result in emissions consistent with statewide reduction targets. The BMP or BAM list would need to be updated periodically.7 19 20  Compliance with Regulations: The Newhall Ranch ruling described that compliance with 21 regulations may be used as a method of determining significance, but need to be sufficiently 22 comprehensive to address the substantial emissions of a project. This approach may work 23 for some land use development projects—particularly those consistent with a SB 375 24 RTP/SCS out to the 2020 milestone—but will not work for the post-2020 era until the state 25 has developed its regulatory framework to meet 2030 reduction targets. 26  Percent below “Business as Usual” (BAU): The Newhall Ranch ruling poses certain 27 challenges to using this threshold approach, and CEQA lead agencies are advised to exercise 28 caution and to consult with CEQA counsel in choosing this approach. That said, this white 29 paper presents options to 1) argue that there is already substantial evidence supporting the 30 use of the current percent below BAU concept as-is, or 2) construct an alternative percent 31 below BAU concept that can address concerns raised in the ruling about existing vs. new 32 development, project location, and project density.
33 Table 1 below presents a review of the potential GHG thresholds for evaluating typical land use 34 projects (residential, commercial, and mixed-use), as well as for general plans, industrial projects, 35 and transportation projects.

7 As noted above, one commenter suggested that the Best Available Mitigation approach should require new projects to implement of all feasible mitigation for reduction of GHG emissions in order to limit emissions to the minimum in light of the long term reduction challenge.

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 8 October 2016 Table 1: CEQA Project Significance Threshold Concepts in Light of the Newhall Ranch Ruling and Post-2020 Concerns Evaluation Criteria Consistency with Qualified
GHG Reduction Plan Bright Line Threshold Efficiency Threshold Best Management
Practices/Best Available
Mitigation
Consistency with Regulations Percent Reduction Below
BAU Consistency with SB 375
Description of the Concept in
Practice Today
Consistency with jurisdictional
CAP meeting CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15183.5
requirements.

Projects below a certain level
are LTS. Level determined by
gap analysis/90% capture for
regional inventory.

Projects consistent with average
efficiency in sector or overall
efficiency needed in 2020 to meet
AB32.

Projects consistent with
specified BMPs (or BAM) for
GHGs would be LTS. Updated
BMP (or BAM) list adopted
every few years.

Project consistent with
applicable regulations and
policies would be LTS.

Reduction of project BAU
emissions by same amount as
statewide 2020 reductions.

SB 375: Certain residential/
mixed-use residential projects
consistent with a RTP/SCS do
not need to analyze GHG
emissions for car/light-duty
trucks.

In Use? Yes, widespread.

Certain air districts (BAAQMD,
SLOAPCD, and SMAQMD)
adopted and others (SCAQMD)
have widely used drafts for
land use sector and stationary
sources.

Certain air districts (BAAQMD,
SLOAPCD) adopted and others
(SCAQMD) have widely used drafts
for land use sector only.

Not in use. SJVUAPCD has BMPs
but they are combined with
percent below BAU concept.

Not in wide use. Not adopted by
any air districts.

Previously widespread.

SJVAPCD articulated most
clearly. Many agencies used
before Newhall Ranch ruling.

Not in wide use.

Feasibility:

Land Use Projects? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
General Plans? Yes
No. Difficult to sustain
argument that there is a less
than significant level for an
entire jurisdiction.

Yes No. Likely impossible to identify
comprehensive suite of BMPs. Yes Yes Yes
Industrial Projects? Not likely as sources often
excluded from CAPs, Yes
None to date under CEQA, but could
be developed using GHG per
output/throughput metric.

None to date under CEQA, but
could be developed. Yes Yes No
Transportation Projects? Yes (at the transportation
entity level).

OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory
presents method to identify
bright line for VMT that could
be converted to GHG.

No None to date, but could be
developed. Yes
Possible in concept. OPR SB
743 Technical Advisory
suggested reduction of VMT
by 15% below “current
levels” (functionally 15%
GHG reduction).

SB 375 relief limited to certain
residential projects; logic could
apply the same concept to
RTP/SCS consistent
transportation projects.

Newhall Ranch Ruling Issue? None
None, provided there is
substantial evidence behind
bright line determination.

None for ruling. However, ruling
dicta includes questions about
setting threshold using state
average for all development
(existing + new).

Would require substantial
evidence as to why
implementation of BMPs (or
BAM) for all new projects (in
region or state) would result in
reductions consistent with
statewide targets.

Regulations must address all
meaningful project emissions.

Need evidence why
implementation would result in
reductions consistent with
statewide targets.

Substantial issues (see
discussion in text).

No. Ruling specifically
mentions consistency with SB
375. But applicability beyond
land use project would be
uncertain.

Need for Modifications in Light
of Newhall Ranch Ruling? No No.

None unless concerned about new
vs. existing issue, in which case
modify to derive from new land use
development sector only.

Need evidence showing BMPs
(or BAM) combined with current
regulations will get the state to
AB 32 levels by 2020.

Need evidence showing
consistency will get the state to
AB 32 without additional need
for project-level reductions.

Yes. Evidence showing why
percent reduction used is
appropriate for use in
relation to the project.

No
Adjustments to Use for Post2020 Period?
Underlying CAPs need to
address post-2020 period,
including either compliance
with 2030 target or
"substantial progress" trend.

The 90% capture could apply
(or extended to 95%). Gap
analysis extended for the next
time period (2020 – 2030).

Concept extendable to 2030 by
taking 1990 Land Use Inventory
and dividing by 2030 Service
population forecasts. (Same
process for 2050, but forecasts
more uncertain.)
Need evidence showing that
consistency with BMPs (or BAM)
combined with current
regulations will get the state to
2030 target.

No. Existing regulations
insufficient to meet 2030 target.

Need to adjust to next
milestone (such as 2030).

No. Relief from GHG analysis is
in statute.

Advantages
Newhall Ruling supports.

CEQA guideline supports.

Does not overburden new
development because
addresses both existing and
new emissions.

Newhall ruling supports. If
doing gap analysis, evidence to
cite for record. Allows for
exclusion of small projects
from mitigation requirements.

In concept, applicable to any type of
new land use development
anywhere in state.

Precedent of BACT for air
pollution control. Could apply to
any sector with developed BMPs
(or BAM). Adjustable every few
years.

Newhall Ranch ruling supports
in concept.

In concept, applicable to any
type of new development
anywhere in state.

Allows RTP/SCS consistent
projects to focus their analysis
on GHG emissions other than
cars/light-duty trucks.

Limitations
Requires CAP (and CEQA on
CAP). CAP must be real, not
aspirational.

Only applies to sector with gap
analysis (land use and
stationary for now).

Only applies to land use sector.

Does not work as well for rural
areas.

Requires effort to update every
few years. Requires math proof
first at regional or state level.

Untested. Tough to use for post2020 until state regulations developed more.

Newhall Ruling uncertainty.

Applies to small projects.

Statute only mentions certain
land use projects, not other
types of projects.

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

October 2016
1 2  General Plans
3  Consistency with Qualified GHG Reduction Plan: As noted above, this threshold approach 4 was endorsed by the Newhall Ranch ruling as an appropriate method to determine 5 significance of GHG emissions. This is the best threshold approach for determining 6 significance of GHG emissions for a general plan.
7  Bright Line Thresholds: There are no bright line thresholds for general plans. The 8 Committee does not recommend development or use of a bright line threshold for general 9 plans because the other threshold concepts provide better frameworks for evaluating 10 significance of jurisdiction-level GHG emissions relative to statewide GHG reduction targets. 11  Efficiency Thresholds: Use of an efficiency threshold for a general plan would require 12 accounting for all sources of emissions within a jurisdiction (not just the land use sector). 13 The 2020-based thresholds would need to be revised for use beyond 2020 to take into 14 account the more stringent 2030 reduction target and the changes in service population 15 over time.
16  Best Management Practices/Best Available Mitigation: In concept, a jurisdiction could 17 evaluate the new development and associated emissions allowed by a general plan, then 18 identify BMPs or BAM to be implemented for new development, and make a quantitative 19 assessment of how the reduced emissions are or are not consistent with statewide reduction 20 targets. In effect, this would be the same as a CAP, but limited to only new development 21 emissions.
22  Consistency with Regulations: Given that most general plans have horizons that are decades 23 in the future, this approach is likely not viable if the planning horizon exceeds the horizon of 24 current comprehensive GHG regulations.
25  Percent below BAU Threshold: Caution is advised in using this threshold approach. 26 However, provided the concerns raised in the Newhall Ranch ruling can be resolved, the 27 percent below BAU threshold concept could be applied to the evaluation of GHG emissions 28 associated with a general plan.
29  Operational Emissions (Industrial Projects): The following threshold concepts are reviewed in 30 this paper relevant to industrial projects.
31  Consistency with a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan: If an industrial project is included in the 32 emissions inventory and forecasts are addressed in a qualified GHG reduction plan, then the 33 project could tier off the plan.
34  Bright Line Thresholds: Several air districts have adopted mass emissions thresholds for 35 stationary source emissions that could be used for projects with such emissions in specific 36 air districts.
37  Efficiency Thresholds: There are no adopted or recommended GHG efficiency thresholds for 38 industrial projects. However, such a threshold could be developed for a specific industrial 39 sector if one were to benchmark GHG emissions by a meaningful industrial output unit, such 40 as Twenty-Foot Equivalents (TEUs) for ports and goods movement projects, or tons of 41 concrete for a concrete plant.
42  Best Management Practices: While there are many BMPs developed and used by various 43 industries, and identified by industry trade groups, no California air districts or land use 44 agencies have developed specifically-recommended GHG BMPs for industrial projects as the 45 basis for a significance threshold determination. Lists of such BMPs could be developed, 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

October 2016
1 along with a rationale as to why consistency with the BMP list would reduce GHG emissions 2 consistent with statewide reduction planning.
3  Consistency with Regulations: Through 2020, source-specific requirements and the Cap and 4 Trade system can be argued to have established an effective means of controlling industrial 5 source emissions to meet AB 32. However, this would not yet be sufficient to address post6 2020 reduction targets. 7  Percent below BAU Threshold: Caution is advised in using this threshold approach. 8 However, provided the concerns raised in the Newhall Ranch ruling can be resolved, the 9 percent below BAU threshold concept could be applied to the evaluation of GHG emissions 10 associated with industrial projects.
11  Transportation Projects
12 Transportation projects pose very different issues than do development or industrial projects, 13 and therefore require different, transportation-specific, threshold and analysis concepts, 14 several of which are discussed below.
15  Transportation Projects that Reduce GHG Emissions: Projects that can be shown to reduce 16 GHG emissions compared to an appropriate CEQA baseline should be able to be determined to have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions8 17 . 18  Transportation Projects Not Likely to Result in Increased VMT: There is a set of 19 transportation projects that have been identified in the Draft 2016 OPR Technical Advisory 20 for SB 743 as not likely to result in increased VMT, such as maintenance and repair, signal 21 optimization, safety improvements, and other projects that do not increase through 22 capacity. These projects are also not likely to increase GHG emissions significantly, but 23 project-level evaluation would need to consider all sources of emissions (not just VMT) in 24 order to substantiate this conclusion. Some of these projects (such as signal coordination) 25 can actually be GHG reduction or mitigation measures for other projects. 26  Roadway Capacity Increasing Projects:
27  Compliance with Regulations: Through 2020, there is an argument that the state already 28 has sufficient regulations in place (such as Pavley I, Advanced Clean Cars, Low Carbon 29 Fuel Standard, SB 375 and Cap and Trade) to meet AB 32 targets; thus an argument 30 could be made that roadway projects, including capacity-increasing projects, would not 31 result in GHG emissions inconsistent with the AB 32 2020 reduction target. This finding 32 would hold only if the project is supporting growth anticipated in current statewide 33 GHG reduction planning. However, the regulatory framework for the post-2020 era is 34 insufficiently developed to demonstrate that transportation emissions will meet 2030 35 milestone targets (or later ones), and thus transportation analysis for projects with a 36 post-2020 horizon may not be able to use this approach until a new framework is 37 developed.
38  Consistency with SB 375: Roadway projects included in a SB 375-compliant RTP/SCS 39 could be determined to have a less than significant impact related to car/light-duty 40 truck GHG emissions, similar to the relief allowed for certain land use projects that are 41 consistent with SB 375. While this is a logical inference, SB 375 did not include specific 42 language supporting this argument. Furthermore, the Draft CEQA Guidelines and

8 It should be noted that studies have shown that vehicle technology efforts can often have transportation GHG emissions effects than transportation infrastructure improvements.

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

October 2016
1 Technical Advisory prepared by OPR concerning SB 743 could complicate the use of such a SB 375 consistency approach. 2 9
3  SB 743 and “Induced Travel”: The January 2016 Discussion Draft CEQA Guidelines for SB 4 743, concerning the evaluation of significance of transportation impacts proposed by 5 OPR, seek to replace traffic congestion metrics (such as Level of Service [LOS]) in favor 6 of vehicle miles traveled (VMT)-based metrics, designed in part to reduce GHG 7 emissions. The draft guidelines include recommended language stating that additional 8 lane miles may induce automobile travel and VMT. In its Technical Advisory 9 accompanying the proposed guidelines, OPR argues that additional roadway capacity, 10 while relieving congestion in the short-run, would in the long-run induce additional 11 VMT by facilitating longer distance trips. As a result, OPR recommends that an increase 12 in VMT should be the significance threshold for roadway capacity-increasing projects. 13 This logic could also be applied to GHG emissions of new roadway capacity-increasing 14 projects.
15 New CAP Targets
16 The local target setting process for 2020 CAPs has provided important lessons that can be applied to 17 setting targets in coming years. Most CAPs have included targets for 2020, and some discuss 18 reductions to achieve a trajectory for 2050; but 2020 has been the primary focus in identifying 19 reduction measures.
20 The 2014 AB 32 First Scoping Plan Update states the following:
21 “Local government reduction targets should chart a reduction trajectory that is consistent 22 with, or exceeds, the trajectory created by statewide goals. Improved accounting and 23 centralized reporting of local efforts, including emissions inventories, policy programs, and 24 achieved emission reductions, would allow California to further incorporate, and better 25 recognize, local efforts in its climate planning and policies.” 26 Achieving a reduction trajectory that is consistent with or exceeds a statewide trajectory is not a 27 straightforward process. The circumstances in each community can vary tremendously due to 28 differing growth rates, climate, existing built environment, economic health, and local community 29 and political preferences.
30 Currently, it is challenging for a local government to achieve a post-2020 target in the absence of a 31 statewide plan. While there are GHG reduction plans that do include a post-2020 target, those 32 emissions reductions are subject to uncertainty and speculation regarding the amount of reductions 33 that can be attributed to state and federal actions beyond 2020. However, with the Scoping Plan 34 Update currently in development, it is expected that a state framework of action for 2030 will be 35 completed in 2017. For 2050, such a framework is likely many years in the future.

9 The Draft CEQA Guidelines and Technical Advisory present a framework for analysis of roadway capacity increasing projects in the context of evaluating induced travel and associated VMT increases which may be significant if larger than an per project amount estimated based on the need to reduce emissions to meet the SB 32 target for 2030. While the Technical Advisory notes that a RTP/SCS that meets SB 375 targets may not have a significant transportation impact under CEQA, but the advisory is silent on roadway projects consistent with the RTP/SCS having the same conclusion.

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

October 2016
1 Foundational Principles
2  Identify the CAP Horizon Year: The CAP horizon year should match the local planning horizon 3 in the General Plan wherever feasible, but must be at least out to the horizon of statewide GHG 4 detailed planning (presently 2020, but will be 2030 when ARB completes the next update to 5 the Scoping Plan).
6  Align with Statewide Targets: CAP targets should be based on the state-adopted target for 7 overall long-term effects of GHG emissions for the next milestone after the CAP planning 8 horizon, whether that is 2020, 2030, or 2050. In addition, CAPs should also evaluate 9 consistency with statewide planning for short-lived climate pollutants.  Use the Substantial Progress Paradigm10 10 to Identify the CAP Target: The best measure of 11 whether an individual jurisdiction is providing its fair share of GHG reductions is whether that 12 project is supporting “substantial progress” toward the statewide reduction targets over 13 time—not whether the project is meeting a milestone target many years in the future, such as 14 for 2050. A “substantial progress” CAP target can be identified for a project horizon year that 15 is interpolated between the current milestone target for which an effective statewide plan 16 exists (such as for 2020), and the next milestone target for which an effective statewide plan 17 does not yet exist (such as for 2030).
18  Show Your Work (Provide Substantial Evidence): CAP lead agencies should provide substantial 19 evidence to support their CAP target identification in order to support future CEQA tiering of 20 consistent projects. Substantial evidence in this case should consist of a logical explanation of 21 how a given project’s consistency with the CAP—in combination with application to other new 22 development, CAP measures for existing measures, and state measures—would result in GHG 23 emissions for the subject jurisdiction consistent with meeting statewide GHG reduction 24 targets over time.
25 Recommended Local CAP Targets
26  Reduction Relative to 1990: This target approach provides the best consistency with state 27 reduction targets, which are benchmarked to 1990. However, in many jurisdictions that have 28 not already developed a 1990 inventory, there can be substantial impediments to estimating 29 1990 emissions accurately if there are large data gaps. The use of 1990 as a benchmark for 30 2030 or 2050 CAP targets will remain the best approach given the continued link to statewide 31 reduction targets. The Newhall Ranch ruling raised no concerns about this approach. 32  Reduction Relative to “Current” Base Year: Reductions relative to a “current” level that is 33 considered consistent with the AB 32 target could be used as a proxy for reductions below 34 1990 levels, when a 1990 inventory is not available. For example, a CAP target of 40 percent 35 below 2020 AB 32-compliant emissions level could be considered equivalent to the SB 32 36 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The Newhall Ranch ruling raised no concerns about 37 this approach.
38  Reduction Relative to BAU: Although the Newhall Ranch ruling has raised concern about 39 percent below BAU CEQA thresholds, the use of a percent below BAU approach for CAP targets 40 remains valid precisely because a CAP evaluates all emissions within a jurisdiction (both 41 existing and new), and thus places GHG emissions for new development in the proper context 42 of overall GHG emission reduction planning. Reductions relative to a future BAU level (such as 43 2030 BAU) could remain an option for CAP targets. Despite the validity of this approach, due

10 As noted above, one commenter on the White Paper objected to the substantial progress paradigm in favor of a best available mitigation approach.

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

October 2016
1 to potential challenges that might be raised in the wake of the Newhall Ranch ruling, lead 2 agencies are recommended to use alternative CAP target approaches, such as a 1990 or 3 “current” base year approach, instead of the reduction below BAU approach, if possible, to 4 minimize the potential for challenge.
5  Other CAP Target Options
6  Efficiency Targets: CAPs could use an efficiency target (GHG emissions per Service 7 Population) that is keyed to the overall efficiency needed to meet statewide targets, but 8 there will remain concerns that an efficiency target may not result in net GHG reductions 9 within a jurisdiction.
10  Sectoral Targets: Sector-by-sector targets could be established by examining the statewide 11 planning for reductions sector-by-sector, but there would remain challenges in assessing what the fair share of reductions should be for each individual sector. 12 11 13  Other Metrics: Several other non-target metrics, such as energy consumption/household, 14 VMT/capita, or other benchmarks could be used as supplemental CAP goals, but would not 15 replace the need for a GHG emissions-based CAP target overall. 16 Other Recommendations
17 In considering climate action planning during this transitional period for CEQA, and as GHG 18 reduction plans face new challenges, the AEP Climate Change Committee offers the following 19 additional recommendations:
20  Use a Plan Approach instead of a Project Approach: CEQA is not the best or even a particularly 21 effective place to address cumulative impacts, such as GHG emissions. It is more effective to 22 address GHG emissions comprehensively in a forum that can address all sources of GHG 23 emissions, including emissions from existing and new development, and regardless of 24 whether or not they are subject to CEQA review.
25  Coordinate effort among ARB, Air Districts, CAPCOA, and CEQA Lead Agencies: If ARB continues 26 to focus on statewide GHG planning and does not identify project-level GHG thresholds for 27 post-2020 emissions, regional air districts are best suited to develop and recommend new 28 thresholds, with support and guidance from CAPCOA.
29  Keep your Eyes on the Ball in a Time of Rapid Change: We should resolve current impediments 30 and vulnerabilities resulting in disincentives, wasted time and effort, and CEQA lawsuits, so 31 that we can focus more time identifying the ways to support positive action on the ground in 32 local communities across California.

11 For example, should a reduction target be based on some statewide average reduction overall, a statewide average reduction for the general economic sector including the industry in statewide reduction planning, the statewide average reduction for the specific industry in statewide reduction planning (if it can be identified), or other considerations)?
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

October 2016
1 I. Background
2 Hilary Haskell, San Diego Gas and Electric
3 Rich Walter, ICF
4 Regulatory Setting
5 Executive Order S-03-05 (2005)
6 In 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, and established 7 the following greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions targets for California state agencies:
8  Reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010.
 Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. 9 12
10  Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 11 As a result of EO S-3-05, the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) 12 must report every two years to the Governor and the State Legislature every on the impacts of 13 global warming on California, progress towards meeting the GHG emissions reductions targets 14 established by S-03-5, mitigation strategies, and adaptation plans. 15 Because executive orders have jurisdiction only over State agencies, they are not legally enforceable 16 on local governments or the private sector. Nevertheless, local compliance with EO S-3-05 has 17 recently become a potential matter of concern due to the Sierra Club v. County of San Diego Appellate 18 Court ruling, and the pending decision of the California Supreme Court on this issue in Cleveland 19 National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments. The court in Sierra Club v. 20 County of San Diego opined that the executive order applied to the County’s CAP. The California 21 Supreme Court will decide whether that’s correct in the pending Cleveland National Forest 22 Foundation case.
23 AB 32-California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) 24 In 2006, AB 32-California Global Warming Solutions Act was implemented to address climate 25 change through a comprehensive statewide program to reduce GHG emissions. AB 32 identified the 26 ARB as the main agency responsible for ensuring that California’s GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. 27 13 AB 32 requires the use of the maximum technologically feasible and cost 28 effective means to achieve reductions across seven GHG emissions. Although the intent of AB 32 is to 29 maintain and continue reductions in GHG emissions beyond 2020, the Act does not provide a post30 2020 GHG emissions reduction target. 31 A Scoping Plan was adopted by ARB in 2008 to develop and implement specific measures to achieve 32 the GHG emissions reductions targets set forth by AB 32. ARB is required to update the AB 32 33 Scoping Plan every five years, with the most recent update occurring in 2014. In addition to 34 discussing California’s progress thus far in achieving the 2020 GHG reduction target set forth by AB 35 32, the 2014 First Update also opens the door to discussion of post-2020 emission reductions

12 1990 levels are roughly equivalent to a 12 percent reduction in GHG compared to 2008 emissions levels and a 6 percent reduction compared to 2013 levels.
13 At the time of the initial AB 32 Scoping Plan in 2008, it was estimated that meeting AB 32 would require reducing 2020 business as usual (BAU) emissions (at the time estimated as 596 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2) by 28% in order to reach the 1990 emissions of 427 MMTCO2.

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

October 2016
1 strategies, such as setting an interim target for 2030 that would measure progress towards a longer2 term 80 percent reduction below 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2050. Although AB 32 requires ARB 3 to recommend post-2020 GHG emissions targets to the Governor and Legislature, only the 4 Legislature can set legally binding statewide post-2020 GHG emissions targets. 5 SB 375 (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008) 6 Enacted in 2008, SB 375 charges the ARB with setting regional targets for reducing GHG emissions 7 by reducing vehicle miles traveled and encouraging more compact, complete, and efficient 8 communities in the future. SB 375 was implemented due to the share of transportation-related GHG 9 emissions from California’s overall GHG emission profile, and is intended to utilize the regional 10 transportation planning process to achieve GHG emissions targets that align with AB 32’s 2020 11 reduction target. SB 375 is intended to allow substantial involvement on behalf of cities and counties 12 involved in regional planning. With SB 375, ARB set regional targets for GHG emissions reductions 13 from automobile and light truck use for the years 2020 and 2035. Under SB 375, each MPO must 14 prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in conjunction with its Regional Transportation 15 Plan (RTP), which would allow for the successful realization of the region’s GHG emissions targets. 16 SB 375 provides incentives to developers through CEQA streamlining to encourage projects that are 17 consistent with applicable regional plans, and which achieve GHG emissions reduction targets. 18 Under SB 375, regional governments must plan for balanced housing and jobs availability, including 19 housing for residents of all income levels, as documented in each jurisdiction’s’ Regional Housing 20 Needs Allocation (RHNA).
21 California Energy Code (CCR Title 24 Part 6) (2013)
22 The CEC California Energy Code sets standards for energy efficiency and conservation for all 23 buildings, both residential and non-residential, throughout the state. The California Energy Code is 24 updated every three years, with the most recent iteration (2013) effective as of July 1, 2014, and the 25 next version planned for 2016.
26 The CEC’s long-term vision is that future updates to the California Energy Code will require 27 achieving zero-net energy (ZNE) for all new residential buildings by 2020 and for new 28 nonresidential buildings by 2030. The 2013 standards require 25 percent and 30 percent improved 29 energy efficiency, respectively, compared to the 2008 California Energy Code for residential uses 30 and nonresidential uses. This limits energy demand from future buildings and thereby reduces the 31 amount of GHG emissions that would have otherwise resulted from energy production. 32 SB 743 (Steinberg 2013)
33 Changes in the analysis of transportation under CEQA are on the horizon with the release of the 34 California Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR’s) Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA 35 Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA: Implementing Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) 36 on January 20, 2016. These guidelines, if implemented, would shift CEQA transportation 37 analysis from a focus on traffic congestion to that of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The 38 guidelines likely will take effect sometime in 2017, with a two-year optional phase-in window 39 for agencies that choose to delay implementation.
40 Based on the January 2016 draft, the following key changes to current CEQA practice would 41 apply statewide:
42 • VMT will become the primary metric of transportation impact. A project’s effect on 43 automobile delay (such as measured by level of service [LOS]) would no longer 44 constitute a significant impact.

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

October 2016
1 • Land use development near transit or in VMT-efficient areas would be presumed to 2 cause a less than significant transportation impact.
3 • Transportation projects that induce additional VMT (such as roadway capacity4 increasing projects) likely would be considered to result in significant transportation 5 impacts; transportation projects that reduce VMT, do not add roadway capacity, or 6 otherwise induce additional VMT, would not.
7 OPR’s draft technical advisory accompanying the proposed CEQA Guidelines update describes 8 potential thresholds that could be used to evaluate VMT impacts. The new thresholds 9 suggested in the technical advisory are closely aligned with California’s long-term GHG 10 reduction targets. For example, in the technical advisory, OPR suggests that residential and 11 commercial projects should be evaluated using a threshold for VMT of 15 percent below 12 existing citywide and regional VMT averages; the 15 percent below existing metric is explicitly 13 based in part on the 2008 ARB AB 32 Scoping Plan call for reductions in local GHG emissions. 14 The transportation metric proposed for VMT is based on analysis of the amount of 15 VMT/transportation project allowable to support meeting the 2030 GHG reduction target 16 identified in SB 32.
17 Executive Order B-30-15 (2015)
18 Governor Jerry Brown issued EO B-30-15 in April of 2015 as a precursor to the United Nations 19 Conference on Climate Change, held in Paris in late 2015, to demonstrate California’s continued 20 commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and curbing the effects of climate change. EO B-30-15 21 sets a statewide GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. EO B-30- 22 15 requires that ARB update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to include the interim 2030 target. As 23 stated above, executive orders have jurisdiction over only State agencies. 24 ARB is currently in the process of drafting a second update to the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 25 target established in EO B-30-15. A draft version of the updated Scoping Plan is expected to be 26 released with adoption of the final version anticipated for 2017. The Second Update will continue to 27 rely on the initiatives used for achieving 2020 targets (Senate Bill [SB] 375, cap and trade, program, 28 low carbon fuel standards, etc.), as well as on additional strategies to increase engagement with 29 state agencies and the legislature, and with committees on economics, technology, and 30 environmental justice. These strategies include, but are not limited to, focus areas from the 31 Governor’s Office (Pillars Framework), sector-specific measures, and collaboration across agencies 32 through workshops and engagement. With the passage of SB 32 (see discussion below), the ARB will 33 have legal authority to implement reduction actions statewide. 34 SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015) 35 SB 350 has recently reaffirmed California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and 36 addressing climate change through several key areas, including an increase in the renewables 37 portfolio standard (RPS), higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies 38 towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging 39 stations. Originally, the law also contained a provision that required a 50 percent reduction in the 40 use of petroleum statewide, which was removed from the Bill due to opposition and concern that it 41 would prevent the Bill’s passage. Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG 42 emissions:
43  Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33 percent 44 to 50 percent by 2030, with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027.

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

October 2016
1  Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved 2 through the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), the California Energy Commission 3 (CEC), and local publicly owned utilities.
4  Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrify 5 transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the 6 growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States. 7 Clean Power Plan (Clean Air Act) (2015)
8 The Clean Power Plan was enacted on August 3, 2015 by the U.S. EPA under President Obama’s 9 Climate Action Plan. The purpose of this plan is to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants by 32 10 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, through a target emissions rate for each state. The target 11 emissions reduction rate for California has been set at 14 percent. 12 States must submit final carbon-cutting plans or initial plans with two-year extension requests by 13 September 2016, and have flexibility in choosing how to comply with the Clean Power Plan. 14 The Clean Power Plan Relies on the provisions of the Clean Air Act (Section 111[d]) that require the 15 “best system of emissions reduction” to determine what power producers are “reasonably” able to 16 do to cut CO2 emission. The Plan involves making power plants more efficient; shifting generation 17 from existing fossil-fuel steam plants to existing natural gas combined cycle plants (NGCC), up to a 18 maximum utilization of 75 percent; and using more zero-emission renewable power, including 19 onshore wind, utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV), and concentrated solar power (CSP), geothermal 20 and hydropower.
21 The Plan will ultimately encourage other states to act more like California in reducing their reliance 22 on fossil fuel power plants. California is ahead of schedule in reaching its target emissions reduction 23 rate, in part due to legislation such as AB 32. California has almost eliminated coal from its energy 24 portfolio. The target emissions reduction rate for California is less stringent than California’s 25 existing carbon reduction targets set by AB 32, SB 32 and EO S-3-05. 26 The Clean Power Plan has been challenged by a number of states and other parties. In February 27 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on the implementation of the plan until resolution of the 28 court challenges.
29 Senate Bill 32 (Pavley) (2016)
30 The Governor’s signing of SB 32 (Pavley - Chapter 249, Stats. of 2016) now gives ARB the statutory 31 responsibility to include the 2030 target in the Scoping Plan’s next update. SB 32 specifically states 32 that: “In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost33 effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by this division, the state [air resources] 34 board shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent 35 below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.” 36 Assembly Bill 197 (Garcia) (2016)
37 AB 197 addresses the concerns of certain legislators that ARB lacks sufficient legislative oversight. 38 Accordingly, AB 197 establishes the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies and 39 requires the chair of the ARB to provide the committee with an annual report on GHG emissions and 40 the Scoping Plan’s progress toward meeting the emissions reduction target. AB 197 also requires 41 ARB to post on its website current information about GHG and air pollutant emissions. Another 42 concern of some legislators is that the state’s disadvantaged communities are not being served by 43 current GHG emissions reduction policy. In response, AB 197 requires the ARB when adopting GHG 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

October 2016
1 emissions reduction rules to protect the state’s “most impacted and disadvantaged communities” 2 and consider the social costs of GHG emissions by prioritizing both of the following: (1) direct 3 reductions of GHG emissions for large stationary sources and mobile sources; and (2) direct 4 emissions reduction rules from other sources.
5 Senate Bill 1383 (Lara) (2016)
6 SB 1383 requires the ARB, by January 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive 7 strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP) to achieve a reduction in 8 methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases (HFCs) by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black 9 carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The legislation also established specified targets 10 for reducing organic waste in landfills by 50 percent from 2014 levels by 2030 and 75 percent from 11 the 2014 level by 2025. The legislation also adopted regulations to reduce methane emissions from 12 livestock manure management operations and dairy management operations that would take effect 13 in 2024.
14 A prior bill (SB 605, Lara, 2014) directed ARB to develop a comprehensive reduction strategy for 15 SLCPs. A draft strategy (the SLCP Strategy) was released in April 2016. The goals in the draft SLCP 16 Strategy are the same as the targets in SB 1383. The final SLCP Strategy is planned to be presented 17 for approval by the ARB by the end of 2016.
18 CEQA Guidelines on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
19 In 2007, SB 97 directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to draft amendments 20 to the CEQA Guidelines that would provide for the mitigation of GHG emissions. In 2010, the CEQA 21 Guidelines were amended to provide guidance on how to analyze a given project’s contribution to 22 GHG emission levels, and two questions were added to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Initial Study 23 Checklist. According to the revised CEQA Guidelines, lead agencies must:
24  Analyze the GHG emissions of a project and reach a conclusion regarding the significance of 25 those emissions.
26  For significant project-related GHG emissions, consider mitigation measures to reduce 27 potential emissions.
28  Analyze potentially significant impacts associated with placing projects in hazardous locations potentially affected by climate change. 29 14
30  Analyze a project’s potential energy use, sources of energy supply, and ways to reduce energy 31 demand.
32  Additionally, the revisions to the CEQA Guidelines regarding climate change also allowed lead 33 agencies to streamline the GHG emissions environmental review process for a given project by 34 adoption and implementation of a program-level CAP.
35 Two questions were added to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to address GHG emissions and 36 climate change:

14 It should be noted that this specific guideline only concerns the impacts of a project on the environment due to its hazardous location. The California Supreme Court ruling in the California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (CBIA vs. BAAQMD) case in late 2015 determined, in general, that CEQA only applies to the impacts of a project on the environment and does not apply to the impacts of the environment on a project (so-called “reverse CEQA”) unless specific circumstances apply or the legislature has mandated such analyses. SB 97 was focused on mitigation of GHG emissions, not the impact of climate change on a project. As such, CEQA does not require the analysis of impacts of climate change on a project.

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

October 2016
1  Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a 2 significant impact on the environment?
3  Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose 4 of reducing the emissions of GHG?
5 The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines did not provide uniform, statewide significance criteria for 6 analyzing GHG emissions in response to these two questions. Instead, according to CEQA Guidelines 7 Section 15064.8, “each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of 8 significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects.” 9 Thereby, lead agencies and air districts were provided flexibility for establishing significance criteria 10 for GHG emissions. At the same time, the flexibility afforded to lead agencies through the lack of a 11 statewide standard left many projects open to legal challenges, in the absence of a standard to which 12 all projects could be compared and legally justified. 13 CEQA Case Law
14 The following court rulings are relevant to CEQA and GHG emissions. The year noted for each case 15 refers to when an Appellate or Supreme Court ruling was issued. 16 Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond/Chevron (2010) 17 This was the first Appellate Court decision on CEQA’s requirements for considering GHG emissions, 18 and addresses the requirements for mitigating GHG emissions under CEQA. In 2008, Chevron was 19 granted permission to expand its refinery, located in the City of Richmond, in order to increase 20 gasoline production and ship hydrogen to other oil refineries in the surrounding area. The City of 21 Richmond certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project in July of 2008. The First 22 District Court of Appeals set aside the EIR because it failed to sufficiently describe and substantiate 23 the GHG emissions mitigation measures proposed for the project. In addition, the Draft EIR did not 24 initially determine the significance of the GHG emissions as a result of the project. Due to comments 25 received on the Draft EIR, in the Final EIR the City of Richmond determined that the GHG emissions 26 resulting from the project were indeed significant, and therefore, GHG emission mitigation measures 27 were required. The City of Richmond adopted a measure requiring the implementation of a GHG 28 emission inventory/reduction plan to mitigate the effects of project-related GHG emissions. The 29 Court determined that this mitigation measure improperly deferred mitigation, and that the GHG 30 emission inventory/reduction plan lacked a means of assurance or method of measuring the 31 outcome of the mitigation. This case set the precedent requiring GHG mitigation measures for 32 significant GHG emissions, which must be identified and well-defined, prior to project approval. 33 Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula 34 Vista (2011)
35 This case addressed the legality of a lead agency’s significance thresholds for GHG emissions under 36 CEQA. Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) called into question 37 the City of Chula Vista’s use of the GHG emissions reductions targets set forth in AB 32 as the 38 threshold for determining the significance of project-related GHG emissions pursuant to CEQA. 39 As the lead agency for a project that involved demolishing several retail stores and a smog check 40 facility, and replacing them with a larger retail store, the City of Chula Vista certified a Mitigated 41 Negative Declaration (MND) to approve the project under CEQA. CREED held that this project would 42 result in a significant environmental impact for a variety of environmental issue areas, including 43 GHG emissions, and claimed that an EIR was the appropriate level of document to adequately 44 disclose the impacts of the proposed project under the legal requirements set forth by CEQA. While 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

October 2016
1 the Court of Appeals found that under the fair argument standard, CREED did not have a fair 2 argument in asserting that the project would result in significant environmental impacts related to 3 GHG emissions, the Court still determined that an EIR was required for other topics that the MND 4 did not adequately address.
5 The Court upheld the EIR’s GHG emissions analysis, and determined that the City of Chula Vista had 6 adequately analyzed the project’s consistency with the GHG emissions reductions target set forth by 7 AB 32. The City used the BAU threshold for determining the significance of GHG emissions 8 associated with the project, and the Court held that there was sufficient evidence to determine that 9 the proposed project’s GHG emissions were less than significant, per the findings of the MND. 10 This case set the precedent that lead agencies have discretion in setting appropriate significance 11 thresholds for GHG emissions and climate change, as stated in the 2010 updates to the CEQA 12 Guidelines related to GHG emissions; and further, that AB 32 and the BAU methodology are an 13 appropriate means of determining the cumulative significance of project-related GHG emissions 14 under CEQA.
15 This decision strengthened the 2010 CEQA Guidelines stating that lead agencies must “make a good16 faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate, or 17 estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project” (14 Cal. Code of Regulations. 18 15064.4(a)).
19 Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013)
20 The Third District Court of Appeals ruled that an EIR prepared for a Walmart expansion in the City 21 of Oroville was insufficient due to a lack of substantial evidence in support of the lead agency’s 22 conclusion that the project would result in less than significant GHG emissions after mitigation. 23 The Court ruled that the City failed to calculate the baseline GHG emissions for the project site in 24 order to accurately estimate the effect of the proposed project’s GHG emissions mitigation measures’ 25 impact on GHG emissions, compared to existing conditions. Without an estimate of the baseline GHG 26 emissions, or an estimate of the proposed GHG emissions reductions as a result of mitigation, the 27 Court found that a reasonable determination regarding the project’s GHG emissions level of 28 significance could not be made.
29 Despite the City of Oroville’s discretion as a lead agency to set appropriate significance thresholds 30 for GHG emissions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the Court rejected the City’s 31 comparison of GHG emissions from this individual project against statewide greenhouse emissions 32 to determine whether or not the project would interfere with California’s ability to meet AB 32’s 33 GHG reduction target. The Court found that GHG emissions from a single store or project are 34 “meaningless,” and would logically appear insignificant in comparison to California’s total emissions. 35 Therefore, this type of analysis of the significance of project-related GHG emissions was determined 36 to be flawed, and should have relied on a BAU type of comparison. 37 Finally, the Court found that a project’s consistency with the AB 32 Scoping Plan does not constitute 38 substantial evidence to conclude that a project’s GHG emissions would be less than significant, and 39 rejected the EIR’s finding that project-related GHG emissions were less than significant. The Court 40 determined that emissions and mitigation measures from a single project are not comparable to AB 41 32 because this legislation is statewide in scope and is not project-specific. Therefore, relying on 42 only AB 32 did not provide adequate project-specific evidence in the form of the amount of GHG 43 emissions and the effects of project-related GHG mitigation measures. 44 This case highlights the importance of providing a meaningful quantitative assessment of GHG 45 emissions when using statewide emissions reductions targets, such as AB 32, in determining the 46 significance of GHG emissions for a project.

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

October 2016
1 Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014)
2 San Diego County adopted a new General Plan in 2011. Mitigation Measure CC-1.2 in the General 3 Plan’s EIR committed the County to preparing a climate action plan (CAP). On the basis of that 4 mitigation measure and its prospective compliance with reduction target of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 5 and the “Executive Order [EO] S-3-05 trajectory,” the EIR concluded that the General Plan’s impact 6 would be less than significant. The CAP was to include detailed GHG reduction targets, deadlines for 7 achievement, and “comprehensive and enforceable GHG emissions reductions measures” that would 8 provide a 17% reduction in GHG emissions from County operations, and a 9% reduction in 9 community GHG emissions by 2020.
10 The County adopted the CAP in 2012 on the basis of an addendum to the General Plan EIR. The CAP 11 included thresholds for determining the significance of an individual project’s GHG emissions. The 12 Sierra Club challenged the adequacy of the CAP and thresholds for meeting the requirements of 13 Mitigation Measure CC-1.2, and also challenged the adoption of an addendum rather than a more 14 intensive CEQA analysis. The Court of Appeal decided in favor of the Sierra Club that adoption of a 15 CAP that did not meet the requirements of Mitigation Measure CC-1.2. 16 The Court found that the CAP does not include enforceable GHG emissions reduction measures, as 17 required by Mitigation Measure CC-1.2. As a result, the CAP would not assure that the mitigation 18 could effectively reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant impact, as found in the 2011 EIR. 19 Court further reasoned that EO S-3-05’s 2050 reduction goal set a trajectory for emissions 20 reductions beyond AB 32’s 2020 timeframe. Failure of the CAP to implement Mitigation Measure CC21 1.2 would mean that neither AB 32’s 2020 target, nor S-3-05’s more ambitious 2050 goal, could be 22 met. Although the County argued that there were state and federal requirements that would reduce 23 GHG emissions, the record showed that local measures such as those in the CAP would be needed in 24 order for the County to meet the requirements of AB 32 and EO S-3-05. 25 The Court noted that many of the measures effectively were recommended strategies, rather than 26 requirements, and that the funding needed to implement the measures was lacking. It observed that 27 “… many of the mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP are not likely to achieve GHG emissions 28 reductions by 2020 as promised by Mitigation Measure CC-1.2 because they are not currently 29 funded.” Based on the California Supreme Court’s Marina decision, the Court rejected the County’s 30 argument that it did not request funds from SANDAG for transportation measures because the 31 County does not control the allocation of regional transportation funding. The lack of funding made 32 the emissions reductions required by Mitigation Measure CC-1.2 infeasible to achieve. 33 Cleveland National Forest Foundation et al. v. SANDAG (2014) 34 In October 2011, SANDAG adopted the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable 35 Communities Plan (RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS was the first Regional Transportation Plan that included 36 a Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the first to include the regional per capita VMT‐related 37 GHG reduction targets for the passenger and light‐duty vehicle sector required under Senate Bill 375 38 for 2020 and 2035. Subsequently, Cleveland National Forest and the Center for Biological Diversity 39 filed a petition claiming that the SANDAG EIR certifying the RTP/SCS was inadequate. 40 The petitioners claimed that SANDAG failed to properly analyze (among other issues) GHG impacts. 41 The EIR analyzed GHG emissions and concluded that the RTP/SCS would meet the per capita 42 reduction targets identified by the SB 375 mandate. The EIR concluded that the RTP/SCS would 43 result in a net reduction in VMT‐related GHG emissions for 2020, and would not conflict with AB 32. 44 The RTP/SCS included projects beyond 2020 and the EIR disclosed an increase in GHG emissions 45 post‐ 2020. However, the EIR claimed that there were no adopted targets or plans beyond those in 46 AB 32 and SB 375, and therefore concluded that the RTP/SCS did not conflict with any plans to 47 reduce GHG emissions. In 2012, the trial court ruled that the EIR was “impermissibly dismissive of 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

October 2016
1 Executive Order S‐03‐05” in failing to analyze how the RTPs/SCS 2050 GHG emissions related to the 2 2050 goal of the Executive Order, and in failing to adequately consider transportation mitigation 3 measures.
4 SANDAG appealed the lower court decision and in November 2014, a three‐judge panel from the 5 Fourth Appellate District issued a 2‐to‐1 finding upholding the lower court decision, concluding that 6 the EIR violated CEQA. The majority opinion held that the EIR failed to analyze the impact of the 7 RTP/SCS GHG emissions over time (including its increase over baseline emissions by 2050) on the 8 ability of the State to meet the 2050 GHG reduction target in EO S‐3‐05. Of particular interest, the 9 majority opinion stated that it did not intend to suggest that the RTP/SCS must achieve the EO’s 10 2050 goal, or any other specific numeric goal, but rather that the EIR should have analyzed 11 consistency with the 2050 goal, including consideration of mitigation. The minority opinion asserted 12 that the EO S‐3‐05 does not, as argued by SANDAG, constitute a mandate or threshold of significance, 13 as it was not passed by the Legislature. The minority opinion asserted that EO S‐3‐05 does not have 14 an “identifiable foundation in the constitutional power of the Governor or in statutory law.” The 15 minority opinion also described the substantial difficulties in determining a regional fair‐share of 16 GHG emissions in the absence of a legislative GHG reduction target for 2050, or without a State plan 17 to achieve any such target.
18 In December 2014, SANDAG voted to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, which 19 decided in March 2015 that it would hear the appeal. The case has been briefed (as of June 2016 20 2016) but no decision has been issued (as of late September 2016). 21 Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and 22 Wildlife (“Newhall Ranch”, 2015)
23 The California Supreme Court rejected the EIR for the 12,000 acre Newhall Land and Farming Co. 24 development project, which would have housed 58,000 people along the Santa Clara River in the 25 foothills of north Los Angeles in more than 20,000 new homes. The EIR for the project was prepared 26 by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and was then sued by the Center for 27 Biological Diversity. This case also sets landmark precedence in the appropriateness of using BAU 28 when assessing project-related GHG emissions.
29 The Supreme Court upheld and rejected different parts of the EIR GHG emissions analysis. The Court 30 upheld the general validity of using a BAU methodology for determining the significance of GHG 31 emissions as a result of the project. However, it determined that this EIR did not provide adequate 32 support for its conclusion that cumulative project-related GHG emissions would be less than 33 significant because they were less than the statewide reductions compared to statewide 2020 BAU 34 emissions. The Court ruled that consistency with AB 32 GHG emission reduction target is a valid 35 significance criterion, and the use of percent below BAU as a significance threshold is an acceptable 36 approach under CEQA. However, the EIR lacked substantial evidence to demonstrate that the 37 project’s reduction of 31 percent below BAU is consistent with the EIR’s referenced California’s statewide GHG emission reduction target of 29 percent below statewide BAU15 38 . The Court stated 39 that:

15 Many agencies have been using a metric of 29 percent below BAU based on data referenced to the AB 32 Scoping Plan (2008), which corresponds to the amount of reductions in the 2008 AB 32 Scoping Plan (174 MMTCO2e) compared to the 2020 BAU forecast at the time (596 MMT CO2e), however this amount of reduction is more than is necessary to meet the AB 32 target at the time (427 MMT CO2e). Based on the amount of reductions needed to meet the AB 32 target (based on data available at the time of the 2008 Scoping Plan, the actual reduction amount would be 28 percent below BAU (see tables in the Technical Appendix).

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

October 2016
1 At bottom, the EIR‘s deficiency stems from taking a quantitative comparison method 2 developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the GHG emissions reduction effort required 3 by the state as a whole, and attempting to use that method, without consideration of any 4 changes or adjustments, for a purpose very different from its original design: To measure 5 the efficiency and conservation measures incorporated in a specific land use development 6 proposed for a specific location.
7 The comparison used in the project’s EIR/EIS would suggest that a statewide GHG reduction target 8 and a specific project’s reduction targets require the same “level of effort,” which the Supreme Court determined could not be presumed. 9 16
10 The court suggested several potential means for providing substantial evidence to support a 11 significance determination, including a mathematical determination of what level or reduction 12 below BAU would comply with the statewide target based on 1) the Scoping Plan’s BAU scenario, 2) 13 consistency with a Climate Action Plan, 3) compliance with regulatory programs (SB 375 RTP/SCS 14 for transportation, building efficiency standards, etc.) and 4) numerical thresholds. 15 Currently, the use of 2020 as a target year for GHG emissions reductions per AB 32 as a significance 16 criteria is considered valid by the court. However, the Court warned, in a footnote, that “an EIR 17 taking a goal-consistency approach to CEQA significance may in the near future need to consider the 18 project’s effects on meeting longer term emissions targets” than those of the AB 32 2020 target. 19 This case suggests that lead agencies may use the BAU methodology for determining the significance 20 of GHG emissions as a result of a project provided they do the following 1) substantiate a project’s 21 “fair share” contribution of GHG emissions reductions in achieving statewide targets; and 2) explain, 22 using substantial evidence why the project’s percent reductions in emissions fits into the state’s 23 overall reductions to meet AB 32, SB 32, or future legislated targets. 24 Implications of Court Rulings
25 After revision of the CEQA guidelines in 2010 to require lead agencies to identify and evaluate GHG 26 emissions, various legal challenges and court cases regarding analysis of GHG emissions have 27 resulted. The cases discussed above have established legal requirements for adequate analysis of 28 GHG emissions under CEQA, including setting thresholds for GHG emissions within a lead agency’s 29 discretion, properly defining the level of significance, and identifying mitigation measures. Overall, 30 the Courts have held that lead agencies have discretion in setting appropriate thresholds for 31 determining the level of significance of GHG emissions as a result of a project under CEQA, provided 32 they are based on substantial evidence.

16 The plaintiffs had asserted that the percent reduction required at the state level differs from that of the project level, arguing that a greater degree of reduction may be needed from new land use projects than from the economy overall, because new energy–efficient buildings that use renewable energy may be more easily achieved than retrofitting existing buildings. However, the ruling did not explicitly endorse this argument, but rather was limited to a finding that the lead agency had not substantiated the appropriateness of the direct comparison of project emissions to the statewide reduction level without any adjustment.

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

October 2016
1 II. Current CEQA GHG Thresholds
2 Hilary Haskell, San Diego Gas and Electric
3 Nicole Vermilion, PlaceWorks
4 This section discusses GHG CEQA thresholds in use today (October 2016). With the passage of SB 5 32, and the likely completion of an updated Scoping Plan for 2030 in 2017, it is expected that CEQA 6 thresholds for GHG emissions will likely be changing in the near future. 7 A statewide quantitative statewide GHG emission threshold for determining the significance of 8 project-related GHG emissions under CEQA (in absence of tiering from a qualified GHG reduction 9 plan) has not yet been adopted.
10 Several air districts, as well as other lead agencies, have adopted guidance and recommendations for 11 determining significance for GHG emissions. GHG quantitative thresholds recommended for use 12 when a qualified GHG reduction plan is not available have been developed for land use and 13 stationary source projects. Air districts have permitting authority as the lead agency for stationary 14 sources, and can therefore enforce stationary source GHG emissions thresholds; but they do not 15 have jurisdiction as the lead agency for other types of land use projects. Therefore, although land 16 use projects may use GHG emissions thresholds recommended by an air district, use of their 17 thresholds are only recommended by the air districts and/or are non-binding for other agencies. 18 In the absence of a statewide threshold, GHG emissions thresholds and approaches to determining 19 significance of GHG emissions are typically used by air districts and lead agencies, either separately 20 or in conjunction with one another, to determine the significance of project-related GHG emissions. 21 Most locally adopted GHG emissions thresholds are based on reductions specified by AB 32, and do 22 not address GHG reductions targets between 2020 and 2050 set out by SB 32 or by EO S-3-05. 23 Each of these GHG significance thresholds has advantages and disadvantages in terms of legal 24 defensibility and practical application, and each may be appropriate for different types of projects. 25 The Supreme Court’s Newhall Ranch decision indicates that the key to ensuring legal defensibility is 26 having substantial evidence for why a threshold is appropriate for a given project to evaluate the 27 GHG emissions of that project. Caution is advised in the use of the percent below BAU threshold 28 concept at present, due to issues raised in the Newhall Ranch case. 29 Table 2 summarizes the thresholds that have been proposed or adopted by various entities across 30 California. Note that some of the thresholds identified in Table 2 have been withdrawn by the air 31 district and therefore are no longer recommended for use by the air districts for other agency 32 project-level CEQA documents. Thresholds are commonly described on the basis of metric tons of 33 carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e).

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 25 October 2016 1 Table 2: Proposed or Adopted Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Thresholds in California Agency Significance Thresholds
(MTCO2e/year for operations, unless otherwise noted)
BAAQMD(1) Thresholds Adopted but Withdrawn: Projects/Plans: Compliance with GHG reduction strategy; Projects: 1,100 MTCO2e or

4.6 MTCO2e /service population (SP)/year; Plans: 6.6 MTCO2e /SP/year; Stationary: 10,000 MTCO2e EKAPCD Thresholds Adopted: Stationary: 25,000 MTCO2e /year; compliance with state or federal regulation; reduction of GHG emissions by 20% or more.

MBUAPCD Thresholds Considered, but not Adopted: Stationary: 10,000 MTCO2e /year; Projects/Plans: compliance with qualified GHG reduction plan; Projects; 4.6 MTCO2e /SP; Plans 6.6 MTCO2e /SP MDAQMD Threshold Adopted: 100,000 MTCO2e /year and 548,000 pounds/day for construction and/or operational emissions SBCAPCD Thresholds Adopted: “AB 32 Consistency" threshold for stationary sources: 1) screening level of 10,000 MTCO2e, or 2) compliance with an approved GHG reduction program (e.g. Cap-and-Trade}, or 3) consistency with the AB 32 Scoping Plan by reducing emissions 15.3% below BAU.

San Diego
County (2)
Thresholds Adopted but Withdrawn:

Tier 1: Categorical Exemption
Tier 2: Screening Criteria (Construction or Operation): 2,500 MTCO2e (projects must apply at least one relevant Climate Action Plan measure)
Tier 3: Thresholds: Project/Plan: 4.32 MTCO2e /SP; Project: 2,500 MTCO2e; or 16% reduction relative to BAU conditions (excluding RPS, Pavley reductions)
Stationary: 10,000 MTCO2e
SLOAPCD Thresholds Adopted: Compliance with GHG reduction strategy; Projects: 1,150 MTCO2e; Plans: 4.9 MTCO2e /SP; Stationary Sources: 10,000 MTCO2e
SCAQMD Draft Framework for Land Use Projects (never Adopted):

Tier 1: Categorical Exemptions
Tier 2: Consistent with GHG Reduction Plan
Tier 3: Res./Comm. Projects: 3,000 MTCO2e/year; Res.: 3,500 MTCO2e/year; Comm.: 1,400 MTCO2e/year; Mixed-Use:
3,000 MTCO2e/year
Tier 4: Performance Standards: Projects required to reduce emissions by a specific amount, implement specified measures or meet efficiency target
Tier 5: Mitigation Offsets: Obtain offsets that would allow them to meet the Tier 4 performance standards.

SCAQMD adopted a stationary threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e /year for projects that SCAQMD is the lead agency.

SMAQMD Thresholds Adopted: Construction: 1,100 MTCO2e /year; Operational 1,100 MTCO2e /year (land use projects) or 21.7% reduction below the No Action Taken (NAT) scenario (the NAT threshold has been withdrawn), 10,000 MTCO2e /year (stationary sources only)
SJVAPCD Thresholds Adopted: Projects/Plans: Compliance with GHG reduction strategy; Projects: Implementation of best performance standards; Projects: 29% reduction in GHG emissions relative to BAU conditions Acronyms: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); East Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD); MBUAPCD (Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District); MDAQMD (Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District), SBCAPCD (Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District); SLOAPCD (San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District); SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District); SMAQMD (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District); SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District); MT (metric ton); MTCO2e: Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; SP (Service Population = residents + employees); NAT (No Action Taken); BAU (Business as Usual); RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard).

Sources: BAAQMD, 2011; EKAPCD, 2012; MBUAPCD, 2011; MDAQMD 2011; San Diego County, 2012; SLOAPCD, 2012; SJVAPCD, 2009; SBCAPCD, 2015; SCAQMD, 2010; SCAQMD, 2008; SMAQMD 2014.

Notes:
(1) Thresholds originally proposed as part of 2010/2011 CEQA Guidelines but currently not recommended for use as indicated on BAAQMD website.
(2) Thresholds withdrawn after Appellate court ruling in Sierra Club vs. San Diego County lawsuit.

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

October 2016
1 Consistency with a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan
2 Establishing consistency with a qualified GHG reduction plan (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5) 3 is a common approach to determining significance for individual projects, and is used in certain 4 jurisdictions (such as San Francisco, Mountain View, and San Bernardino County and other 5 jurisdictions with adopted CAPs). CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows lead agencies to analyze 6 and mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions at a programmatic level, such as in a general 7 plan, in a long range development plan, or in a separate plan (such as a CAP) to reduce GHG 8 emissions, so that later project-specific environmental documents may tier from the prior analysis 9 to determine significance. Most jurisdictions using this approach to CEQA have developed 10 consistency checklists by which to review the consistency of individual projects with the 11 jurisdiction’s GHG reduction plan. Some jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, do not require 12 quantification of GHG emissions for the CEQA documentation. 13 Construction Emissions
14 Construction emissions have been addressed by some, but not all, air districts, and approaches for 15 addressing construction-related GHG emissions can vary. 16 Some lead agencies use a “best management practice” (BMP) approach to evaluating construction 17 emissions, in which feasible BMPs are required for construction, and if a project implements them, 18 the construction emissions are determined to be less than significant. The BAAQMD recommended 19 this approach in their CEQA guidelines.
20 Some lead agencies are amortizing construction emissions over the lifetime of a project and then 21 comparing the annualized emissions to one of the quantitative thresholds. Other agencies are adding 22 annualized construction emission to operational emissions and then comparing the combined 23 emissions to one of the quantitative thresholds.
24 Operational “Bright‐Line” Thresholds
25 The bright line significance threshold is a numeric mass emissions threshold. In general, the bright 26 line threshold identifies the point at which additional analysis (and mitigation) of project-related 27 GHG emissions impacts is deemed necessary. Projects below the established bright line significance 28 criteria have a less than considerable contribution to cumulative global emissions and thus would 29 have less than significant impacts. The bright line threshold is typically based on a pre-determined 30 “capture” rate, or a gap analysis tied to AB 32 reduction targets. There are several methods for 31 establishing a bright line threshold for land use development projects, as described below. 32  90 Percent Market Capture. This approach captures a substantial fraction of the emissions 33 of future residential and nonresidential development constructed to accommodate future population and job growth17 34 , but excludes small development projects that would contribute a 35 relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. A capture rate of 90 36 percent of future emissions from discretionary development has commonly been used. 37 Example bright line thresholds developed using a 90 percent capture market include:
 900 MTCO2e: California Air Pollution Control Offices Association (CAPCOA) 38 18

17 The current bright line thresholds were developed using regional development forecasts. 18 The CAPCOA analysis was only an example calculation using limited data from certain select cities in Northern and Southern California and was never intended to be used as an actual threshold. The calculation included emissions from projects that may be categorically or statutorily exempt from CEQA.

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

October 2016
1  1,100 MTCO2e: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2  3,000 MTCO2e: South Coast Air Quality Management District for all project types. 3  Gap Based Threshold Approach. Some air districts have based their recommended 4 threshold of the shortfall, or “gap,” between the anticipated 2020 land use sector emissions, 5 taking into account the reductions from adopted Scoping Plan regulations and the necessary 6 land use sector emissions needed in 2020 to meet 1990 levels. This gap represents additional 7 GHG emission reductions needed from the land use sectors, and it can be used to derive a 8 threshold to identify those projects for which mitigation is necessary to meet statewide GHG 9 emission reduction targets for the land use sector. Example bright line thresholds developed 10 using a gap based analysis include:
 1,100 MTCO2e: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 11 19  1,150 MTCO2e: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. 12 20 13  2,500 MTCo2e: County of San Diego (threshold withdrawn). 14  Federal Permitting Threshold. The EPA, under the Title V GHG Tailoring rule, established a 15 GHG emissions permitting threshold for new facilities of 100,000 tons per year of CO2e. The 16 permitting threshold for existing facilities with emissions of 100,000 tons per year of CO2e for 17 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) modifications is 75,000 tons per year of CO2e. 18 The Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District adopted a CEQA threshold of 100,000 19 MTCO2e based on the federal permit triggers.
20 As noted above, there is considerable variation in the bright line significance threshold throughout 21 the state. Air districts consider emissions from the type and number of local projects implemented 22 in their district when setting the mass emissions threshold. The Committee does not recommend 23 one methodology over another, but instead provides options for lead agencies to consider when 24 setting the bright line significance threshold.
25 Exceeding the bright line significance criteria does not necessarily indicate that the project 26 generates a significant unavoidable impact. Otherwise, all large projects, by the very fact of their 27 size, would inherently result in a significant impact regardless of how GHG-efficient the project may 28 be. Therefore, the air districts identified above have all recommended and/or identified that 29 projects exceeding the bright line significance criteria should evaluate emissions using the 30 efficiency and/or percent below BAU-based approach (described below); and only if GHG emissions 31 are above those secondary thresholds would a given project be considered to have a significant 32 impact.
33 Percent below Business as Usual
34 Percent below business as usual thresholds are quantitative thresholds based on a specific percent 35 reduction from a BAU projection of project emissions. Because the BAU scenario is based on a 36 “future” condition, the significance conclusion is not derived from the increase in GHG emissions 37 from existing conditions, but is rather based on the project’s reduction in emissions from an 38 unmitigated condition. The precise percent reduction varies depending on the base year used and 39 the specific future year forecasting. Most lead agencies employing this threshold have used a 29

19 Equivalent to a capture rate of 92 percent of GHG emissions and 59 percent of projects. 20 Equivalent to a capture rate of 81 percent of GHG emissions and 95 percent of projects.

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

October 2016
percent below BAU value.21 1 In order to apply the percent below BAU level threshold, the project’s 2 BAU emissions must first be estimated using the same efficiencies used in the AB 32 Scoping Plan inventory as of 2008, without including any project or state GHG reduction measures. 3 22 Then the 4 project’s emissions must be calculated using project features and state GHG reduction measures, and 5 compared to the target percent below BAU level to determine if the GHG emissions are significant. 6 The following air districts have identified percent below BAU thresholds:
7  San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District—29 percent reduction below BAU using Best 8 Performance Standards (BPS). The 29 percent reduction below BAU is based on the forecast 9 included in the 2008 Scoping Plan.
10  Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District—21.7 percent reduction below BAU (threshold withdrawn). 11 23 The 21.7 percent reduction below BAU is based on an updated 12 emissions forecast conducted by the California Air Resources Board in light of the economic 13 recession.
14  County of San Diego—16 percent reduction below BAU (threshold withdrawn). The 16 15 percent reduction below BAU is based on the county-specific emissions forecast conducted for 16 the Draft Climate Action Plan.
17 As discussed above, the Newhall Ranch decision establishes that lead agencies must provide 18 substantial evidence as to why a project’s emissions reduction below an unmitigated condition 19 relates to the statewide reductions needed to meet the AB 32 target. A mere quantitative 20 comparison to the same level of statewide reduction needed to meet AB 32 is insufficient. Lead 21 agencies should evaluate the relationship between the state’s GHG emissions inventory and a 22 development project percent below BAU reductions.
23 Efficiency Thresholds
24 Efficiency thresholds are quantitative thresholds that are based on a measurement of GHG efficiency 25 for a given project, regardless of the amount of mass emissions. Projects that attain the efficiency 26 target, with or without mitigation, would result in less than significant GHG emissions. The efficiency 27 metric commonly used is GHG emissions divided by the “service population” (SP), which is the sum of people who live (residents) and work (employees) in the project site. 28 24 The efficiency metric 29 considers the GHG reduction measures integrated into a project’s design and operation (or through 30 mitigation), and is based on the net increase in emissions; however, the significance conclusion is 31 not based on the magnitude of the increase in mass emissions.

21 As noted above, while many agencies have been using a metric of 29 percent below BAU based, the actual data in the Scoping Plan (as shown in the Technical Appendix to this document) would support a metric of 28 percent below BAU.
22 One can develop percent below BAU thresholds using different base years and forecasts. For example, based on the CARB 2014 forecasted 2020 statewide California BAU emissions (CARB estimated 2020 BAU emissions of 509 MMTC02e including 30 MMTC02e reductions from Pavley/LCFS and thus the “true” BAU would be 539 MMTCO2e) would need to be reduced by approximately 20 percent from 2020 BAU emissions. As noted above, a project’s evaluation of GHG emissions would need to use the same GHG efficiencies as the base year used to calculate the 2020 BAU emissions and the percent reduction level.
23 The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s threshold was based on the state’s updated GHG emissions inventory available prior to the 2014 Update to the Scoping Plan. 24 Although one could develop per capita based efficiency thresholds, to date this is not in common use in California, in part out of the desire to have a single threshold that could address residential, commercial and mixeduse projects instead of separate thresholds.

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

October 2016
1 The current efficiency‐based significance thresholds in use are based on the 1990 land use sector 2 emissions, divided by the forecasted employment and population for 2020. The expectation is that 3 emissions per SP or per person in 2020 generated by the land use sector need to match emissions 4 generated per SP or per person by the land use sector in 1990 in order to meet the AB 32 target, 5 which is 1990 emissions levels by 2020. Since employment and population will be higher in 2020 6 than in 1990, the land use sector as a whole must therefore be more efficient in 2020 (e.g., fewer 7 emissions per SP or per person).
8 The following efficiency thresholds are in use today and are based on the statewide 1990 emissions 9 inventory for the state:
10  4.6 MTCO2e/SP Project-Level and 6.6 MTCO2e Plan-Level: Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 11 25
12  4.8 MTCO2e/SP Project-Level and 6.6 MTCO2e Plan-Level: South Coast Air Quality Management District; 13 26
 4.9 MTCO2e/SP Project-Level: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District; 14 27 and  4.32 MTCO2e/SP Project-Level: County of San Diego (threshold withdrawn). 15 28

25 BAAQMD took the 1990 land use sector GHG emissions (295. 5 MMTCO2e/yr.) and divided it by the total 2020 statewide SP using population plus total employment (44.1 million + 20.2 million = total SP of 64.3 million). The Plan-Level threshold is based on the entire 1990 state inventory for all sectors and the total service population. 26 SCAQMD used a forecasted 2020 statewide employment for the land use sector only (17.1 million) instead of total 2020 statewide employment for all sectors as BAAQMD did, combined with the same forecasted 2020 population (44.1 million) as BAAQMD, resulting in a total SP of 61.2 million. The Plan-Level threshold is calculated the same way as BAAQMD.
27 SLOAPCD used an estimated Land Use Sector GHG Emissions inventory of 308.3 MMTCO2e, which included some inventory categories not included by BAAQMD and SCAQMD, including wineries, construction and mining equipment. SLOAPCD used a forecasted 2020 population of 44.1 million and a forecasted 2020 employment of 18.2 million for a total SP of 62.3 million.
28 San Diego County used an adjusted 1990 GHG Emissions Inventory of 264.1 MMT CO2e which excluded industrial electricity consumption, aviation, non-specified transportation, rail, water-borne transportation, industrial solid waste, industrial wastewater treatment emissions and national security emissions. The documentation provided by San Diego County did not identify the actual 2020 forecasted population or employment for the state, but back calculating from the 4.32 MTC02e/SP metric, the forecasted 2020 Service Population used was approximately 61.1 million.

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

April 2016
1 III. Foundational Principles for Developing and Using 2 CEQA GHG Thresholds
3 Nicole Vermilion, PlaceWorks
4 Rich Walter, ICF
5 This section describes the Committee’s recommended foundational principles for developing GHG 6 thresholds, and comparing project GHG emissions to thresholds supporting a CEQA lead agency’s 7 determination whether a project’s incremental contribution to GHG emissions impacts would or 8 would not be cumulatively considerable for plan-level and project-level analyses. 9 The Committee respects that there are many different views on the appropriate approach to CEQA 10 evaluation and the approach presented herein is only one view. Lead agencies are advised to 11 consider all perspectives when choosing their approach. 12 Use a Threshold that Applies to All GHG Emissions
13 The SB 97 Guidelines require that CEQA evaluations consider GHG emissions in their entirety. CEQA 14 Guidelines Section 15364.5 defines GHGs as including, but not limited to: carbon dioxide, methane, 15 nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The focus of past and 16 present Scoping Plans for AB 32 (and now SB 32) have been on reducing overall GHG emissions. SB 17 1383 (2016) established specific reduction targets for methane, HFCs, and anthropogenic black 18 carbon. CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.5 already included methane and HFCs in the definition of 19 GHG emissions but did not specifically name anthropogenic black carbon, although it makes clear 20 that the GHG emission definition is not limited to the named gases. 21 SB 1383 raises two key questions for CEQA compliance:
22 1. Should anthropogenic black carbon be included in CEQA GHG evaluations? 23 2. In addition to thresholds for GHG emissions overall, should CEQA evaluations also separately 24 consider methane, HFCs, and anthropogenic black carbon thresholds? 25 Regarding the first question, the state’s GHG inventory does not include anthropogenic black carbon, 26 although the Draft SLCP Strategy (April 2016) provides a 2013 estimate and forecasts for this 27 pollutant. Given the state’s new focus on SLCPs, including anthropogenic black carbon, the 28 Committee recommends including this pollutant in CEQA GHG inventories. As CEQA evaluations 29 usually quantify particulate matter already, this should not be an additional burden on the effort for 30 lead agencies. However, unless and until the state integrates black carbon into the state GHG 31 inventory, project level evaluations should consider black carbon separately from other GHG 32 emissions if using a threshold based on the state’s GHG inventory. 33 Regarding the second question, there is a risk of double-counting impacts under CEQA if evaluating 34 methane, HFCs, and black carbon once under the rubric of overall GHG emissions and then a second 35 time using gas-specific thresholds for the SLCPs also out of a concern for impacts on climate change. 36 Furthermore, black carbon is already routinely being evaluated as a regional criteria pollutant as 37 particulate matter (PM10 and PM 2.5) and as a localized toxic air contaminant (sometimes as Diesel 38 Particulate Matter for diesel emissions and separately for PM 2.5). The concern about SLCPs being 39 addressed by SB 1383 is the short-term (as in decadal) effect on climate, which is distinct from 40 concerns about regional or local air quality.

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

October 2016
1 It would be more elegant and efficient to analyze all GHG emissions using a single threshold rather 2 than separating out the analysis into a gas by gas analysis. Thus, the Committee recommends a 3 hybrid approach to dealing with both long-term and short-term climate pollutants as follows:
4  Evaluate all GHGs (including methane, HFCs, and black carbon) quantitatively using 100 year 5 GWPs utilizing a threshold derived directly or indirectly from state overall targets for 6 reducing GHGs.
7  In addition, evaluate project SLCP emissions qualitatively for consistency with the Final SLCP 8 strategy in terms of how the project’s emissions will or won’t be controlled consistent with the 9 statewide strategy.
10 Include the Appropriate Project GHG Emissions in the Comparison 11 to a Threshold
12 The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 requires that lead agencies make a good faith effort to 13 describe, calculate, or estimate GHG emissions for a project. CEQA documents should include a 14 reasonably foreseeable emissions estimate of GHG emissions over which the project has direct and/or indirect control. 15 29,30
16 For most land use projects, the following long-term GHG emissions should be included in the project 17 inventory:
18  On-Road Transportation: Indirect emissions from trip generation and VMT from passenger 19 vehicles and trucks generated by a project (production-based emissions due to fuel 20 combustion in vehicles).
 Electricity and Natural Gas Use: Consumption-based emissions31 21 from an increase in 22 electricity use and natural gas use.
23  Area Sources: Production-based emissions from area sources (e.g., other direct fuel use for 24 heating, and off-road vehicle use).
25  Stationary Sources: Direct emissions from stationary source fuel combustion (e.g., diesel 26 emergency generators).
 Water Use/Wastewater Generation: Consumption-based emissions15 27 from an increase in 28 water use and wastewater generation associated the project (the embodied energy in water 29 demand as well as GHG emissions related to the treatment of wastewater generated).  Solid Waste Disposal: Consumption-based emissions15 30 from solid waste disposal generated 31 during the inventory year (methane emissions from landfills). 32  Construction: One-time GHG emissions generated during construction of a project.

29 Quantification of GHG emissions and emissions factors should be based on the latest scientific information and current modeling tools recommended by the local air districts. 30 Biogenic GHG emissions need not be considered part of the project’s indirect and direct GHG emissions if it can be demonstrated that they are part of the natural biological/physical carbon cycle and do not result in a net increase of GHG emission.
31 For the purpose of CEQA evaluation, indirect emissions associated with electricity, water/wastewater, and solid waste “used” onsite occur elsewhere offsite but should still be included in the project evaluation as they are a direct result of the project and can be readily estimated without speculation.

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

October 2016
1  Land Cover Change: Changes in carbon stock and sequestration, including one-time 2 emissions (loss of carbon stock), as well as ongoing net changes in emissions (loss or change 3 in annual carbon sequestration).
4 Although these are the primary sectors that should be considered, nothing precludes a jurisdiction 5 from considering other sources of GHG emissions that the project would have direct or indirect 6 control over. For example, projects that include regulated sources of emissions requiring a permit 7 from the local air quality management district may also need to evaluate GHG emissions from these 8 sources if details are known at the time of the development application. However, if stationary 9 sources of GHG are included in the project inventory, then a threshold should be used that was 10 developed with the inclusion of stationary source emissions. 11 Based on current CEQA practice, “lifecycle” emissions associated with the production, use, and 12 disposal of products and services are not commonly included in project inventories, since 13 identifying those lifecycle emissions are typically remote and speculative for most land use projects. 14 Count State and Federal Actions
15 The project’s emissions should take into account emissions reductions achieved by state and federal 16 regulations that were adopted at the time of the environmental evaluation. Where the adopted 17 regulations establish a definitive schedule of actions for the future, the effect of the regulations can 18 be included in the project’s evaluation of future emissions. For example, adopted state and federal 19 regulations (Pavley I, Advanced Clean Cars, and the federal CAFÉ standards for 2017–2025) will 20 improve passenger vehicle efficiency substantially through 2025, with new vehicles in 2025 having 21 an average efficiency equivalent to 54 miles per gallon; modelling can take into account the 22 improved vehicle efficiency over time, as those new vehicles are incorporated into existing fleets. 23 Other regulations, such as the current and future RPS requirements included in SB 350 (2015), 24 where they apply to an electricity supply to be used by the project, can also be included. 25 Caution should be taken to include only those reductions that are definitively going to occur, and 26 which directly apply to the project’s emissions inventory. If there is any uncertainty in the 27 applicability or GHG reduction potential of state and federal actions, then the project’s emissions 28 inventory should not take into account reductions from these uncertain or undefined measures. 29 Depending on the type of threshold concept utilized, emissions may need to be estimated both 30 before and after application of state and federal measures. For bright line and efficiency thresholds, 31 there is no need to estimate emissions with and without state and federal measures; but if a percent 32 below BAU metric is utilized, then the project’s emissions may need to be estimated only using the 33 measures that are included in the referenced BAU forecast. 34 Use a Threshold that Applies to Your Project
35 Thresholds used for project evaluation should apply to the type of project being evaluated. A 36 threshold based on evaluation of the land use sector and derived from land use sector inventories 37 should not be used for projects with substantial emission sources that are not included in the land 38 use sector inventory. For example, industrial projects, which clearly are not anticipated in a land use 39 sector-derived threshold, should not be evaluated using a land use threshold. Similarly, a threshold 40 designed for a stationary pollution source—such as the 10,000 MTCO2e threshold adopted by 41 BAAQMD or the 100,000 MTCO2e threshold adopted by MDAQMD—should not be used for a land 42 use project.

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

October 2016
1 Identify the Project Horizon Year
2 Unlike other environmental topics covered in the CEQA Guidelines, GHG emission impacts are long3 term, cumulative impacts whose effects are not immediate, but occur over time. The State has 4 established a declining cap on statewide GHG emissions. As a result, GHG emissions thresholds are 5 dependent on the reference point-in-time in order to demonstrate that the project is consistent with 6 statewide targets at the time the project develops. The horizon year should be defined by the year in 7 which the project is fully realized.
8 The Committee recommends that GHG emissions impacts should be identified for the project 9 horizon year and lead agencies should consider the project horizon year when applying a threshold 10 of significance.
11 The applied threshold should be based on the state-adopted target for the next milestone. 12 Several examples help illustrate this point:
13  A 1,000 unit residential project that will be constructed and occupied in 2016: Horizon = 2016. 14  A 500,000 square foot sports and entertainment complex that will be completed in 2019 with 15 first operations in 2020: Horizon = 2020.
16  A 7 million square foot mixed-use project with 7 phases that will be fully built in 2025: Horizon = 17 2025.
18  A General Plan with build-out in 2040: Horizon = 2040 19 Identify the Next Statewide Milestone Target Relevant to the 20 Project
21 The agency thresholds described earlier are all based in various ways on the GHG emissions 22 objectives of AB 32 for 2020. As previously noted, AB 32 requires the state to achieve 1990 levels by 23 2020, SB 32 requires the state to achieve 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and Executive 24 Order S-03-05 sets a goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 25 The Committee recommends that thresholds used for project evaluation should be based on the next 26 statewide milestone target after the project horizon for which statewide planning has been 27 completed (e.g. adoption of a Scoping Plan). For current (2016) projects with a horizon of 2020 or 28 earlier, a threshold based on meeting AB 32 targets should be used since the AB 32 Scoping Plan has 29 been fully realized. For projects with a horizon between 2021 and 2030, a threshold based on 30 meeting or making substantial progress toward the 2030 target in SB 32 should be used. For 31 projects with a horizon between 2031 and 2050, a threshold based on meeting or making 32 substantial progress toward the 2050 target in EO S-03-05 should be used. 33 Using the examples from above:
34  A 1,000 unit residential project that will be completed in 2017: A threshold based on AB 32 35 targets for 2020 should be used.
36  A 500,000 square foot sports and entertainment complex that will be completed in 2019 with 37 first operations in 2020: A threshold based on AB 32 targets for 2020 should be used. 38  A 7 million square foot mixed-use project with 7 phases that will be fully built in 2025: A 39 threshold based on the 2030 target in SB 32 should be used. 40  A General Plan with build-out in 2040: A threshold based on the 2050 target in S-03-05 should 41 be used.

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

October 2016
1 Use the “Substantial Progress” Paradigm to Identify the Threshold32 2
3 Since GHG planning has a long horizon, out to 2050 (and beyond), reduction progress will not be a 4 one-step process, but rather a phased set of reductions over time. Thus the best measure of whether 5 an individual project is providing its fair share of GHG reductions, or its fair share efficiency level, is 6 whether that project supports “substantial progress” toward the statewide reduction targets over 7 time; not whether the project is meeting a milestone target many years in the future, such as for 8 2050.
9 The “substantial progress” threshold could be judged in quantitative terms in regards to whether 10 the project achieves reductions or a level of efficiency interpolated between the current milestone 11 target for which an effective statewide plan exists (such as for 2020), and the next milestone target 12 for which an effective statewide plan does not exist (such as for 2030). 13 The Committee recommends that for projects with a horizon of 2020 or earlier, a threshold based on 14 meeting AB 32 targets should be used. Since AB 32 is already being fully implemented, projects 15 should be evaluated using the full AB 32 target for 2020. A more conservative approach would be to 16 use a 2030 threshold based on SB 32 even if the project horizon is 2020 or earlier. 17 The Committee recommends that for projects with a horizon between 2021 and 2030—since there 18 is no current plan on how to achieve the 2030 targets—a threshold based on substantial progress 19 toward meeting the SB 32 target should be used. For example, until the state has an effective plan 20 for 2030, if a project has a horizon of 2025, then a threshold based on the progress needed by 2025 21 could be used. The threshold for 2025 would be interpolated linearly between the AB 32 2020 22 target and the SB 32 2030 target. Once the state has a full plan for 2030 (which is expected in 2017), 23 and then a project with a horizon between 2021 and 2030 should be evaluated based on a threshold 24 using the 2030 target. A more conservative approach would be to apply a 2030 threshold based on 25 SB 32 for any project with a horizon between 2021 and 2030 regardless of the status of the Scoping 26 Plan Update. For projects with a horizon between 2031 and 2050 (similar to the discussion above 27 for 2030, since there is no current plan on how to achieve the 2050 targets and adopted statewide 28 regulations are insufficient to meet the 2050 target), a threshold based on substantial progress 29 toward meeting the E-03-05 2050 goal should be used. For example, until the state has an effective 30 plan for 2050, if a project has a horizon of 2035, then a threshold based on the progress needed by 31 2035 could be used (using interpolation between the 2030 target and the 2050 goal). Once the state 32 has a legislated target and statewide implementation plan for 2050, then a project should be 33 evaluated based on a threshold using the adopted 2050 target. 34 Using the examples from above:
35  A 1,000 unit residential project that will be completed in 2017: A threshold based on AB 32 36 target for 2020 should be used (unless a project is within a location wherein a lead agency or 37 air district is recommending a 2030 SB 32 based target should be used). 38  A 500,000 square foot sports and entertainment complex that will be completed in 2019 with 39 first operations in 2020: A threshold based on AB 32 target for 2020 should be used (unless a

32 As noted above, one commenter on the Draft version of this White Paper objected to the substantial progress paradigm and recommend a more stringent Best Available Mitigation approach in which projects would be required to implement all currently feasible mitigation in order to be determined less than significant. They recommended this approach given the long term ambitious goals to reduce GHG emissions that will ultimately require more than that required to meet AB 32 and SB 32.

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

October 2016
1 project is within a location wherein a lead agency or air district is recommending a 2030 SB 2 32 based target should be used).
3  A 7 million square foot mixed-use project with 7 phases that will be fully built in 2025: A 4 threshold based on substantial progress toward meeting the 2030 target in SB 32 should be 5 used until such time that the state has a comprehensive plan to reach the 2030 target 6 (expected in 2017). In this example, that would be the amount of reductions or efficiency 7 needed by 2025. Interpolating between the 2020 target (1990 emissions) and the 2030 target 8 (40% below 1990 emissions), the 2025 threshold would be based on a target of 20% below 9 1990 emissions. Once the Scoping Plan Update for 2030 has been adopted, then a threshold 10 should be based on the SB 32 target of 40% below 1990 emissions. 11  A General Plan with build-out in 2040: A threshold based on substantial progress toward 12 meeting the 2050 target in S-03-05 should be used until such time that the state has a 13 comprehensive plan to reach the 2050 target. In this example, that could be the amount of 14 reductions or efficiency needed by 2040. Interpolating between the 2030 target (40% below 15 1990 emissions) and the 2050 target (80% below 1990 emissions), the 2040 threshold would 16 be based on a target of 60% below 1990 emissions.
17 Show Your Work (Provide Substantial Evidence)
18 If there is one lesson to heed from the Newhall Ranch ruling it is that CEQA lead agencies should 19 provide substantial evidence in their CEQA documents to support their significance determination 20 regarding GHG emissions. Mere citation of a threshold is not sufficient. Case law long before the 21 Newhall Ranch ruling demonstrated that nothing is taken as self-evident, obvious or “common 22 sense” in CEQA. One must show one’s work in order to get credit for it. 23 The Committee recommends that CEQA lead agencies document and explain their rationale as to 24 why a specific threshold is appropriate for evaluation of the subject project. Where appropriate, a 25 CEQA lead agency can cite and incorporate by reference the rationale provided by an air district or 26 other party as to why a particular threshold concept may be appropriate, but CEQA lead agencies are 27 advised to provide a summary of that rational in the CEQA document itself so that it is clear to the 28 reader (and especially to any potential court) that the lead agency has substantial evidence for the 29 threshold selected, as well as for the method used to determine significance.

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

October 2016
1 IV. New CEQA Thresholds for the Post-Newhall and
2 Post-2020 Era
3 4 Rich Walter, ICF
5 Based on the background of California regulatory action, CEQA court rulings, current CEQA and CAP 6 practice, and the foundational principles for threshold development for the future, this section 7 discusses potential CEQA thresholds for consideration by lead agencies in light of both the post8 2020 and post-Newhall Ranch ruling issues. 9 Due to the unique challenges associated with the percent below BAU threshold approach in light of 10 the Newhall Ranch ruling, the Committee makes no recommendations concerning its use as a CEQA 11 threshold at this time and recommends lead agencies consult legal counsel before considering its 12 use. The BAU threshold approach is discussed separately in Section V below. 13 Construction Emissions
14 Construction emissions, as a one-time emissions source, are not the primary focus of most of GHG 15 reduction planning, and constitute only a small part of the state’s overall inventory. However, given 16 that CEQA abhors a vacuum, and given that a project’s construction emissions may represent a 17 significant portion of total construction and operational emissions combined, the Committee 18 recommends that CEQA lead agencies include construction emissions in their CEQA documents and evaluate their significance using one of the following two methods33 19 :
20  Use Best Management Practices: Review the construction emissions and require the 21 application of all feasible BMPs for construction including 1) alternatively fueled vehicles, 22 including electrification as well as alternative fuels where reasonably available and certified 23 for use in construction equipment and vehicles (B5, B20, B100, renewable diesel, etc.), 2) 24 reduction of worker trips, where appropriate, and 3) sourcing of construction materials from 25 local sources when possible without substantial cost implications. 26  Amortize Construction Emissions Over the Operational Lifetime: Identify the total construction 27 emissions for all years of construction, divide them by the total number of years 28 representative of the operational lifetime, and then combine with the operational annual 29 emissions to make a single significance determination. For example, if construction of the 30 project occurs over 3 years and the operational lifetime is 30 years, sum up all 3 years of 31 construction emissions, divide by 30, and add the resulting emissions to the annual 32 operational emissions associated with the project.
33 The challenges of post-2020 GHG reductions would not result in a substantial change in the types of 34 thresholds used for evaluating of construction emissions, but the scrutiny to address all project 35 sources may increase; thus the Committee recommends that CEQA lead agencies be comprehensive

33 A third method is recommended by SMAQMD which is to use the operational threshold to evaluate construction GHG emissions. SMAQMD recommends this approach to provide a single standard for both construction and operations. Operational thresholds are usually developed using a methodology that focuses on operational emissions, not construction emissions. While this may be an acceptable approach in the SMAQMD area if a lead agency finds the rationale provided by SMAQMD in their justification document to be sufficient as substantial evidence, the Committee does not recommend its use in other areas unless a specific rational is developed to describe why the use of the same threshold for both construction and operation is appropriate and would result in GHG emissions consistent with statewide reduction targets.

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

October 2016
1 when using the BMP approach, and that they ensure use of an appropriate post-2020 based 2 threshold if the project includes a horizon beyond 2020. 3 The Newhall Ranch ruling did not particularly address construction emissions, but it alluded to the 4 need to include all aspects of the project in the GHG analysis. Therefore, the Committee recommends 5 that an explanation of the reasoning behind the significance determination for construction 6 emissions be provided in the document per the ruling’s emphasis on substantial evidence. 7 Operational Emissions from Land Use Development Projects 8 Potential thresholds for the evaluation of operational emissions from residential, commercial, and 9 mixed-use projects are discussed below. A discussion of post-2020 and Newhall Ranch ruling 10 considerations is provided for each threshold concept. The percent below BAU threshold approach 11 is discussed separately in Section V below.
12 Please note that the definition for “commercial” projects used herein focuses on office and retail 13 projects, and does not include industrial projects with unique emissions sources not included in the 14 land use sector inventory, such as industrial processes or stationary sources, or heavy off-road 15 vehicle or equipment operations (such as mining). The land use sector thresholds described below 16 are not considered appropriate for evaluating the following types of projects:
17 • heavy industry or manufacturing projects with substantial process or stationary source 18 emissions;
19 • oil and gas exploration, production, refining, and transportation; 20 • agricultural harvesting or processing;
21 • mining;
22 • timber harvesting;
23 • port cargo handling and marine emissions; and
24 • any other projects with emissions that are substantially different from residential and commercial office and retail projects. 25 34
26 The definition of “commercial” used herein also excludes transportation projects or plans, 27 whether public or private.
28 Consistency with Qualified GHG Reduction Plan
29 Current (2020 Milestone) Considerations
30 As noted above, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 defines the requirements for a qualified GHG 31 reduction plan. Under this threshold concept, a project that is consistent with a qualified GHG 32 reduction plan would be found to have a less than considerable (i.e., less than significant) 33 contribution to cumulative emissions. The project must be anticipated by the qualified plan, and the 34 project must be fully consistent with the plan (and/or provide the equivalent reductions to that 35 which would be expected under the plan for that project). The Committee recommends that

34 Some ports have commercial operations, such as hotels or convention centers that operate the same as hotels or convention centers outside of Port districts. Such projects would be suitable for evaluation using a land use threshold given the commonality of emissions inventories.

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

October 2016
1 documentation, in the form of a line-by-line review of the project’s consistency with the plan 2 measures and requirements, be provided in the CEQA document or as an attachment to the CEQA 3 document.
4 Post-2020 Considerations
5 Projects with a horizon year (e.g. the year in which the project is fully realized) beyond 2020 should 6 not tier from a GHG reduction plan that may be qualified up to 2020 but is not yet qualified for a 7 post-2020 period. Analysis of consistency with a 2020 plan should be provided in the CEQA 8 document, but would not be sufficient to demonstrate a less than significant impact for project with 9 a post-2020 horizon.
10 The Committee recommends that projects with a horizon past 2020 should only tier from a qualified 11 GHG reduction plan that provides substantial progress toward meeting the next milestone statewide 12 planning reduction target for the jurisdiction in which the project is located. In the immediate 13 future, the next reduction milestone would be 2030, per SB 32, and eventually will be 2050, per S14 03-05. A GHG reduction plan could have a horizon between the 2020 and 2030 milestone targets 15 until a statewide plan for 2030 exists, and similarly between 2030 and 2050 in the future until a 16 statewide plan for 2050 exists.
17 Responding to Newhall Ranch
18 The Newhall Ranch ruling specifically endorsed as an acceptable approach a significance 19 determination based on consistency with a GHG reduction plan that anticipates a project’s 20 emissions. Because qualified GHG reduction plans are comprehensive analyses of both existing and 21 new development emissions within a jurisdiction, and include a reduction target consistent with 22 statewide reduction planning, this approach to CEQA compliance is currently the most defendable of 23 all the threshold approaches discussed in this white paper. 24 Bright Line Thresholds
25 Current (2020 Milestone) Considerations
26 Bright line thresholds can come in two varieties: 1) Stand-alone threshold in which projects with 27 emissions above the threshold are considered significant; and 2) a screening threshold in which 28 projects with emissions above the threshold are evaluated suing a second tier threshold using an 29 efficiency threshold or other threshold concept) to determine if the emissions are actually 30 significant or not.
31 There is a common misperception about bright line thresholds, which holds that any project with 32 emissions greater than the bright line is by definition significant. This is only true if the threshold is 33 an absolute limit above which there is a substantial evidence based argument that a greater amount 34 of emissions is significant.
35 Most bright line thresholds identified for land use projects are actually screening thresholds intend 36 to be combined with a second-tier threshold. While it’s true that the bright line concept is based on 37 an argument positing that projects with emissions less than the bright line are less than significant, 38 the opposite is not true for the bright-line screening thresholds. Projects with emissions greater 39 than the bright line screening threshold may require further evaluation of their emissions and 40 consideration of mitigation and may or may not ultimately be determined to be significant 41 depending on that additional evaluation.

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

October 2016
1 Post-2020 Considerations
2 The bright line thresholds in use around the state to evaluate land use projects were primarily derived in one of two ways35 3 : 1) by estimating a level that would capture 90 percent of the land use 4 sector emissions that would arise from new development out to the milestone year for a region, or 5 2) by conducting a regional gap analysis, assuming an approximate amount of reductions feasible 6 due to state measures and project-level measures, and by identifying a level that would result in the 7 application of project mitigation sufficient to close the identified gap. 8 For the post-2020 world, the first approach is still conceptually sound, in that meaningful emissions 9 reductions will come from larger projects and one may not desire to apply additional mitigation 10 requirements (other than state mandates) to smaller projects. Some may argue that the level should 11 be increased to capture as much as 95% of all new development emissions on the hypothesis that 12 post-2020 efforts need to be more comprehensive than pre-2020 efforts. In order to derive a post13 2020 threshold, the analysis must take into account the type and amount of land use projects and 14 their expected emissions out to the next milestone year (2030). 15 The second approach is also sound for the post-2020 world, but for evaluating projects with a post16 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone (2030 or 2050). 18 Unfortunately, this new gap analysis would likely require completion of the next update of the 19 scoping plan in order to identify the state’s overall strategy to reach the 2030 or 2050 reduction 20 target.
21 Responding to Newhall Ranch
22 The Newhall Ranch ruling specifically mentioned consistency with a numeric threshold (the ruling 23 cited the BAAQMD’s bright line threshold) as an acceptable approach to determining significance. 24 CEQA documents using a bright line threshold should provide an explanation of the reasoning 25 behind the significance determination, per the ruling’s emphasis on substantial evidence including 26 citation or incorporation by reference of an air district’s or other third party’s justification rationale 27 supporting its use, as applicable.
28 Efficiency Thresholds
29 Current (2020 Milestone) Considerations
30 Efficiency thresholds have been developed for land use sector projects based on AB 32 targets and 31 are in common use by certain CEQA lead agencies.
32 Post-2020 Considerations
33 The current efficiency thresholds are based on the concept of meeting the necessary land use sector 34 GHG efficiency in 2020 to reach 1990 emissions levels. This threshold concept is one of the more 35 readily adaptable thresholds to a post-2020 world. The 1990 land use inventory is a known quantity 36 that does not change. What does change over time is amount of overall emissions allowable to meet 37 the state’s milestone reduction targets, as well as the increasing number of residents and employees

35 The Committee does not recommend the use of the federal stationary source permit trigger level (100,000 MTCO2e) as a land use sector GHG project threshold because it is not related to the land use sector. Although MDAQMD has recommended such a threshold, since it was derived from stationary source permitting, at the most, it should only apply to stationary sources. However it should be noted that BAAQMD, SCAQMD, and SMAQMD all recommend a stationary source threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e.

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

October 2016
1 in the state, which increases the service population. Thus, the numerator of the equation (allowable 2 emissions) is decreasing over time while the denominator of the equation (service population) is 3 increasing over time. As a result, the efficiency metric is decreasing at a faster rate than is the 4 emissions reduction, reflecting the reality that new land use development efficiency must be greater 5 than past efficiency in order to achieve more aggressive reduction targets, while also 6 accommodating more residents and more employment (from economic growth). 7 The Technical Appendix below presents data and calculations for an adjusted statewide 1990 land 8 use sector emissions inventory, and estimates of a 2020 efficiency metric as well as a new metric for 9 2030, as follows:
10  2020 Efficiency Metric Calculation
11  1990 Land Use Sector Inventory: 267.2 Million MTCO2e (= AB 32 Target) 12  Forecasted 2020 Service Population = 56.453 million 13  2020 Land Use Efficiency Threshold: = 4.7 MTCO2e/SP 14  2030 Efficiency Metric Calculation
15  40 percent below 1990 Land Use Sector Inventory: 160.3 Million MTCO2e (= SB 32 Target) 16  Forecasted 2030 Service Population = 61.527 million 17  2030 Land Use Efficiency Threshold: = 2.6 MTCO2e/SP 18 It should be noted that the specific efficiency threshold estimate will vary depending on the 19 emissions included in the statewide land use sector emissions inventory. As noted above, some air 20 districts or jurisdictions make varied choices about what to include. In addition, forecasts of future 21 population and employment necessarily change over time, meaning the efficiency threshold will also 22 change over time. This is especially true for very long-term forecasts, such as for 2050. The 23 Committee recommends using the most current state forecasts for population and employment 24 when identifying an efficiency threshold, as well as documenting clearly any adjustments in the land 25 use sector emissions inventory.
26 The Committee recommends that analysis go out only as far as the project’s full-build horizon. Lead 27 agencies may decide to apply a “substantial progress” paradigm to their threshold evaluation, 28 utilizing a threshold interpolated between the current GHG reduction milestone for which the state 29 has a plan for reductions and the next GHG reduction milestone for which the state does not yet have 30 a comprehensive plan for reductions. Thus, efficiency thresholds may be interpolated between a 31 2020 and a 2030 metric, or between a 2030 and 2050 metric. 32 Another approach to establishing efficiency thresholds would be to use a local jurisdictional (or 33 regional) 1990 GHG inventory and forecasted service population as the basis for calculating and 34 efficiency threshold instead of the statewide 1990 inventory and forecasted service population. 35 Responding to Newhall Ranch
36 The Newhall Ranch ruling specifically noted that a significance determination based on numeric 37 threshold may be an acceptable approach to determining significance, and it also emphasized that 38 measuring GHG efficiency is an appropriate paradigm. Thus, the validity of efficiency thresholds 39 would appear to be unaffected by the ruling.
40 The Newhall Ranch ruling was focused on evaluating the appropriateness of using a percent below 41 BAU threshold in the EIR for the subject project, and as such, the legal findings that are precedential 42 are directly related to the facts in that case. Opinions of a court that do not embody the resolution or 43 determination of the specific case before the court are commonly referred to as “dicta.” Expressions 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

October 2016
1 in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts presented in a particular case can be argued to be the 2 individual views of the author(s) of the opinion, and thus not binding as legal precedent in 3 subsequent cases.
4 In the context of evaluating the Newhall Ranch EIR’s analysis of GHG emissions, the Newhall Ranch 5 ruling includes discussions of whether a new development project can be properly evaluated by 6 comparison to an average reduction for all development (including both existing and new 7 development), and whether CEQA evaluation should also take into account potential adjustments 8 that may reflect a project’s specific location. The fundamental ruling was that the EIR lacked 9 substantial evidence to support the lead agency’s claim that the threshold used appropriately 10 evaluated the project’s GHG emissions, compared to state reduction targets. The ruling did not 11 examine exactly how or whether other considerations of location or existing development vs. new 12 development may or may not be relevant to an appropriate threshold. Thus, these discussions may 13 be considered to be dicta by some parties, and not precedential. 14 However, if the court’s concerns about existing vs. new development reductions or project location 15 were to be considered precedential, or otherwise legally relevant, there could be potential legal 16 concerns for other thresholds. In concept, a revised efficiency threshold could be developed for new 17 development only or based on a regional or jurisdictional land use inventory instead of the state 18 land use inventory. Since such concerns have not been raised in any legal challenge to date 19 regarding the efficiency threshold, and since the Newhall Ranch ruling is bound by the facts in that 20 case (which concern the percent below BAU threshold concept), such alternative efficiency 21 threshold concepts are not explored in this white paper. 22 CEQA documents using an efficiency threshold should provide an explanation of the reasoning 23 behind the significance determination per the ruling’s emphasis on substantial evidence including 24 citation or incorporation by reference of an air district’s or other third party’s justification rationale 25 supporting its use, as applicable.
26 A New Hybrid Threshold Approach
27 A new hybrid threshold concept that evaluates transportation GHG emissions separately from non28 transportation GHG emissions is discussed below. 29 Current (2020 Milestone) Considerations
30 There are two key laws in existence that address transportation GHG emissions and CEQA: SB 375 31 and SB 743. The requirements in these two statutes could be used to provide a separate evaluation 32 of transportation GHG emissions, as distinct from non-transportation GHG emissions. 33 Hybrid SB 375 Threshold Concept
34 SB 375 relieves certain residential and mixed-use projects that are consistent with an approved 35 RTP/SCS, from the requirement to consider the project’s GHG impacts from cars and light-duty truck 36 trips on climate change or regional transportation networks. Such consistent projects, by statute, do 37 not have significant impacts related to GHG emissions for passenger car and light-duty truck on-road 38 emissions.
39 Specifically, SB 375 establishes streamlining provisions as follows:
40 • A residential or mixed-use residential project must either:
41 o have at least 75 percent of the total building square footage of the project consist of 42 residential use; or
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

October 2016
1 o be a transit priority project as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21155. 2 • If it qualifies, then the project must meet the following streamlining criteria:
3 o The project must be consistent with the use designation, density, building intensity, 4 and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a SCS or APS; and 5 o CARB must have concurred that SCS or the APS meets the region’s GHG reduction 6 targets; and
7 o the project must incorporate any mitigation measures required by an applicable 8 prior environmental document.
9 • If the above criteria are met, the following CEQA streamlining are permitted:
10 o the CEQA document does not need to discuss growth inducing impacts; and 11 o the CEQA document does not need to discuss impacts from cars and light-duty truck 12 trips on global warming or the regional transportation network; and 13 o if an EIR is prepared, the EIR is not required to analyze reduced residential density 14 alternatives to address the effects of car and light-duty truck trips generated by the 15 project.
16 The relief under SB 375 could be combined with an efficiency threshold for the project’s non17 transportation emissions to provide coverage of all of the GHG emissions. The revised efficiency 18 threshold could be derived in the same way as the efficiency threshold described above, but the 19 onroad passenger car/light-duty truck transportation emissions would be excluded from the 20 calculation if using the SB 375 hybrid concept.
21 As explained in calculations in the Technical Appendix, the threshold for all emissions other 22 than passenger/light-duty truck emissions for 2020 in this case would be 2.8 MTCO2e/SP. 23 Under this concept, which has not been previously used (to the authors’ knowledge), a project 24 would first evaluate whether it qualified for the SB 375 CEQA streamlining noted above. If a project 25 did qualify, the CEQA document would need to 1) demonstrate that the project is consistent with the 26 RTP/ SCS, 2) demonstrate that it qualifies for the CEQA streamlining, 3) state that Public Resources 27 Code 21158 relieves the requirement to analyze the car/light duty truck GHG emissions and 4) then 28 explain the remaining evaluation using the modified efficiency threshold. 29 Hybrid SB 743 Threshold Concept
30 As described above, SB 743 (2013) calls for the replacement of traffic level of service (a 31 measurement of traffic congestion and delay) as a CEQA threshold for the evaluation of 32 transportation impacts, with thresholds based on vehicle miles travelled (VMT). In January 2016, 33 OPR released its proposed CEQA guidelines and a Technical Advisory. The technical advisory 34 included several recommended VMT thresholds that are based to a large extent on GHG reduction 35 needs and targets (such as VMT 15 percent below existing city and regional averages), as follows:
36  Screening Thresholds for Small Projects: Absent other evidence, "[p]rojects that generate fewer 37 trips than the threshold for studying consistency with a congestion management program, or 38 100 vehicle trips per day, generally may be assumed to cause a less than significant 39 transportation impact."
40  Residential Projects: "A project exceeding both existing city household VMT per capita minus 41 15 percent and existing regional household VMT per capita minus 15 percent may indicate a 42 significant transportation impact."
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

October 2016
1  Office Projects: "A project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per 2 employee may indicate a significant transportation impact." 3  Retail Projects: "A net increase in total VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact." 4  Mixed-Use Projects: The advisory suggests that the thresholds for the different project types 5 noted above could be used to evaluate the different project elements. 6 Since the VMT thresholds are being proposed based on GHG reduction needs overall, the VMT 7 thresholds could be used to assess transportation GHG emissions, and then a revised GHG efficiency 8 threshold could be used for the non-transportation emissions. The revised efficiency threshold could 9 be derived in the same way as the efficiency threshold described above, but all onroad 10 transportation emissions would be excluded from the calculation if using the SB 743 hybrid concept. 11 As explained in calculations in the Technical Appendix, the threshold for all emissions other 12 than on-road emissions in this case for 2020 would be 2.3 MTCO2e/SP. 13 Under this concept, which has not been used before (to the authors’ knowledge), a project would 14 first be evaluated for consistency with a SB 743 VMT threshold for on-road activities. Emissions not 15 related to onroad vehicle trips could be compared to the GHG efficiency metric identified in the 16 Technical Appendix. If the project exceeded either the SB 743 VMT threshold, or the revised 17 emissions efficiency threshold that excludes onroad vehicle emissions, then GHG emissions would 18 be determined to be significant.
19 Best Management Practice/Best Available Mitigation Approach 20 Current (2020 Milestone) Considerations
21 This is a new approach that is not currently in use (to the authors’ knowledge), but has been 22 discussed as a potential threshold approach by some air districts. This approach would be similar to 23 the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) approach used by air pollution control agencies when 24 reviewing new sources of pollution. Such new sources are required to incorporate BACT suitable for 25 a specific project, and the air pollution control agency with jurisdiction reviews the project during 26 the permit phase to ensure that BACT is properly identified and applied to the project. 27 For land use development project GHG emissions, this approach would require the development of a 28 list of BMPs (or BAM), that projects would be required to implement based on the type of project 29 proposed. In order to provide substantial evidence that would satisfy CEQA requirements, the BMPs 30 (or BAM) would need to be supported by quantitative evidence of their effectiveness in reducing 31 GHG emissions, and would need to be periodically updated based on costs, technology, and 32 feasibility, roughly every 3 years. In addition, the agency recommending the list of BMPs (or BAM) 33 would need to complete a quantitative evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the BMPs (or BAM) 34 in promoting GHG reductions that would make substantial progress toward the state meeting the 35 GHG milestone target applicable to the project horizon. 36 Under this concept, once a given project adopts the specified BMPs (or BAM) relevant to its project, 37 its emissions would be considered less than significant. Alternatives to the BMPs (or BAM) could be 38 proposed on a project-by-project basis provided evidence was also developed demonstrating that 39 the alternative measures would result in the same or greater GHG reductions as the approved 40 measures. This less than significant finding would rely on assurance that the measures provided by 41 the local agency, if implemented, would assist with making substantial progress toward statewide 42 reduction targets.
43 This threshold approach is not currently in use, so no recommended BMP (or BAM) list exists at 44 present to meet AB 32 reduction targets. If such an approach were advanced in the immediate 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

October 2016
1 future, the recommending entity would need to do a quantitative scenario analysis showing how 2 application of the BMP (or BAM) list would help the future portfolio of projects (in a jurisdiction, in a 3 region, or statewide) with a 2020 or earlier horizon to support the state meeting AB 32 2020 4 targets.
5 An alternative variant to this approach suggested by a commenter on the Draft White Paper would 6 be to require new projects to implement all currently feasible mitigation (which this paper refers to 7 as Best Available Mitigation) in order to be considered less than significant under CEQA. In the long 8 run there will be a need for GHG emission reductions more aggressive than required to meet AB 32 9 and SB 32. This approach uses that fact to justify the imposition of all currently feasible mitigation. 10 There are several challenges to implementing this variant approach: 1) identifying what is and isn’t 11 feasible or constitutes BAM could be a highly involved and contested process (like that for 12 establishing BACT for stationary sources for air quality); 2) in absence of comparison to a 13 quantitative threshold or a quantitative proof of effectiveness of BAM overall, some may argue that 14 this approach does not necessarily provide substantial evidence that the impact is reduced to less 15 than significant (e.g. sometimes implementation of all feasible mitigation does not necessarily 16 reduce impacts to an insignificant level).
17 Post-2020 Considerations
18 For the post-2020 period, a quantitative scenario analysis would be needed of the portfolio of future 19 projects out to the milestone being evaluated for substantial progress in meeting statewide 20 reduction targets. The BMP or BAM list used for meeting a 2020 AB32 target would not be the same 21 list used for meeting a 2030 SB 32 target. Although the measures may be similar, the level of 22 reductions will need to be higher for progressively more aggressive targets, meaning the specific 23 measures to meet future targets will be more stringent than earlier measures. 24 Since BMP or BAM lists should be updated relatively frequently to reflect changing technology and 25 practice, in concept the quantitative analysis could be provided along with the periodic update. The 26 rules about horizon years and applying statewide milestone targets (or substantial progress toward 27 milestone targets) discussed above relative to the status of statewide comprehensive reduction 28 planning would apply to this concept as well.
29 Responding to Newhall Ranch
30 The Newhall Ranch ruling did not mention a BMP or BAM approach. However, a BMP or BAM 31 approach would not incur any concern about existing vs. new development reductions because it 32 would be exclusive to new development. Depending on the character of the BMPs or BAM, they may 33 or may not include nuances regarding a project’s location or type that might provide a more direct 34 application of mitigation than concepts of GHG reductions that generically apply to a project. 35 CEQA documents using a BMP or BAM threshold approach should provide an explanation of the 36 reasoning behind the significance determination, per the ruling’s emphasis on substantial evidence 37 including citation or incorporation by reference of an air district’s or other third party’s justification 38 rationale supporting its use, as applicable. As noted above, a quantitative scenario analysis would be 39 one way to provide substantial evidence.
40 Compliance with Regulations
41 The Newhall Ranch ruling mentioned that an alternative evaluation of the significance of a new 42 development project’s GHG emissions might consist of evaluation of compliance and consistency 43 with adopted regulations. The court notes that the utility of this approach would depend on whether 44 there are sufficiently comprehensive regulations addressing the project’s GHG emissions.

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

October 2016
1 This approach is not in widespread use. In the immediate years following the development of the AB 2 32 Scoping Plan, some CEQA lead agencies used consistency with the Scoping Plan policies and 3 measures as a means by which to make significance determinations under CEQA. With the adoption 4 of the SB 97 amendments to the CEQA guidelines, evaluation of consistency in plans for reducing 5 GHG emissions is one of the recommended Appendix G guideline questions. However, the AB 32 6 Scoping Plan was not created as a means by which to review consistency of a new development 7 project, especially as most of the Scoping Plan measures apply to both existing and new 8 development, and only a few are specifically targeted at new development. Furthermore, some of 9 the measures aimed at new development are not defined in the Scoping Plan with sufficient clarity 10 to define a project’s individual implementation actions, which could be challenging in application 11 during a CEQA review.
12 However, as described below, once the state’s regulations are sufficiently robust to demonstrate that 13 their implementation overall would result in meeting the state’s next GHG milestone reduction 14 target, in concept, a consistency with regulation approach may be viable. 15 Current (2020 Milestone) Considerations
16 CEQA allows lead agencies to consider whether regulatory programs are adequate to reduce a 17 project’s potentially significant environmental effects. Since an individual project’s impact on 18 climate change cannot be determined, many practitioners have settled upon the emission reduction 19 target promulgated in AB 32 as the emission standard for the State. Under AB 32, the State’s 20 emission inventory must be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The CEQA Guidelines checklist question 21 in this situation is whether a project conflicts with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an 22 agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The ARB Scoping 23 Plan and its implementing regulations provide the regulatory framework for the State to achieve its 24 target and to track its progress.
25 An important underlying assumption with making a significance determination based on 26 compliance with regulations is that the regulations are adequate to address the impact without 27 resulting in significant impacts. When compliance with regulations is sufficient to mitigate the 28 impact, there is no related significant impact that would require a project to prepare an EIR or 29 provide additional mitigation to further reduce the impact. When regulations are only partially 30 effective in solving the problem, or if the regulatory program is not fully implemented, there may be 31 a gap between the amount that can be reasonably claimed from regulation and the amount needed 32 to achieve the target. During the early years after adoption of the ARB Scoping Plan, only some of the 33 regulations identified in the Scoping Plan as necessary to meet the AB 32 2020 target had been 34 adopted, and mere compliance with adopted regulations was deemed to be an insufficient basis on 35 which to conclude that a project’s GHG emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. 36 In the First Update to the 2008 AB 32 Scoping Plan (2014), ARB identified that the State had now 37 adopted sufficient laws and regulations to achieve the AB 32 target, including the following aspects 38 that address nearly all primary sources of emissions for new development projects:
39  Building Energy Use: Title 24, Renewable Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020), Cap and Trade. 40  Transportation: Pavley I, Advanced Clean Cars, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, SB 375, Cap and 41 Trade.
42  Solid Waste: Landfill methane control and waste diversion requirements. 43  Water: SB X7-7 water conservation requirements.
44  Large Stationary Sources: Cap and Trade.

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

October 2016
1 One concern for reliance on adopted laws and regulations for new development projects is SB 375, 2 which is implemented in a very indirect manner. Projects that are consistent with the RTP/SCS 3 adopted by their regional MPO under SB 375 would have less than significant car/light duty truck 4 GHG emissions by statute. Given that there are comprehensive regulations in place to meet AB 32, a 5 RTP/SCS-consistent project could be found to have less than significant GHG emissions based on a 6 consistency with regulations approach. However, projects that are not consistent with the RTP/SCS 7 may require further evaluation of their GHG emissions, perhaps using a different threshold 8 approach. ARB is relying on only a limited amount of reductions from SB 375, only some of which 9 come exclusively from new development. However, in the absence of a specific quantitative 10 threshold, it may be challenging to assume that projects that are not consistent with the RTP/SCS 11 necessarily have less than significant GHG emissions without further evidence, given the 12 inconsistency with SB 375.
13 Therefore, projects that comply with regulations could be presumed to be consistent with the AB 32 14 target under certain conditions. A project’s location would not necessarily matter, because the State 15 projections already factor in diverse location in their 2020 projection, unless the project was 16 inconsistent with the RTP/SCS, in which case project location may be relevant. 17 This option is viable for the next several years, until the state adopts a legislative target and a 18 reduction plan for the next milestone beyond 2020 (which will be 2030). 19 The State has now successfully completed most of its regulatory program, and when combined with 20 growth forecasts lower than initially expected in the 2008 AB 32 Scoping Plan, it is on track to 21 achieving the 2020 target. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that regulations currently in 22 place are adequate to achieve the standard, and that projects that comply with GHG regulations are 23 doing their part.
24 Post-2020 Considerations
25 There is no comprehensive statewide plan to meet a post-2020 GHG reduction target, and thus this 26 approach is not viable for the post-2020 period, at present. 27 Responding to Newhall Ranch
28 The Newhall Ranch ruling specifically mentioned the possibility of a significance determination 29 based on consistency with adopted regulations. As noted above, the adopted regulations should be 30 sufficiently comprehensive to address most if not all of the project’s GHG emissions; and the project 31 would need to be consistent with the regional RTP/SCS to be determined to be less than significant 32 for transportation emissions. If the project were to have a substantial portion of its emissions not 33 addressed by adopted regulations, then this approach is not recommended by the Committee. This 34 approach is also not recommended by the Committee for any project with a horizon beyond 2020. 35 CEQA documents using a consistency with regulations approach should provide an explanation of 36 the reasoning behind the significance determination, per the ruling’s emphasis on substantial 37 evidence including citation or incorporation by reference of any third party justification rationale 38 supporting its use, as applicable.

General Plans36 39

36 The plan-level thresholds are not recommended by the Committee for smaller area land use plans such as Specific Plans or Station Area Plans because such plans will only have some of the emissions sources included in the overall statewide inventory and are likely better evaluated using one of the project threshold approaches.

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

October 2016
1 General plans can utilize many of the thresholds described above for land use projects. 2 The following is a summary of considerations of different threshold concepts for general plans. 3 Regarding post-2020 and post-Newhall concerns, please see the discussion of such issues under the 4 specific threshold approach above, as the same issues would apply to use of a threshold approach 5 for determining significance of GHG emissions for general plans. 6  Consistency with a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan: This is the best approach for determining 7 significance of GHG emissions for general plans. A CAP can be prepared prior to or as part of 8 preparation of comprehensive general plan updates. A CAP could also be prepared following a 9 general plan update, provided the EIR for the general plan included sufficient detail of the 10 timing requirements for adoption of the CAP, the GHG reduction target, and enforceability and 11 monitoring of the CAP. However, the CAP may have a horizon that is shorter than the buildout 12 horizon in a general plan. While the EIR for the GP must analyze full buildout emissions, if that 13 buildout will occur far ahead in the future, the CAP may have a more pragmatic horizon that is 14 tied to statewide reduction planning. For example, if a general plan is being developed with a 15 horizon of 2040, the EIR needs to analyze GHG emissions out to 2040, but it may be more 16 pragmatic to develop a 2030 CAP that lines up with the Scoping Plan update currently in 17 preparation.
18  Bright Line Thresholds: There are no existing bright line thresholds for general plans, and the 19 Committee does not recommend development or use of bright line thresholds for CEQA 20 evaluations of general plan because development of a threshold applicable to all jurisdiction is 21 likely fraught with peril; additionally, the other threshold approaches provide superior 22 approaches to comparing a jurisdiction’s emissions with statewide reduction target. 23  Efficiency Thresholds: Certain air districts have recommended efficiency thresholds for general 24 plans that are similar to project-level thresholds, but that are based on an estimate which 25 includes the full state emissions inventory, not just the land use sector inventory, on the 26 premise that comprehensive general plans include a broader set of emissions (such as 27 industrial processes). The Technical Appendix shows estimates of GHG efficiency metrics for 28 general plans.
29  Best Management Practices or Best Available Mitigation: In concept, a jurisdiction could 30 evaluate a new development and associated emissions allowed by a general plan, then identify 31 BMPs or BAM to be implemented for new development, and make a quantitative assessment 32 of how the reduced emissions are or are not consistent with statewide reduction targets. In 33 effect, this would be the same as a CAP, but limited to only new development emissions. 34  Consistency with Regulations: Given that most general plans have horizons that are decades in 35 the future, this approach is likely not viable if the planning horizon exceeds the horizon of 36 current comprehensive GHG regulations.
37 Operational Emissions from Industrial Projects
38 Industrial projects containing sources of GHG emissions that are substantially different than typical 39 land use projects will not be able to use land use sector-derived thresholds. Apart from the 40 stationary source thresholds adopted by several air districts (see below), there are no thresholds 41 that have been developed specifically for use by industrial projects including emissions beyond 42 stationary sources. If an industrial project were to include office space or retail space in additional to 43 industrial sources, the project might be able to use sector-specific thresholds to evaluate different 44 types of emissions.
45 The following is a summary of considerations of different threshold concepts for operational 46 emissions generated by industrial projects. Regarding post-2020 and post-Newhall concerns, please 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

October 2016
1 see the discussion of such issues under the specific threshold approach above, as the same issues 2 would apply to use of a threshold approach for determining significance of GHG emissions for 3 industrial projects.
4  Consistency with a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan: If an industrial project is included in the 5 emissions inventory and forecasts are addressed in a qualified GHG reduction plan, then the 6 project could tier off the plan. However, the common practice when developing CAPs is to 7 exclude industrial projects from being addressed in the CAP, due to the desire by many 8 jurisdictions to avoid duplicating state and/or federal regulation of industrial emissions sources. 9 37
10  Bright Line Thresholds: Several air districts have adopted mass emissions thresholds for 11 stationary source emissions that could be used for projects with such emissions in the specific 12 air districts.
13  Efficiency Thresholds: There are no adopted or recommended GHG efficiency thresholds for 14 industrial projects, although such a threshold could be developed for a specific industrial 15 sector that could benchmark GHG emissions by a meaningful industrial output unit. For 16 example, in concept, a port’s GHG efficiency could be benchmarked based on freight tonnage 17 or twenty-foot unit (TEU) amount, or a concrete plant could be benchmarked based on 18 concrete tons manufactured. Given the wide diversity of industrial activities, it would be 19 difficult to come up with uniform efficiency metrics that would apply to multiple industrial sectors; the metrics would likely need to be industry-specific. 20 38 21  Best Management Practices or Best Available Mitigation: Although there are many GHG BMPs 22 for industrial projects that have been developed by individual industries and trade 23 associations, no specific BMPs or BAM have been identified for GHGs by California air districts 24 or land use agencies for use as the basis for a BMP or BAM threshold approach under CEQA. 25 Given the wide diversity of industrial activities, it could be difficult to come up with uniform 26 BMPs or BAM that would apply to multiple industrial sectors; the BMPs or BAM would likely 27 need to be industry-specific.
28  Consistency with Regulations: There are many adopted regulations in California applicable to 29 industrial sources addressing GHG emissions and other air pollutant emissions. Through 30 2020, source specific requirements and the Cap and Trade system can be argued to have 31 established an effective means of controlling industrial source emissions to meet AB 32, but 32 they would not be sufficient to address post-2020 reduction targets yet. 33 Operational Emissions from Transportation Projects
34 Transportation projects pose very different issues than do development or industrial projects, and 35 the threshold concepts developed for such other projects are therefore not appropriate for 36 transportation projects. Accordingly, slightly different analysis and threshold concepts are discussed 37 below for transportation projects.

37 Large stationary sources are regulated by ARB under the California Cap and Trade program and are proposed to be regulated under the Clean Power Plan by the U.S. EPA. While there is nothing to stop a local land use authority regulating GHG emissions of these sources, provided such regulation did not conflict with state regulations and did not usurp federal authority, most local land use authorities will choose to leave regulation of their GHG emissions to state and federal agencies.
38 While a universal benchmark could be the GHG emission per $ value added, this would be highly discriminatory against GHG intensive industries that provide vital inputs (like concrete) to support the California economy, and such a universal benchmark is not recommended by the Committee for that reason.

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

October 2016
1 Transportation Projects that Would Not Increase Roadway Capacity for General 2 Use
3 Transportation Projects that Reduce GHG Emissions
4 The easiest transportation projects for which to determine significance of GHG emissions under 5 CEQA are transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvement projects, as well as transportation 6 alternative fuel projects (such as electrification of existing fossil fuel transit) that would result in net 7 GHG reductions. Provided the net reductions can be adequately quantified, such projects can be 8 readily determined to have a less than significant impact due to GHG emissions. 9 Transportation Projects Not Likely to Result in Increased VMT or GHG Emissions 10 As listed in the January 2016 OPR Draft Guidelines for SB 743, the following projects are not likely to 11 lead to substantial or measureable increases in VMT, and could be argued to not result in substantial 12 or measureable increases in annual GHG emissions (after construction):
13  rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement and repair projects designed to improve the 14 condition of existing transportation assets that do not add additional motor vehicle lanes; 15  roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown space,” otherwise improve safety, or 16 provide bicycle access;
17  addition of an auxiliary lane of less than one mile’s length designed to improve roadway 18 safety;
19  installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as 20 left, right, and U-turn pockets, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through 21 lanes;
22  addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets, provided the project also 23 substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit; 24  conversion of existing general purpose lanes (including ramps) to managed lanes or transit 25 lanes, or changing lane management in a manner that would not substantially decrease 26 impedance to use;
27  reduction in number of through lanes, e.g., a “road diet”; 28  grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians, or bicycles, or to replace a 29 lane in order to separate preferential vehicles (e.g., HOV, HOT, or trucks) from general 30 vehicles;
31  installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal 32 Priority (TSP) features;
33  traffic metering systems;
34  timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow; 35  installation of roundabouts;
36  installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices; 37  adoption of or increase in tolls;
38  addition of tolled lanes, where tolls are sufficient to mitigate VMT increase (e.g., encourage 39 carpooling, fund transit enhancements such as bus rapid transit or passenger rail in the tolled 40 corridor);
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

October 2016
1  conversion of streets from one-way to two-way operation with no net increase in the number 2 of traffic lanes;
3  removal of off-street parking spaces;
4  adoption or modification of on-street parking or loading restrictions (including meters, time 5 limits, accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking permit programs); and 6  addition of traffic wayfinding signage.
7 Transportation Projects that Increase Roadway Capacity 8 Roadway projects that increase capacity for general vehicular purposes are more challenging with 9 respect to evaluating GHG impacts. There are three general threshold concepts applicable to 10 roadway capacity increasing projects, detailed immediately below. 11 Consistency with Regulations Approach
12 Some lead agencies, such as Caltrans, argue that roadway projects, even those that increase capacity, 13 are only responding to travel demand that is generated by residential, commercial, and industrial 14 growth and hence do not generate “new” GHG emissions. In this line of thinking, economic growth 15 and travel demand are exogenous variables that exist outside the transportation domain, and 16 transportation projects influence a pre-set condition of travel demand. As such, it is argued that a 17 roadway project will not increase travel demand in any way, but rather will influence only traffic 18 conditions, such as congestion. Caltrans, in particular, uses a “consistency with plans and policy” 19 approach to determining the significance of GHG emissions of roadway projects. Caltrans CEQA 20 documents describe the different ways that the state is seeking to reduce transportation emissions, 21 including Pavley I, Advanced Clean Cars, LCFS, SB 375, as well as Caltrans-specific sustainability 22 initiatives. The argument boils down to evidence pointing to the ability of the state as a whole to 23 meet AB 32 targets provided that Caltrans projects are consistent with all of the state regulations 24 and initiatives.
25 Consistency with SB 375 RTP/SCS Approach
26 While Caltrans includes SB 375 in its review of state regulations relative to transportation GHG 27 emissions, there remains the issue of potential use consistency with SB 375 more broadly for both 28 state highway as well as local roadway projects. SB 375 established that land use projects that are 29 consistent with an adopted RTP/SCS consistent with regional VMT reduction targets do not have a 30 significant impact on GHG emissions related to passenger and light duty vehicle emissions. Since the 31 RTP/SCSs inherently include the transportation network in the region to which they apply, there is a 32 perception that roadway projects which are included in the transportation network included in the 33 SB 375 compliant RTP/SCS to address general roadway travel demand needs could be determined 34 to have a less than significant impact related to general vehicular emissions. It would be logically 35 inconsistent to argue that a land use project does not have significant GHG emissions related to 36 car/light duty trucks if it is consistent with a compliant RTP/SCS, but that a roadway project 37 included in the same compliant RTP/SCS which is used by those same vehicles would somehow have 38 a significant impact related to roadway traffic GHG emissions. Nonetheless, the state legislature only 39 included specific language relative to land use projects, not to transportation projects, and thus one 40 could argue that despite the inconsistency, the legislature did not intend to extend this partial 41 exemption to roadway projects. A further complication may arise if the draft SB 743 guidelines (see 42 discussion below) are adopted, including the current draft language concerning roadway projects 43 and induced travel.
44 Areas without an adopted RTP/SCS would not be able to use this approach.

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

October 2016
1 VMT Increase Threshold per SB 743
2 As explained above, the 2016 OPR draft guidelines and associated technical advisory propose VMT3 based thresholds that support GHG emission reduction (as well as non-vehicular transportation 4 effectiveness and efficiency) to replace current significance thresholds evaluating traffic delay. In the 5 proposed guidelines, OPR recommends language stating that additional lane miles may induce 6 automobile travel and VMT. In its draft Technical Advisory accompanying the proposed guidelines, 7 OPR argues that additional roadway capacity, while relieving congestion in the short-run, would in 8 the long-run “induce” additional VMT by facilitating longer distance trips. The Technical Advisory 9 states the following:
10 “Projects that would likely lead to an increase in VMT, and therefore should undergo 11 analysis”… include “addition of through lanes on existing or new highways, including 12 general purpose lanes, HOV lanes, peak period lanes, auxiliary lanes, and lanes through 13 grade-separated interchanges.”
14 The Technical Advisory includes a suggested VMT threshold for transportation projects based on 15 calculations of the amount of VMT that would be consistent with meeting the SB 32 target to reduce 16 GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (taking into account other improvements in 17 vehicle efficiency and reduction in fuel GHG intensity). The estimated “fair share VMT” per 18 transportation project is estimated as 2,075,220 VMT/year. 19 This line of thinking could equally be applied to GHG emissions. As noted above, such an approach 20 could result in a determination that a roadway capacity-increasing project would have a significant 21 impact on GHG emissions because it would increase VMT and associated transportation emissions 22 by more than what is needed to support the SB 32 2030 target. 23 A counterargument to this approach would need to demonstrate, with substantial evidence, that 24 overall transportation emissions will be going down due to the improvement in vehicle technology 25 and changes in vehicle fuels, and that the VMT increase would not frustrate the achievement of 26 overall GHG reduction targets.
27 Post-2020 Considerations for Transportation Project Thresholds 28 The approach of analyzing consistency with regulations to determine significance for transportation 29 emissions is cogent when considering the relation of a project to meeting AB 32 2020 targets. 30 However, there is no comprehensive plan for achieving post-2020 milestone targets at present, and 31 thus there may be a period of uncertainty for projects with a post 2020 horizon until the statewide 32 plans are further developed to meet a 2030 or other milestone year reduction target. 33 Consistency with the SB 375 approach could be applied to the post-2020 period as well as to 2020 34 because the RTP/SCSs are long-range plans which commonly include analysis out to at least 20 35 years or more into the future. The adopted RTP/SCSs include horizon years of 2035 or 2040, and 36 thus extend well beyond the horizon of adopted statewide GHG reduction plans. 37 Responding to Newhall Ranch in Regard to Transportation Project Thresholds 38 None of the current approaches for evaluating GHG emissions for transportation projects relies on a 39 percent below BAU threshold approach, and thus are not directly affected by the ruling, narrowly 40 speaking. The concerns raised in the ruling about existing vs. new development, project location, 41 and density are applicable only to land use development and thus do not raise any immediate 42 concerns for transportation projects. CEQA documents for transportation projects should fully 43 disclose the reasoning behind the significance determination, per the ruling’s emphasis on 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

October 2016
1 substantial evidence including citation or incorporation by reference of any third party justification 2 rationale supporting its use, as applicable.

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

October 2016
1 V. The Percent below BAU Threshold
2 Dave Mitchell, Mitchell Air Quality Consulting
3 Rich Walter, ICF
4 The Newhall Ranch ruling directly affects the percent below BAU threshold. This section provides 5 discussion of several ways to address the concerns raised in that ruling. Since none of them have 6 been tested in court to date, and the court itself acknowledged that it did not know what approaches 7 would satisfy its concerns, CEQA lead agencies are advised to use caution and to consult with CEQA 8 counsel if considering employing this threshold concept at this time. 9 Key Aspects of the Newhall Ranch Ruling
10 The Newhall Ranch opinion calls into question whether the percent reduction below BAU amount 11 required by the State to achieve a statewide target overall is appropriate to use as a CEQA 12 significance threshold for evaluation of an individual development project. The Supreme Court held 13 in the Newhall Ranch circumstances that the administrative record lacked sufficient information to 14 support the agency’s reliance on this threshold to make a finding of less than significant impact. The 15 concept of a percent below BAU threshold was upheld, but the Court found that its application to 16 this project was not adequately supported by evidence in the record. 17 Relevant excerpts from the majority opinion are provided below:
18 Page 19. “We reach this conclusion because the administrative record discloses no 19 substantial evidence that Newhall Ranch‘s project-level reduction of 31 percent in 20 comparison to business as usual is consistent with achieving A.B. 32‘s statewide goal of a 21 29 percent reduction from business as usual…. “
22 Page 22. “Nothing DFW or Newhall points to in the administrative record shows the 23 statewide density assumptions used in that model mirror conditions in the Santa 24 Clarita Valley. To the extent the Scoping Plan‘s business-as-usual scenario assumes 25 population densities greater than the Santa Clarita Valley density assumed in the EIR‘s 26 business-as-usual projection, the EIR‘s comparison of project reductions from business as 27 usual to reductions demanded in the Scoping Plan will be misleading.” 28 Page 23. “We hold only that DFW erred in failing to substantiate its assumption that the 29 Scoping Plan‘s statewide measure of emissions reduction can also serve as the criterion for 30 an individual land use project.”
31 Page 25. “On an examination of the data behind the Scoping Plan‘s business-as-usual 32 model, a lead agency might be able to determine what level of reduction from business as 33 usual a new land use development at the proposed location must contribute in order to 34 comply with statewide goals.”
35 Changing the Percent below BAU Threshold?
36 Rich Walter, ICF
37 Later in this section, a potential defense of the currently constructed percent below BAU threshold 38 in light of the Newall Ranch ruling is provided. Alternatively, if a lead agency determines that the 39 current percent below BAU approach is insufficient for its purposes, a lead agency may want to 40 consider different versions of a percent below BAU threshold, including one of the following:
41  Revised Percent below BAU Threshold Based on New Development Emissions Only: Under this 42 concept, the percent reduction required for new development would be based only on the 43 reductions assumed in the Scoping Plan for new development. The Scoping Plan BAU forecast 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

October 2016
1 can be disaggregated to identify new development emissions after a particular base year, and 2 then all of the relevant scoping plan measures could be applied to those emissions to 3 determine the reduction compared to BAU emissions for new development only. While some 4 of the measures could be readily applied (such as the RPS, Title 24, or Pavely 1 and the 5 Advanced Clean Car Program), others, such as Cap and Trade, efficiency measures, and the 6 Regional Transportation Plan target measure may be challenging to disaggregate to new 7 development from overall emissions. This approach would address the Newhall Ranch ruling’s 8 concerns about existing vs. new development. Members of the Committee have examined the 9 feasibility of using the current Scoping Plan (designed to achieve the 2020 target in AB 32) 10 data to derive a new threshold for new development emissions only and have determined that 11 there is insufficient documentation available from ARB to establish a definitive threshold for 12 new development only because the reductions in the Scoping Plan for new development 13 cannot be accurately segregated from the reductions in the Scoping Plan for existing 14 development. The Committee has requested that ARB provide a greater amount of 15 transparency in the data utilized for the current Scoping Plan Update for 2030 to allow the 16 potential development of a new threshold for new development only in the future. 17  Revised Percent below BAU Threshold Based on Land Use Sector Emissions Only: Under this 18 concept, the percent reduction required for new development would be based only on the 19 reductions assumed in the Scoping Plan for the land use sector. The Scoping Plan BAU forecast 20 would be disaggregated to identify land use emissions, and then all of the relevant scoping 21 plan measures could be applied to those emissions. The BAAQMD conducted this analysis 22 when establishing their GHG thresholds (BAAQMD 2011), and found the reductions needed to 23 reduce 2020 BAU land use sector emissions to 1990 levels in the Bay Area would be 24 approximately 26.2%, and that existing regulations would provide approximately 23.9% of 25 the needed reductions, leaving a gap of 2.3% that could be made up by new development. This 26 approach would address the Newhall Ranch ruling’s concerns about applying a statewide 27 reduction amount for all types of development to a land use project. 28  Revised Percent below BAU Threshold Based on New Land Use Development Emissions Only:
29 Under this concept, the percent reduction required for new development would be based only 30 on the reductions assumed in the Scoping Plan for new land use development. The Scoping 31 Plan BAU forecast would be disaggregated to identify new land use development emissions 32 after a particular base year, and then all of the relevant scoping plan measures could be 33 applied to those emissions. As noted above, while some of the measures could be readily 34 applied (such as the RPS, Title 24, or Pavley 1 and the Advanced Clean Car Program), others, 35 such as Cap and Trade, efficiency measures and the Regional Transportation Plan target 36 measure are highly challenging to disaggregate to new development from all development. 37 This approach would address the Newhall Ranch majority’s concerns about applying a 38 statewide reduction amount for all types of existing and new development to new land use 39 development. Similar to the discussion above, the Committee has determined that there is 40 insufficient data in the current Scoping Plan to establish a definitive threshold for 2020 for 41 new development only and has requested greater transparency by ARB in the Scoping Plan 42 update for 2030.
43  Revised Percent below BAU Threshold Based on Local Jurisdiction Emissions Only: Under this 44 concept, the percent reduction required for new development would be based only on the 45 reductions needed for a local jurisdiction to meet a statewide equivalent target. This is the 46 type of analysis commonly conducted during preparation of a CAP. This approach would 47 address the Newhall Ranch ruling’s concerns about difference in location of new development. 48 This approach would require local GHG inventories and forecasts. 49  Revised Percent below BAU Threshold Based on New Land Use Development Emissions in the 50 Local Jurisdiction Only: Under this concept, the percent reduction required for new 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

October 2016
1 development would be based only on the reductions needed for a local jurisdiction to meet a 2 statewide equivalent target. This is the type of analysis commonly conducted during 3 preparation of a CAP. This approach would address the Newhall Ranch ruling’s concerns about 4 difference in location of new development, and differences in reductions for existing and new 5 development. This approach would require the development of a local CAP in its entirety, in 6 order to identify the role of local new development in reducing local jurisdiction emissions to 7 be consistent with statewide reduction targets.
8 Keeping the Percent below BAU Threshold?
9 Dave Mitchell, Mitchell Air Quality Consulting
10 The following is a potential approach to demonstrate that a percent below BAU threshold selected 11 for project analysis complies with the Newhall Ranch ruling. This approach is limited to the 2020 12 period and AB 32 targets only. See discussion below of post-2020 concerns. 13 The Committee makes no recommendation at this time in the use of a percent below BAU threshold 14 due to the unresolved issues in the Supreme Court ruling. Lead agencies are advised to seek the 15 advice of legal counsel in the identification of thresholds for use in CEQA evaluations. 16 For the sake of information, this White Paper presents a potential approach to provide substantial 17 evidence for the percent below BAU threshold. This approach would require lead agencies to:
18  Demonstrate that the regulations currently in place on project emission sources will allow the 19 state to achieve the 2020 target while accommodating growth with or without GHG reductions 20 under CEQA.
 Demonstrate that a 28 percent reduction39 21 (or less) below BAU is sufficient for projects to 22 demonstrate that they will not conflict with achieving the state’s AB 32 targets. 23  Describe how the AB 32 Scoping Plan and the percent below BAU threshold approach address 24 different rates of growth in different parts of the state without the need for higher percentage 25 reductions in certain areas.
26  Describe how the AB 32 Scoping Plan and the percent below BAU threshold approach address 27 issues of land development location.
28  Describe how the AB 32 Scoping Plan and the percent below BAU threshold approach address 29 different land use densities.
30 Can We Meet AB 32 with Current Regulations Only (e.g. without CEQA 31 reductions)?
32 If regulations are sufficient to address a significant cumulative impact, no additional reductions are 33 required of projects by CEQA. CEQA Guidelines 15130 (c) states that with some projects the only 34 feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve adoption of ordinances or regulations rather 35 than imposition of conditions on a project by project basis. This appears to be the case for 36 greenhouse gas impacts from projects constructed prior to 2020. Cumulative greenhouse gas 37 impacts would be considered mitigated if the State has adopted regulations sufficient to achieve the 38 AB 32 2020 target accounting for cumulative growth in California through 2020.

39 As noted above, while many agencies have been using a metric of 29 percent below BAU, based on the actual data referenced to the AB 32 Scoping Plan (2008), the reduction to meet AB 32 would be 28 percent below BAU (as shown in tables in the Technical Appendix).

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

October 2016
1 The First Update to the Scoping Plan (2014) describes the progress achieved in adopting the 2 regulations implementing the Scoping Plan (2008), and indicates that the state is on track to meet 3 the 2020 target accounting for the latest growth forecasts. This success has had substantial 4 implications on projects using a percent below BAU threshold as a basis for significance 5 determinations under CEQA. The question to be answered is how to show that a project’s impact is 6 consistent with the Scoping Plan’s growth and control forecast and would not interfere with the 7 State reaching its targets.
8 Role of New Development in Achieving the AB 32 Targets 9 Most of the state’s measures apply to both existing and new development, including the RPS, Pavley 10 standards, LCFS, landfill regulations, regulations and programs on high GWP gases, initiatives on 11 water conservation (such as SB X7-7), and the indirect influence of the Cap and Trade system on 12 electricity and transportation fuel prices. In some areas, the Scoping Plan actually places a priority 13 on reductions from existing development. For example, the 2008 Scoping Plan states the following 14 in relation to electricity and natural gas sectors:
15 “In fact, improving the efficiency of California’s existing building stocks is the single most 16 important activity to reduced GHG emissions within the electricity and natural gas 17 sectors.”
18 There are very few strategies in the AB 32 Scoping Plan that specifically target emissions from only 19 new development. Two of the key measures are new building standards (Title 24 of the California 20 Building Code) and the Regional Transportation Target measure. 21  Title 24 energy efficiency standards are updated every few years and aim at making new 22 development more energy efficient. These standards will apply to all new development, 23 regardless of whether or not they are subject to CEQA, and whether any project-level analysis 24 will identify the need for GHG reductions. The current Title 24 standards will result in 25 approximately 25 percent greater energy efficiency than the prior version. 26  Reductions from regional targets are based on a combination of actions including density 27 increases and locational priorities near transit for new development, improvements in traffic 28 congestion that improve fuel efficiency, and increased use of transportation alternatives such 29 as transit, cycling, and walking. The land use and transportation reductions from regional 30 targets required by SB 375 are a small component of the transportation sector strategy, with 31 reductions estimates of 3 MMTCO2e by 2020, out of the 114 MMTCO2e reductions required by 32 2020.
33 If a project is consistent with an adopted RTP/SCS, then its passenger car and light-duty truck on34 road vehicle GHG emissions are considered less than significant under SB 375. Given that all new 35 RTP/SCS-consistent development projects would be subject to Title 24, and would also benefit from 36 all the other state programs that apply equally to new and existing development, it’s hard to see how 37 such projects would have a significant impact on GHG emissions, when considering only AB 32 and 38 the 2020 target. It’s possible that projects that are not consistent with a RTP/SCS would also have a 39 less than significant impact, because the state’s regulatory regime is sufficiently robust to meet AB 40 32 targets regardless of some inconsistencies by certain projects across the state, given the limited 41 reductions assumed in the state’s plan.
42 At least for projects consistent with a RTP/SCS (and possibly for all projects), this line of argument 43 could address the Newhall Ranch Court’s concern about demonstrating that individual projects 44 would not restrict the ability of the state to achieve the AB 32 target. If the state achieves its target 45 without needing any reductions from new development beyond regulations, then there is by 46 definition no conflict.

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