State of California Authority Over Natural and Working Lands California actively manages natural and working lands through various agencies with a wide range of authority and missions. State authority and specific agency authority to preempt local police power over zoning is narrow and limited
i to specific statewide objects, that include housing requirements but not where the units should be zoned,ii and specific areas like the coastal zone or under the Subdivision Map Act.iii, iv State preemption over charter city municipal affairs is expressly limited by California Constitution Article XI, §§ 3 and 5. Additionally, CEQA applies to a broad range of projects, as defined, on natural and working lands and is a major consideration when analyzing land and resource uses. The California Endangered Species Act may also affect use of habitat and would need to be specifically analyzed.
v
State policy continues to increase focus on natural and working lands that may inform and support local action or create the opportunity to align with state action. The following summarizes some of these state policies:
• SB 1386 (Wolk, Chapter 545, Statutes of 2016) established protecting and managing natural and working lands as state policy to help achieve California’s GHG reduction goals, including the intent to promote cooperation of owners of natural and working lands. • Executive Order B-55-18’s 18’s goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 incorporates working lands, including agriculture, in the CARB’s 2022 AB 32 Scoping Plan update that is currently under development and expected to be approved by the end of 2022. • Executive Order N-82-20’s addresses biodiversity, 30% land and coastal water conservation, acceleration of natural carbon sequestration and climate resiliency on natural and working lands, and creation of the Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy, including setting a statewide target to meet the 2045 carbon neutrality goal.
i See Government Code § 65000 et seq.; See Scrutton v. County of Sacramento , 275 Cal. App. 2d 412, 417 (1978). ii See Government Code §§ 65913.1(a), 65863.5, 65583(a)(3), 65584, & 65584.01. iii Government Code §§ 66410 et seq.
iv See Government Code §§ 66411, 66421, 66477, 66478, 66479, 66483, & 66484; see also Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of Supervisors, 38 Cal. App. 3d 497, 505, (1974). v Fish & Game Code § 2050 et seq.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 458 of 560
420
• SB 27 (Skinner, Chapter 237, Statutes of 2021) established a Natural and Working Land Climate Smart Strategy that includes developing a framework to achieve California’s climate goals and mandates CARB to set CO
2 removal targets for 2030 and beyond under its Scoping Plan for all emission sectors including those in this framework. It also requires the Natural Resources Agency to create a carbon removal and sequestration registry to identify, list, fund projects by state agencies and private entities, and retire projects in the state that drive climate action on the state’s natural and working lands.
• SB 859 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 368, Statutes of 2016) Natural and Working Land Inventory quantitatively estimated the existing state of ecosystem carbon stored in the State's land base and excluded GHG emissions associated with direct human activity quantified in CARB’s annual statewide GHG inventory.
i
• The Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan set targets out to 2030 and pathways to at least double the pace and scale of state-funded restoration and management activities, including: 1) increasing the acreage in soil conservation practices for cultivated land and rangelands by five times to change agricultural land from a net emitter to a sink by 2030; 2) doubling the pace and scale of forest managed or restored; 3) tripling the pace of restoration of oak savannas and riparian areas; and 4) and doubling the rate of wetland seagrass restoration.
ii
• 2022 Draft AB 32 Scoping Plan seeks to mitigate the expected increase in emissions from Natural and Working Lands through active management relevant to San Diego that includes: 1) a ten times increase in management of forest, shrubland, and grassland; 2) increase investment in urban trees by at least 20%; 3) restore 60,000 acres or 15% of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta wetlands; and 4) decrease conversion of deserts and sparsely vegetated landscapes by at least 50% annually.
iii
Agriculture
Local jurisdiction's authority over agricultural land stems from police power over land use and zoning.
Agriculture emissions or GHG mitigation actions also may be part of a local jurisdiction's climate action plan. It is unclear how and to what extent a local jurisdiction may use its police power to regulate agriculture activities that cause GHG emissions directly. Some potential opportunities are dependent on whether and how CARB regulates certain activities.
Federal authority over agriculture land use and practices is limited with certain land use requirements for leased federal land for farming or animal production but no specific regulation of GHG emissions. As previously stated, the Energy Act of 2020 established a research, development, and demonstration program to test, validate, or improve technologies and strategies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere on a large scale through activities that include Agricultural practices. iv
State policy continues to increase focus on agricultural lands that may inform and support local action or
i See CARB California Natural and Working Land Inventory (2018), p. 7 & 15: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/nwl- inventory. ii See January 2019 Draft California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan (Updated January 2019), p. 13–14: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/draft-nwl-ip-040419.pdf. iii CARB Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update, May 10, 2022, p, 201: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 05/2022-draft-sp.pdf.
iv 47 H.R. 133 — 116th Congress (2019-2020): Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2021. December 27, 2020 (Public Law No: 116-260), Division Z (Energy Act of 2020), Title V: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con gress/house- bill/133/text.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 459 of 560
421
create the opportunity to align with state policy and funding. Beyond SB 1386 (2016) establishing protecting and managing natural and working lands as state policy, SB 1383 (2016) mandated that CARB achieve a 40% reduction in methane emissions below 2014 levels by 2030, including reducing emissions from livestock manure management operations and dairy manure management operations the creation and implementation of a Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy. SB 1383 (2016) sets the date of on or after January 1, 2024, as the effective date to implement regulation of these emissions with ongoing investments and incentives to achieve the reductions. SB 1383 (2016) also limits regulation of enteric fermentation to incentive-based mechanisms until CARB and the Department of Food and Agriculture determine that a cost-effective and scientifically proven method of reducing enteric emissions is available, adoption of which would not damage animal health, public health, or consumer acceptance. It remains unclear whether CARB will enact regulations in 2024 to achieve these reductions. CARB regulation will likely preempt local authority action, but the current state offers an opportunity for local regulation unless, and until, CARB acts.
AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (2016) authorized programs do not directly regulate agricultural land use, onsite agriculture GHG emission (excluding off-road emissions
i), require carbon sequestration, or require
carbon removal on working agricultural lands. However, Executive Orders B-55-18, N-82-20 require agricultural land to meet the 2045 carbon neutrality goal. SB 27’s (2021) Natural and Working Land Climate Smart, CO
2 removal targets for 2030 and beyond under the Scoping Plan for all emission sectors, including agriculture, and creation of a carbon registry for carbon removal and sequestration will drive climate action on agricultural land.
These efforts will further support existing agriculture preservation statutes in the coastal zone, ii the
long-term productivity of soil,iii and under the Williamson Act (California’s primary agricultural preservation statute).iv It will also likely affect CEQA analysis on land conversion and agricultural land preservation mitigation.
Finally, the April 2019 CARB NWL Implementation Plan, informed by SB 859’s (2016) Natural and Working Land Inventory’s quantitative estimate of the existing state of ecosystem carbon stored in the State's land base (excluding GHG emissions associated from direct human activity quantified in CARB’s annual statewide GHG inventory),
v sets targets out to 2030 and pathways to scale needed implementation. Specific to agriculture, these include increasing the acreage in soil conservation practices for cultivated land and rangelands by five times to change agricultural land from a net emitter to a sink by 2030.
vi The NWL Implementation Plan also calls for increases in compost application, agroforestry, grazing land and grassland management, and cropland management to decrease emissions
i See CARB Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for Emission Reductions: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/farmer-program.
ii See Public Resources Code §§ 30000 et seq. (Coastal Act) & §§ 31000 et seq. (State Coastal Conservancy); Public Resources Code §§ 31050, 31051, 30241, 30114, 30243, 30108.6, 30500(c), 30200(a), 30514, 30241.5, 30241, 30250, 30610.1, 30242, 31054, 31104.1, 31150, 31151, 31152, 31156. iii Public Resources Code § 30243.
iv Government Code § 51201(c); See Government Code § 51200 et seq. v See CARB California Natural and Working Land Inventory (2018), p. 7 & 15: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/nwl- inventory.
vi See January 2019 Draft California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan (Updated January 2019), p. 13: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 10/draft-nwl-ip-040419.pdf.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 460 of 560
422
and increase carbon sequestration.i The 2022 Draft AB 32 Scoping Plan calls for a five times increase in healthy soil practices and organic agriculture, the reduction of pesticide use, changes in pest management practices, decreases of agricultural burning through increase carbon storage practices, and changes to onsite energy use that reduce GHG emissions from agricultural operations.ii
8.8.3 GHG Impacts of CAP Measures in the Natural Climate Solutions Pathway Natural Climate Solutions is different from the other decarbonization pathways. The other pathways focus on reducing GHG emissions. This pathway focuses on carbon removal and storage. We make a distinction between carbon removal and storage — sometimes referred to as sequestration — and preserving existing stocks of carbon. For example, the GHG impacts of carbon removal and storage measures are due to physically removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through activities like urban tree planting and carbon farming. Such activities increase removal capacity (e.g., planting new trees) or enhance the amount of existing capacity (e.g., increasing the capacity of existing vegetation to remove carbon). On the other hand, preserving existing carbon stocks seeks to conserve the existing capacity of natural systems to store carbon. In this case, GHG impacts are associated with avoiding the conversion of existing land. For example, creating easements prevent development of existing land prevents potential emissions from disturbing natural vegetation and soil. Note that emissions associated with avoided development (e.g., reduction in VMT) are addressed in the Decarbonizing Transportation Section (Section 8.5). Table 8.44 summarizes the policy categories and subcategories used to analyze this decarbonization pathway. In the context of this decarbonization pathway, methane reduction refers to emissions related to agriculture, mainly from livestock. Because there are no related CAP measures, we do not discuss this policy category further in this chapter.
Table 8.44 Policy Categories Included in the Natural Climate Solutions Pathway Policy Category Policy Subcategory
Carbon Removal
and Storage
Urban Tree Planting
Conservation & Restoration Projects (Removal)
Urban Gardens
Carbon-Farming Practices (Removal)
Turf Management
Preservation of
Carbon Stocks
Agriculture Easements
Open Space Easements
Wildfire Prevention
Carbon-Farming Practices (Preservation)
Conservation & Restoration Projects (Preservation)
Agriculture Methane Reduction TBD
i See January 2019 Draft California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan (Updated January 2019), p. 17: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020 -10/draft-nwl-ip-040419.pdf. ii CARB Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update, May 10, 2022, p. 208: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 05/2022-draft-sp.pdf.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 461 of 560
423
Review of Adopted and Pending CAP Measures
For this analysis, we compare GHG impacts across CAPs. Based on the review of CAPs, measures in the Natural Climate Solutions pathway account for between 0% and 5% of local reductions, with an average across all CAPs of about 1% (Figure 8.48).
Figure 8.48 Contribution of Natural Climate Solutions Measures in Adopted and Pending CAPs.
Based on the review of CAPs, nearly all adopted or pending CAPs include at least one measure related to carbon removal and storage, but only one has measures related to preserving carbon stocks (Figure
8.49). The estimated GHG impact of these measures in CAPs is minimal. Carbon removal and storage measures contributed on average just over 1% to local GHG reductions, while preserving carbon stocks contributes less than 1%. No CAP had measures related to agriculture methane reductions.
Figure 8.49 Number of Jurisdictions with Related CAP Measures and Associated GHG Impacts Scenario Analysis of GHG Impacts from Adopted CAP Measures In contrast to the review of CAPs, which considers measures in all emissions categories and does not consider the combined impact of measures, the scenario analysis only evaluates emissions from on-road transportation, electricity, and natural gas and estimates the GHG impact of all related CAP measures.
To assess the combined impact of all adopted CAPs in the region, we summed the activity level in CAP measures and recalculated a regional GHG impact value. For purposes of showing the GHG impact of policies related to this pathway, we only looked at those related to urban tree planting under the carbon Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 462 of 560
424
removal and storage category because all quantified CAP measures focus on this subcategory. The carbon sequestered would be 0.1 MMT CO2e in 2035. CAP urban tree planting measures include: (1) municipal (e.g., public right-of-way, parks) tree planting targets; (2) urban canopy target for developed area in the jurisdiction; and (3) tree planting targets for new residential and commercial developments (e.g., number of new trees per dwelling unit, number of new trees per surface parking spaces).
Figure 8.50 shows the impact of these measures (green wedge) on regional emissions. The upper and bottom dashed line represents the full impact of all four decarbonization pathways discussed in this document.
Figure 8.50 San Diego Emissions in Four Decarbonization Pathways with Adopted CAP Commitments .
A 2015/2016 LiDAR assessment shows existing tree canopy cover at approximately 13% across all jurisdictions in the region, ranging from 7% to 22%.
i With the existing CAP commitment, the region
would have an additional 7% urban canopy cover.
GHG Impact from Best Adopted CAP Commitments Applied Regionwide If the best adopted CAP commitment related to urban tree planting is applied to all local jurisdictions in the San Diego region, the carbon sequestration would be about 0.6 MMT CO2e in 2035, as shown in Figure 8.51.
The best adopted CAP commitment assumes 35% canopy cover of approximately 1 million acres of developed area in the San Diego region. With the best adopted CAP commitment, the region would have additional 21% urban canopy cover, more than the adopted CAP commitment (7%). While it is not clear whether it would be possible to achieve this level of urban canopy cover across the region, this value represents an upper limit of what can be expected from adopted CAP measures.
i San Diego Tree Canopy Assessment. https://perma.cc/4MNP-JGM6.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 463 of 560
425
Figure 8.51 San Diego Emissions in Four Decarbonization Pathways with Adopted CAP Commitments .
8.8.4 Carbon Removal and Storage
CAP Measure Related to Carbon Removal and Storage
Figure 8.52 summarizes the number of CAPs with at least one measure related to carbon removal and storage. More CAPs have measures related to urban tree planting than any other policy subcategory analyzed here. Twelve of the 17 adopted and pending CAPs assessed have a requirement to plant urban trees. Urban forestry measures are the predominant driver of carbon sequestration related GHG reductions in local CAPs, and for the few jurisdictions that do include measures and/or actions that relate to the other policy categories, they are generally not quantified.
Figure 8.52 Number of Adopted and Pending CAPs with Measures Related to Carbon Removal and Storage
Urban Tree Planting
Table 8.46 provides examples of the types of CAP measures related to urban tree planting in each of the implementation mechanisms.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 464 of 560
426
Table 8.46 Examples of General CAP Policies Related to Urban Tree Planting Implementation Mechanism General Policy
Capital Improvement &
Infrastructure
• Plant street trees
• Include trees in capital improvement projects
• Hire an urban forest program manager
• Manage health of urban forest and other open spaces
Education, Outreach, &
Coordination
• Pursue partnerships and grant funding opportunities
• Develop partnerships with neighborhood groups, CBOs, and other stakeholders
• Develop regional partnerships to establish a regional urban forest strategy • Provide educational materials to residential and nonresidential property owners
• Establish public-private partnerships for volunteer efforts Evaluation • Conduct a street tree inventory
• Develop a regional urban tree canopy assessment
• Track trees planted annually
Incentives • Provide streamlined review for projects with additional trees • Provide incentives that increase tree plantings
• Give away seedlings during special events
Plan or Program • Develop an Urban Forestry Master Plan or similar • Develop/expand an urban forestry program
• Hire an urban forest program manager
Requirement(s) • Require tree planting in new and redeveloped residential and/or nonresidential properties
• Require shade trees in parking lots
• Require tree planting at new and redeveloped sites when mature trees are removed
Urban Gardens
Table 8.46 provides examples of the types of CAP measures related to urban gardens in each of the implementation mechanisms.
Table 8.46 Examples of General CAP Policies Related to Urban Gardens.
Implementation Mechanism General Policy
Capital Improvement &
Infrastructure
NA
Education, Outreach, &
Coordination
• Encourage and promote urban agriculture including community gardens Evaluation • Evaluate sites for feasibility of future community gardens • Assess equity in access to community gardens
Incentives • Reduce property taxes for landowners who convert certain properties to agricultural uses (Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone Ordinance) • Provide incentives to multi-family developments with community gardens • Provide incentives to businesses participating or sponsoring community gardens
Plan or Program • Update land use plans to permit community gardens in certain zones • Create a Community Garden Program or similar
Requirement(s) NA
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 465 of 560
427
Carbon-Farming Practices (Removal and Storage)
Table 8.47 provides examples of the types of CAP measures related to carbon farming in each of the implementation mechanisms.
Table 8.47 Examples of General CAP Policies Related to Carbon Farming Implementation Mechanism General Policy
Capital Improvement & Infrastructure NA
Education, Outreach, & Coordination • Develop partnerships with agriculture-based businesses • Promote existing incentives and programs
• Promote best-practices in carbon farming
Evaluation NA
Incentives • Provide incentives to establish demonstration carbon farms Plan or Program • Develop a carbon farming program
Requirement(s) NA
Turf Management
Only three CAPs have measures related to turf management, which all use capital improvement and infrastructure as the implementation mechanism. These CAPs include measures that use top-dressing of compost at City parks.
Conservation and Restoration Projects (Removal and Storage aspects) Only two CAPs have measures related to conservation and restoration projects, which use evaluation as the implementation mechanism. These CAPs include measures to identify opportunities to enhance and conserve habitat and to research and monitor Blue Carbon opportunities.
8.8.5 Preservation of Carbon Stocks
CAP Measure Related to Preservation of Carbon Stocks
Figure 8.53 summarizes the number of CAPs with at least one measure related to the preservation of carbon stocks. Only one adopted or pending CAP includes measures related to the preservation of carbon stocks. This reference is through agricultural and open space easements and consists of actions that call for the development of a plan or program and education and outreach efforts. Examples of education and outreach include working with regional partners to identify funding sources for agricultural land protection (e.g., acquisition and management). Examples of plans or programs include developing conservation. No CAPs have measures related to the other policy subcategories listed.
Figure 8.53 Number of Adopted and Pending CAPs with Measures Related to Preservation of Carbon Stocks Agriculture and Open Space Easements
Several adopted or pending CAPs have measures related to agricultural and open space easements.
Those that do have use plan or program and education outreach and Coordination as implementation Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 466 of 560
428
mechanisms. Examples of education and outreach include working with regional partners to identify funding sources for agricultural land protection (e.g., acquisition and management). Examples of plans or programs include developing conservation.
Other Policy Subcategories
No relevant measures or actions are currently included in inactive and pending CAPs for the following policy subcategories: wildfire prevention; carbon-farming practices (storage).
8.8.6 Opportunities for Further Action
The following summarizes key opportunities for further action. • Opportunities at Jurisdictional Level and Regional Collaboration in Identifying Suitable Tree Planting Locations – Existing urban canopy cover varies by jurisdiction, ranging from 7% to 22%.
CAP urban tree planting targets do not specify suitable tree planting locations or where trees are needed the most. Opportunities exist at the jurisdictional level to identify locations based on local needs. The most aggressive CAP measure commits to 35% urban canopy cover in the developed area. Not all developed areas in the region are suitable for tree planting. An opportunity exists for cross-jurisdictional collaboration to identify suitable locations across the region, including taking into account social equity considerations. • Continue and Increase Land Conservation, Preservation, and Restoration Across the Region – Existing authority allows land conservation, preservation, and restoration on natural and working lands. There is an opportunity to increase existing efforts and to explore additional actions to further conserve, preserve, and restore these lands. • Collaboration with Tribes, State and Federal Land Agencies and Managers, and Private Landowners – It is necessary to evaluate the various mandates on these lands and waters to determine where collaboration is viable to achieve local, regional, and state goals for natural and working lands. Private landowners also serve as important partners to preserve land and to test and fund pilot projects for carbon removal and storage. • Continue to Develop and Integrate both State and Local Science for the Value and Integration of Natural and Working Lands in CAPs and other Land Use Plans – CARB is currently developing methods to quantify carbon values for these lands and demonstrate sequestration values. This could be integrated with existing local science on San Diego region's natural and working land carbon values from San Diego State University’s IEMM and other San Diego specific science. • Identify Land for Conservation and Restoration, including Agricultural Land – There are opportunities to conserve and preserve additional land across the region. There are also some opportunities to restore land. The science behind the value of these actions is developing and needs additional support. The region could identify lands that can be conserved or preserved in support of existing and future land use planning. This process could include all tribal, federal, private, and local government stakeholders. This process could also account for the new SB 27 (2021) mandate that calls for the creation of natural and working land carbon removal and storage projects. To the extent possible, the San Diego region could develop and aid in creating these projects.
• Develop and Regularly Update a Regional Carbon Stock Inventory Based on San Diego Specific Science – Similar to the CARB Inventory of Emissions from Natural and Work Lands, the San Diego region could develop a process to regularly estimate and track over time the amount of carbon stored vegetation, wetlands, etc. This would help to understand how carbon stocks are being preserved and whether net emissions occurred due to changes in land use. These emissions are not typically included in the communitywide GHG inventory of local jurisdictions, Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 467 of 560
429
but tracking changes over time can help understand the region’s net impact on emissions, which can imply contribution to warming. A similar process could be developed to track carbon removal projects regionwide. Several studies related to carbon stocks have been completed in the San Diego region, including those in Chapter 5 of this report, an estimate by the SANDAG using the TerraCount analysis tool, and recent research by SDSU developed regionally-relevant sequestration rates for all relevant habitats.
i
8.9 Other Limitations
There are inherent limitations with any analysis like this that result in a degree of uncertainty. This CAP policy opportunity analysis uses the best information, data, and methods available at the time.
Nonetheless, in addition to the limitations presented above in Sections 8.5 through 8.8, there are limitations to the work completed to identify opportunities for each decarbonization pathway.
No Comprehensive Review of Implementation Progress
While implementation is a critical step of the climate action planning cycle, the analysis presented here focuses on measures and supporting actions included in CAPs and some of the policies that have been adopted as a result of these measures. We assume that CAPs represent what local jurisdictions and their elected officials have determined to be a reasonable and feasible commitment to reduce GHG emissions. While we reference some policies adopted by local jurisdictions related to the four decarbonization pathways throughout the report, additional research would be needed to determine whether and to what extent measures have been implemented by local jurisdictions. Such an analysis likely would require close collaboration with local jurisdictions since much of the data and knowledge about implementation activities may not be publicly available.
Also, the SANDAG RECAP Technical Appendix VI presents a framework to monitor progress. ii It
comprises two main parts: conducting GHG inventories to determine progress toward GHG emissions targets and evaluating progress on implementing CAP measures. While it is possible to estimate the amount of emissions associated with completed CAP activities in some cases, it can be difficult to attribute the emissions reductions to local jurisdiction's actions. For example, while it is relatively easy to track the miles of bike lanes installed, it can be difficult to attribute the amount of VMT reduced due to installing a mile of bike lanes. Similarly, it is difficult to attribute an increase in energy efficiency or rooftop solar to specific actions taken by local jurisdictions. Also, the SANDAG Climate Action Data Portal tracks the level of activity in a range of indicators related to CAP measures. iii
No Further Evaluation of Policy Opportunities Completed The goal of this analysis was to identify local policy opportunities to help achieve deep decarbonization targets. As such, we did not provide detailed analysis of or prioritize the policies we identified.
Additional work would be needed to evaluate policy options based on selection criteria, including cost, potential to reduce GHG emissions, feasibility to implement, scalability, social equity implications, etc.
i Megan Jennings, et al., 2021. Carbon Valuation for San Diego’s Natural Landscapes. Institute for Ecological Monitoring and Management, San Diego State University.
ii SANDAG Regional Climate Action Planning Framework: TECHNICAL APPENDIX VI -CAP Monitoring and Reporting, VERSION 1.1: December 2020.
iii ReCAP Snapshots and Climate Data Portal available at https://climatedata.sandag.org/ .
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 468 of 560
430
Limited Analysis of Certain Policy Categories and Subcategories There are several policy categories or subcategories that we did not analyze to the degree of others. For example, because there are no CAP measures related to increasing use of low-carbon fuels in building or reducing methane from agricultural operations, including dairy operations, we included only limited information. To the extent that stakeholders and decision makers want to learn more about these areas, additional work would be needed.
No Analysis of Other Public Agency GHG Reduction Plans
This analysis focuses on the GHG reduction commitments in the CAPs of local jurisdictions. It does not include analysis of plans adopted by other agencies like the San Diego Unified Port District and San Diego International Airport. Additional analysis would be needed to determine the GHG commitments, implementation plans, and relationship to local jurisdiction CAPs.
Not All GHG Emissions Categories Included in Analysis
The RDF Technical Report focused on emissions from energy systems — including buildings, electricity generation, and transportation fuels — and land use and natural climate solutions. While these emissions comprise the vast majority of emissions, there are other sources of emissions, including solid waste and industrial gases, that are not addressed in this report. Future analysis could supplement this report with policy options for emissions and policy categories not included here.
8.10 Conclusion
This chapter assesses current commitments in CAPs to determine if additional activity would be needed to put the region on a trajectory to meet these goals and to identify opportunities for local jurisdictions in the region to take further action to support the decarbonization pathways.
We completed analysis in three areas. First, we reviewed the authority of local governments and agencies to act to influence and regulate GHG emissions, including a summary of key federal, state, and local agencies, and key legislation and regulation at the federal and state levels to help to clarify the ability of local governments to act to reduce GHG emissions. Second, we completed a review of CAPs to determine the frequency of measures, relative GHG impact of decarbonization pathways and measures, and integration of social equity considerations. Third, we completed a scenario analysis to estimate the total impact of the GHG reduction commitments in all adopted and pending CAPs and the potential GHG impact of a scenario of applying the best adopted CAP commitments to all jurisdictions. Using results of the above analysis and additional research, identify opportunities for further local action and regional collaboration in each of the four decarbonization pathways.
The review of authority found that local jurisdictions have authority to influence and regulate GHG emissions using police powers and delegated authority. Some local jurisdictions are exercising delegated authority, but the full extent of a local jurisdiction’s police power to regulate GHG emissions is unknown.
The review of CAPs and scenario analyses found that the GHG impacts of adopted CAP commitments are relatively small, and applying the best adopted CAP commitments to all jurisdictions in the region would still not be enough to reach the levels of deep decarbonization contemplated in the technical analysis presented in the other chapters of this report. As a result, additional policies would be needed to decarbonize transportation and buildings, particularly VMT reductions and building electrification, respectively. Across all decarbonization pathways, there are opportunities for further local action and for regional collaboration, including collecting and tracking data, providing support to develop and Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 469 of 560
431
implement policies, and convening stakeholder and working groups to develop regional strategies and monitor progress. Finally, based on a preliminary review of CAPs, additional work would be needed to integrate social equity considerations into climate.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 470 of 560
432
Appendix 8.A Assumptions for Estimating GHG Impact of Best CAP Commitment Table A.1 Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide – Decarbonize Transportation Pathway Decarbonization
Pathway
Policy
Category
Policy
Subcategory
Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide
CAP Measure and Assumptions Application to the Region for Year 2035 Decarbonize
Transportation
VMT
Reductions
Increase
Commute by
Bicycling
Additional 4 miles of bike lane per square mile =
additional 4% commute by bicycling (Imperial Beach
CAP Measure T.4: Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facilities)
Additional 76,859 commuters by bicycling (4% of
total regionwide jobs)
One-way commute distance by bicycling: 5 miles
Increase
Commute by
Walking
Additional 10% commute by walking (Imperial Beach
CAP Measure T.4 Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facilities)
Additional 192,147 commuters by walking (10% of
total regionwide jobs)
One-way commute distance by walking: 1 mile
Increase Safe
Routes to School
Additional 9% students walk to school and 0.5%
students ride bicycles to school (Escondido CAP
Measure T-3.3 Implement Safe Routes to School at
Escondido Union School District & Lemon Grove
Measure T-9: Implement the Safe Routes to School
Program)
Additional 172,933 students work to school (9% of
regional 5-14 population) and 9,607 students ride
bicycles to school (0.5% of regional 5-14
population)
One-way walk to school distance: 0.5 mile
One-way ride bicycle to school distance: 1.25 mile
Complete Street
0.13% VMT reduction from implementing multi-
modal enhancements as part of a “Complete
Streets” approach (County of San Diego CAP:
Measure T-2.1: Improve Roadway Segments as
Multi-Modal)
Equivalent to 0.13% VMT reduction in regional LDV
VMT
Increase
Commute by
Mass Transit +
Intra-city Shuttle
Additional 13% commute by mass transit (Sa
n
Marcos CAP Measure T-11: Increase Transit
Ridership)
Mass transit: additional 249,792 commuters by
wa
lking (13% of total regionwide jobs)
One-way commute distance by mass transit: 10.4
miles
Intra-city Shuttle: Adopted CAP commitment carry
over
Parking
Reduction
50% reduction in residential parking space
requirements = 25% VMT reduction per household
14 miles avoided per day (25% of household VMT)
per household of the housing units in 2021
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 471 of 560
433
Decarbonization
Pathway
Policy
Category
Policy
Subcategory
Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide
CAP Measure and Assumptions Application to the Region for Year 2035 (Lemon Grove CAP Measure T-11: Reduce
Residential Parking Requirements Near Trolley
Station)
SANDAG Regional Plan Mobility Hubs (743,711
units)
Commute TDM
Strategies
Additional 10% commuters using alternative modes
= a
dditional 10% commuters not driving alone
(Carlsbad CAP Measure K: Promote Transportation
Demand Management Strategies)
Additional 192,147 commuters not driving alone
(10% of total regionwide jobs)
One-way driving distance avoided: 10.9 miles
Increase
Commute By
Vanpool
Additional 19% commute by vanpool (Solana Beach
CAP Measure T-2: Increase Commuting by Vanpools
to 20 percent of Labor Force)
Additional 365,080 commuters by bicycling (19% of
total regionwide jobs)
One-way commute distance by vanpool: 25 miles
Number of people per vanpool: 6
Fuel Use
Reductions
Fuel Reduction
from Traffic
Calming Policies
Equivalent to 0.25% reduction in VMT (Carlsbad
CAP: General Plan Policies and Measures - Traffic
Calming)
Equivalent to 0.25% VMT reduction in regional LDV
VMT
Vehicle
Retirement
446 MT CO2e avoided from replacing 1,600 vehicles
(County of San Diego CAP: Measure T-3.3 Develop a
Local Vehicle Retirement Program)
Equivalent to 2,973 MT CO2e GHG avoided
regionwide by replacing 10,667 vehicles (15% of
regionwide VMT is from County of San Diego)
Alternative
Fuel Vehicles
and
Equipment
Increase City-
wide electric
vehicle miles
driven
Increase citywide electric vehicle miles driven to
30% total miles (Del Mar CAP Goal 16: Increase
percentage of vehicle miles traveled driven by
electric and alternative fuel vehicles & Solana Beach
CAP Measure T-1 Increase electric vehicles and
alternative fuel vehicles miles traveled to 30 percent
of total vehicle miles traveled)
30% regional LDV VMT is electric
Increase
alternative fuel
vehicles in
municipal fleet
90% reduction in municipal gasoline fleet GHG
emissions (San Diego CAP Action 2.3 Present to City
Council for Consideration a Municipal Alternative
Fuel Policy)
90% of reduction in municipal gasoline fleet
emissions. Municipal gasoline fleet emissions is
0.4% of regionwide transportation GHG emissions.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 472 of 560
434
Table A.2 Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide – Decarbonize Buildings Decarbonization
Pathway
Policy
Category
Policy
Subcategory
Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide
CAP Measure and Assumptions Application to the Region for Year 2035 Decarbonize
Buildings
Electrification
Electrify New
Residential
Construction
All-electric new residential (single-family and
multi-family) construction after 2023 (Lemon
Grove CAP Measure E-6: Require New Residential
Uses to be All-Electric and Generate Renewable
Energy On-Site)
New housing units from 2023 to 2035 regionwide:
163,351
196 therms of natural gas avoided and 1,680 kWh of
electricity added per new Energy Code-compliant
unit (average of single-family and multifamily unit in
Climate Zone 7 and 10)
Energy
Efficiency
Residential
Energy Retrofit
50% energy reduction at 30% existing homes
(single-family and multifamily) (Carlsbad CAP
Measure D: Encourage Single-Family Residential
Efficiency Retrofits & Measure E: Encourage
Multi-family Residential Efficiency Retrofits)
15% reduction in regionwide residential energy use =
106 therms of natural gas avoided and 1,989 kWh of
electricity avoided per home (50% of average
regionwide household energy use)
Non-residential
Energy Retrofit
40% energy reduction at 30% existing commercial
spaces (Carlsbad CAP Measure F: Encourage
Commercial and City Facility Efficiency Retrofits)
12% reduction in regionwide commercial energy use
Residential
Water Heater
Retrofit
25% of existing homes retrofitted with solar water
heating (Solana Beach CAP Measure E-5: Solar Hot
Water Heating at 25 Percent of new homes and
home retrofits)
112 therms avoided per natural gas water heater
retrofit (60% of water heaters are natural gas); and
2,300 kWh avoided per electric water heater retrofit
(40% water heaters are electric).
Non-residential
Solar Water
Heater Retrofit
20% of existing commercial spaces retrofitted
with solar water heating (Solana Beach CAP
Measure E-4: Solar Hot Water Heating at 20
Percent of existing commercial spaces)
6% of total commercial energy use is from water
heating. 10% of reduction in water heating energy
use per retrofit.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 473 of 560
435
Table A.3 Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide – Decarbonize the Electricity Supply Decarbonization
Pathway
Policy
Category
Policy
Subcategory
Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide
CAP Measure and Assumptions Application to the Region for Year 2035 Decarbonize
Electricity
Supply
Grid Supply
Community
Choice Energy
(CCE) Program
100% renewable or zero carbon electricity (Encinitas CAP City Action RE-1: Establish a Community Choice Energy
Program & Escondido CAP Measure E-5.3 Increase Grid-
supply Renewable and/or Zero Carbon Electricity)
95% of the SDG& bundled load in the region
would switch to CCE with 100% renewable or
zero carbon electricity (zero GHG emissions)
Table A.4 Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide – Natural Climate Solutions Decarbonization
Pathway Policy Category Policy
Subcategory
Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide (with City of San Diego draft 2020 CAP) CAP Measure and Assumptions Application to the Region for Year 2035 Natural Climate
Solutions
Carbon Removal
and Storage
Urban Tree
Planting or Urban
Canopy Cover
Achieve 35% urban canopy cover (Del Mar CAP Goal
22: Urban Tree Planting & San Diego CAP Measure
5.1 Urban Tree Planting Program)
35% of developed area in the region would
have urban canopy cover.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 474 of 560
436
Table A.5 Best CAP Commitment with Draft San Diego 2022 CAP Applied Regionwide – Decarbonize Transportation Pathway Decarbonization
Pathway
Policy
Category
Policy
Subcategory
Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide (with City of San Diego draft 2020 CAP) CAP Measure and Assumptions Application to the Region for Year 2035 Decarbonize
Transportation
VMT
Reductions
Bike, Walk, and
Complete
Street
25% walking (11% beyond projected) and 10% (8%
beyond projected) cycling mode share of all San Diego
residents’ trips (San Diego Draft 2022 CAP Measure
3.1: Safe and Enjoyable Routes for Pedestrians and
Cyclists)
Cycling: Additional 304,109 trips by cycling (8% of
regionwide population, and one trip per day), one-way
trip distance: 2.9 miles
Walking: Additional 398,238 trips by walking (11% of
regionwide population, and one trip per day), one-way
trip distance: 0.8 mile
Mass Transit +
Intra-city
Shuttle
15% (10% beyond projected) transit mode share of all
San Diego residents’ trips (San Diego Draft 2022 CAP
Measure 3.2: Increase Safe, Convenient, and Enjoyable
Transit Use)
Transit: Additional 347,553person trips by walking
(10% of regionwide population, and one trip per day),
one-way trip distance: 7.9 mile
Intra-city Shuttle: Existing CAP commitment carry over
Smart Growth
Development
and Parking
Reduction
15% VMT (commuter and non-commuter) reductio per
capita (San Diego Draft 2022 CAP Measure 3.5:
Climate-Focused Land Use and Measure 3.6: Vehicle
Management)
15% reduction below 2016 regional wide baseline VMT
per capita: 25.6 miles per capita per day
Commute TDM
Strategies
6% citywide VMT reduction through telecommute
(San Diego Draft 2022 CAP Measure 3.3: increase
Telecommuting)
6% regionwide VMT reduction
Fuel Use
Reductions
Fuel Reduction
fro
m Traffic
Calming Policies
Equivalent to 0.25% reduction in VMT (Car lsbad CAP:
General Plan Policies and Measures - Traffic Calming) Equivalent to 0.25% VMT in regional LDV VMT Alternative
Fuel Vehicles
and
Equipment
Increase
alternative fuel
vehicles in
municipal fleet
81% reduction in municipal gasoline fleet GHG
emissions (San Diego Draft 2022 CAP Measure 2.2:
Increase Municipal Zero Emission Vehicles)
81% of reduction in municipal gasoline fleet emissions.
Municipal gasoline fleet emissions is 0.4% of region-
wide transportation GHG emissions.
Increase City-
wide electric
vehicle miles
driven
Increase citywide electric vehicle miles driven to 30%
total miles (Del Mar CAP Goal 16: Increase percentage
of vehicle miles traveled driven by electric and
alternative fuel vehicles & Solana Beach CAP Measure
T-1 Increase electric vehicles and alternative fuel
vehicles miles traveled to 30 percent of total vehicle
miles traveled)
30% regional LDV VMT is electric
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 475 of 560
437
Table A.6 Best CAP Commitment with Draft San Diego 2022 CAP Applied Regionwide – Decarbonize Building Pathway Decarbonization
Pathway
Policy
Category Policy Subcategory
Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide (with City of San Diego draft 2020 CAP) CAP Measure and Assumptions Application to the Region for Year 2035 Decarbonize
Buildings
Electrification
Electrify New
Homes
All-electric new residential (single-family and multi-
family) construction after 2023 (Lemon Grove CAP
Measure E-6: Require New Residential Uses to be
All-Electric and Generate Renewable Energy On-
Site & San Diego Draft 2022 CAP Measure 1.2
Decarbonize New Building Development)
New housing units from 2023 to 2035 regionwide:
163,351
196 therms of natural gas avoided and 1,680 kWh of
electricity added per new Energy Code-compliant unit
(average of single-family and multifamily unit in
Climate Zone 7 and 10)
Electrify New
Nonresidential
Buildings
All-electric reach code starting 2023 at new
commercial development (San Diego Draft 2022
CAP Measure 1.2 Decarbonize New Building
Development)
0.5% of annual regionwide commercial natural gas
use is from new construction and avoided starting
2023. Regionwide commercial natural gas use is about
33% of total energy use.
Decarbonize
Existing
Buildings/
Energy
Efficiency
Residential Energy
Ret
rofit (Electricity
savings only)
50% energy reduction at 30% existing homes
(s
ingle-family and multifamily) (Carlsbad CAP
Measure D: Encourage Single-Family Residential
Efficiency Retrofits & Measure E: Encourage Multi-
family Residential Efficiency Retrofits)
15% reduction in regionwide residential electricity
us
e, 1,989 kWh of electricity avoided per home (50%
of average regionwide household energy use)
Non-residential
Energy Retrofit
(Electricity savings
only)
40% energy reduction at 30% existing commercial
spaces (Carlsbad CAP Measure F: Encourage
Commercial and City Facility Efficiency Retrofits)
12% reduction in regionwide commercial electricity
use
Residential Solar
Water Heater
Retrofit (Electricity
savings only)
25% of existing homes retrofitted with solar water
he
ating (Solana Beach CAP Measure E-5: Solar Hot
Water Heating at 25 Percent of new homes and
home retrofits)
2,300 kWh avoided per electric water heater retrofit
(4
0% water heaters are electric).
Non-residential
Solar Water Heater
Retrofit (Electricity
savings only)
20% of existing commercial spaces retrofitted with
solar water heating (Solana Beach CAP Measure E-
4: Solar Hot Water Heating at 20 Percent of existing
commercial spaces)
6% of total commercial energy use is from water
heating. 10% of reduction in water heating energy use
per retrofit.
Decarbonize
Existing Buildings
Phase out 90% of natural gas from existing
buildings (San Diego Draft 2022 CAP Measure 1.1
Decarbonize Existing Buildings)
Phase 90% remaining natural gas use (remaining after
electrify new constructions and decarbonize
municipal operations)
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 476 of 560
438
Decarbonization
Pathway
Policy
Category Policy Subcategory
Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide (with City of San Diego draft 2020 CAP) CAP Measure and Assumptions Application to the Region for Year 2035 Retrofit/
Decarbonize
Municipal Building
Phase out 100% natural gas use in municipal
facilities (San Diego Draft 2022 CAP Measure 1.3
Decarbonize City Facilities)
2% of regionwide nonresidential natural gas use is
municipal natural gas use. Phase out 100% is
equivalent to approximately 7 million therms in 2035.
Table A.7 Best CAP Commitment with Draft San Diego 2022 CAP Applied Regionwide – Decarbonize Electricity Supply Decarbonization
Pathway
Policy
Category
Policy
Subcategory
Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide (with City of San Diego draft 2020 CAP) CAP Measure and Assumptions Application to the Region for Year 2035 Decarbonize
Electricity
Supply
Utility Scale
Energy
Community
Choice Energy
(CCE) Program
100% renewable or zero carbon electricity (Encinitas CAP City Action RE-1: Establish a Community Choice Energy
Program, Escondido CAP Measure E-5.3 Increase Grid-
supply Renewable and/or Zero Carbon Electricity, & San
Diego Draft 2022 CAP Measure 2.1: Citywide Renewable
Energy Generation)
95% of the SDG&E bundled load in the
region would switch to CCE with 100%
renewable or zero carbon electricity (zero
GHG emissions)
Table A.8 Best CAP Commitment with Draft San Diego 2022 CAP Applied Regionwide – Natural Climate Solutions Decarbonization
Pathway Policy Category Policy
Subcategory
Best Adopted CAP Commitment Applied Regionwide (with City of San Diego draft 2020 CAP) CAP Measure and Assumptions Application to the Region for Year 2035 Natural Climate
Solutions
Carbon Removal
and Storage
Urban Tree
Planting or Urban
Canopy Cover
Achieve 35% urban canopy cover (Del Mar CAP
Goal 22: Urban Tree Planting & San Diego Draft
CAP Measure 5.2 Tree Canopy)
35% of developed area in the region would
have urban canopy cover.
Salt Marsh Land
Restoration
Restore 700 acres of salt marsh, other associated
tidal wetland and riparian habitats (San Diego
Draft 2022 CAP Measure 5.2 Tree Canopy)
Same as left
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 477 of 560
439
Appendix 8.B Supporting Material for Decarbonize Transportation Policy Assessment
B.1 Overlap or Gaps Between CAP Actions and Key Opportunities Identified in Chapter 3 Chapter 3 identified key actions to address two main areas of on-road transportation GHG reduction. These are listed in Table 8.B.1 The extent to which these actions appear as CAP policies, and whether they are quantified for GHG reduction, are also shown.
Table 8.B.1 Overlap Between CAPs and with Key Opportunities Identifies in Chapter 3 Key Actions Chapter 3 Equivalent CAP Policy Category
and Number of CAPs Addressing
# of CAPs with Quantified
GHG Reduction Amount
Challenges as Identified in
CAPs
Local
Opportunity?
VMT Reduction Actions
Expand geographic reach and service
hours of bus and rail services in areas
where development can support transit
use
Mass transit 1 Y - Requires regional
cooperation
Provide incentives and regulatory relief
to facilitate higher density infill and
transit-oriented development
Permit and CEQA streamlining
(regulatory relief) for projects; 2
Local resistance to infill,
higher density and transit-
oriented development
Y
Disincentivize development in rural (or
non-infill) areas that cannot support
efficient transit use or multi-modal
transportation options
Not addressed in CAPs 0 Not addressed in CAPs Y
In existing rural, non-infill, or
underserved transit areas, invest in TNC
partnerships prioritizing electric and
high-occupancy vehicles to ensure
sufficient access to opportunities
Not addressed in CAPs 0 Not addressed in CAPs Y
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 478 of 560
440
Key Actions Chapter 3 Equivalent CAP Policy Category
and Number of CAPs Addressing
# of CAPs with Quantified
GHG Reduction Amount
Challenges as Identified in
CAPs
Local
Opportunity?
Investigate opportunities to implement
pricing structures (cordon pricing, HOT
lanes, etc.) that incentivize high
occupancy vehicles
Not addressed in CAPs 0
1. Regional
cooperation/authority;
2. Pricing is used for larger
roads (arterials and
freeways) over which local
jurisdictions have no
authority;
3. Even at the regional level,
road pricing faces local
resistance
N
Adopt pedestrian-oriented design
guidelines for all new development;
reduce or remove parking minimums in
walkable neighborhoods
Bike, walk, complete streets;
parking reduction
16 CAPs address bike, walk
complete streets, 4
address parking reduction
as a requirement or CIP
Local resistance to removing
parking or road diets to
accommodate complete
streets
Update county bicycle and pedestrian
planning documents; partner with
SANDAG to accelerate implementation
of 2010 San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan;
develop Pedestrian Safety and/or Vision
Zero and/or Local Road Safety Plan
Bike, walk, complete streets;
specific to unincorporated
County
Not addressed in CAPs
Needs assessment since
distances are large, may be
practical only in urbanized
areas
Y
Partner with SANDAG to build out a
network of Mobility Hubs where shared
vehicles and new mobility services can
be found
Smart growth
3 CAPs address
micromobility; SANDAG
quantifies GHG reductions
from shared mobility
Local resistance to
micromobility services;
regional cooperation to
establish mobility hubs
Y
Develop County TDM ordinance and
Transportation Management
Organization (TMO) to work with
employers and service providers
County specific - Commuter TDM Half the CAPs address
commuter TDM - Y
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 479 of 560
441
Key Actions Chapter 3 Equivalent CAP Policy Category
and Number of CAPs Addressing
# of CAPs with Quantified
GHG Reduction Amount
Challenges as Identified in
CAPs
Local
Opportunity?
Conduct broadband gap analysis; seek
funding to improve communications
infrastructure in areas that lag; require
enhanced communication technology in
all new development through TDM
ordinance
Not addressed in CAPs Not addressed in CAPs - Y
Conduct electrified freight study to
understand where opportunities for
distribution efficiencies exist; modify
zoning code to encourage distribution
centers in efficient locations
Not addressed in CAPs Not addressed in CAPs -
Y for some CAPs
where freight
transport is an
issue
Electrification Actions
Set and meet aggressive public EV
charging target Alternative Fuels, n/a
“Aggressive” needs
definition. Assess A2Z gap
report versus CAP public
charging targets.
Y – see also
“Best
commitment”
Scenario EV
numbers in
2035
Set and meet aggressive (100%) fleet
adoption target
Alternative fuels in municipal
fleets 8 - Y
Require new development to include EV
charging Alternative Fuels, 12 - Y
Require existing development to retrofit
parking with EV charging Alternative Fuels, 12 - Y
Increase dollar value and streamline
consumer vehicle purchase incentives
with application to both new and used
vehicles
Alternative Fuels 4 - Y
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 480 of 560
442
Key Actions Chapter 3 Equivalent CAP Policy Category
and Number of CAPs Addressing
# of CAPs with Quantified
GHG Reduction Amount
Challenges as Identified in
CAPs
Local
Opportunity?
Increase dollar value of incentives,
provide educational resources, and
streamline permitting process for
landowners to install EV charging in
multi-family developments
Alternative Fuels, 4 - Y
Partner with educational institutions to
assess workforce training needs;
increase funding to existing programs
Alternative Fuels, 0 - Y
Continue to partner with A2Z
Collaborative to share information and
successful implementation strategies
across jurisdictions, advocate for
funding and coordination at the state
level
Alternative Fuels, 0 Evaluation/cooperation Y
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 481 of 560
443
9. The San Diego Region as a Model
Lessons and opportunities on aligning pathways, policies, and resources to identify win-win scenarios in the transition to net zero
Elena Crete, UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) Julie Topf, UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN)
9.1 Purpose
The San Diego Regional Decarbonization Framework (RDF) is a novel demonstration of collaborative long-term planning which other regions and jurisdictions should adapt and replicate to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. With the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now sounding the alarm on climate change with their 2021 Global Warming of 1.5ºC Special Report
i and 2022 Sixth Assessment Report,ii communities around the world are beginning to reflect on what reducing and eliminating emissions means for their specific contexts. While scientists agree we now have the technologies we need to enable the transition to net zero, the exact configuration of those technologies, accompanied by supporting policy frameworks and financing, will need to be calibrated for specific conditions around the globe. Each local process must take into consideration their greenhouse gas emissions inventory, local economy and workforce, socio-environmental conditions, and long- term emissions reduction goals in a collaborative and transparent planning process.
The process undertaken by the County of San Diego can serve as a case study for other jurisdictions across the US and globally to learn from and replicate. In order to facilitate this dissemination, the RDF project team is working closely with the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) to showcase this effort alongside various international fora. This chapter demonstrates the ways by which the findings of the RDF can be scaled vertically and horizontally through various consortiums to further contribute to the global climate agenda and the development of other decarbonization frameworks. Additionally, SDSN has developed an accompanying Guide
iii to serve as a toolkit for other communities, governing bodies, research groups, and sustainability practitioners to use in their pursuit of decarbonization. This Guide will serve as an addendum to the larger Regional Decarbonization Framework report. The purpose of this Guide is to distill the high-level process undertaken so far by the County, highlight the enabling factors for success, and provide a step-by-step instruction manual for other jurisdictions who wish to undertake similar long-term planning processes in their efforts to combat climate change.
As articulated several times in this report, the scenarios and framework described in this exercise are just a beginning and will require flexibility and alterations along the way. To most
i https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
ii https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
iii http://sdgpolicyinitiative.org/guide/
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 482 of 560
444
effectively take this work forward, it is essential for the San Diego County project team and researchers to connect with other national and international forums where they can both garner insights from and inform similar exercises being undertaken around the globe. A few such opportunities are highlighted below for the County to follow up on.
9.2 Opportunities for Scaling Impact
With broadband access now extending to the most remote parts of the world and the COVID-19 crisis encouraging professionals around the globe to adapt to a virtual workplace, the opportunity for engaging stakeholders and sharing experiences is greater than ever. Over the last several decades, there have been new consortiums and networks established that work both vertically and horizontally across our societies to align development agendas and resources to accelerate progress in sustainable development and climate change mitigation.
One such consortium is working globally to elevate the academic and science community to highlight the multidisciplinary approach required to understand and achieve sustainable development, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). i
SDSN was set up in 2012 under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General. SDSN mobilizes global scientific and technological expertise to promote practical solutions for sustainable development, including the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement. SDSN works closely with United Nations agencies, multilateral financing institutions, the private sector, and civil society. SDSN is guided by a Leadership Council, which brings together global sustainable development leaders from all regions and all sectors. Much of SDSN’s work is led by National or Regional SDSNs, which mobilize knowledge institutions around the SDGs. Their research and policy work mobilizes experts from around the world on the technical challenges of implementing the SDGs and the Paris Agreement. The SDG Academy leads the education work of SDSN. As a member of the network, UC San Diego has brought on SDSN as a consulting partner in the creation of the RDF and accompanying Guide to ensure that the process and results of this project are firmly integrated into various multilateral fora, both within and alongside formal UN processes.
SDSN is working to share the RDF project within three horizontal levels across its network. First, nationally, SDSN USA
ii currently hosts nearly 160 institutions across all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC. These academic institutions have local networks of sustainability practitioners working in various aspects of the SDGs. SDSN USA builds pathways toward the achievement of the SDGs in the United States by mobilizing research, outreach, collective action, and global cooperation. To accomplish this, SDSN USA facilitates and leads coalitions to address US sustainability challenges; builds sophisticated, practical systems for assessing progress; promotes public awareness, education, and engagement; and links these efforts with policymakers and community leaders throughout the US to result in lasting change. In addition to the other universities in this network who can learn from the RDF, SDSN also has partner
i https://www.unsdsn.org/
ii https://www.unsdsn.org/united-states
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 483 of 560
445
networks across the US with whom the final report will be shared in order to disseminate the results nationally.
The SDSN USA network is also part of a larger network of national and regional networks which make up the international framework of SDSN.i With more than 1,500 members working across 50 national and regional networks worldwide, SDSN USA is part of a global multidisciplinary consortium of experts and has access to thought-leaders around the world. This allows the network to share the results of the RDF directly with like-minded sustainability experts across various regions and geographies who can glean important lessons learned from the RDF process and Guide.
Lastly, SDSN serves as an observer organization to the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) processes and is also a partner in the Cities and Climate Change Science Conference which was co-sponsored by the IPCC in 2018. This effort continued under the auspices of the Innovate4Cities Conference
ii in October 2021, co-hosted by UN-Habitat and the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy. The RDF project was submitted to this forum and the inputs of this event were meant to inform the 2022 IPCC Sixth Assessment Report on impact, adaptation, and vulnerability to global climate change. iii Opportunities for sharing the final
report will be further explored through the UNFCCC Regional Climate Weeks,iv which take place annually throughout the world. Additionally, SDSN is plugged into several other forums and networks through which it will share this work. These networks include the Global Solutions Lab,
v the Open Energy Modelling Initiative,vi and the Zero Emissions Solutions Conference,vii to name a few. These globally recognized consortiums provide an opportunity to showcase the results of this project and San Diego as a model to the world. With access to these fora, the RDF project can help inform global roadmaps and pathways to net zero.
Through a concerted effort to enable this ecology of networks, this project can serve as a model and have a greater impact far beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of San Diego region.
9.3 Planning Across Jurisdictions––Horizontal and Vertical Alignment Significant progress has been made over the last few decades in decarbonization efforts across California, however, many of the efforts have been undertaken with a specific technology, market, policy, or sector focus. This has led to a fragmented approach which only enables parts of the system to move forward, allowing uncertainties and risk averse behavior to limit the ambitious, transformative decision-making needed to enable an energy system transformation.
i https://www.unsdsn.org/networks-overview
ii https://www.innovate4cities.org/
iii https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/ iv https://unfccc.int/climate-action/regional-climate-weeks#eq-1 v https://designsciencelab.com/
vi https://openmod-initiative.org/
vii https://zeroemissions.network/
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 484 of 560
446
Only with a systems approach can deep decarbonization be achieved. To apply a systems approach to decarbonization, detailed pathways analysis is needed to understand the sectors, stakeholders, and potential physical and economic trajectories that must be accounted for, so that policies can be developed in ways that compensate for displacement, buffer disruptive shifts, and ensure a just transition. The San Diego County RDF approach attempts to do exactly this, laying the groundwork for the institutional framework needed to facilitate long-term transformational change in the energy system across jurisdictions and political boundaries.
The enabling factors in San Diego included a strong historical precedent of local climate action planning, as well as pre-established institutional linkages across several areas (for example, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
i works with jurisdictions throughout the
region beyond transportation planning), coupled with an ambitious and technically rigorous vision set by the County leadership. By employing state of the art energy system modeling tools and working with local experts from universities and public policy think tanks, the County has demonstrated leadership in mapping key pathways to meeting their climate action plan goals.
The technological capacity of the team, plus the local political support, has created a collaborative and transparent process through which the RDF was developed. While the exact future remains unclear as pathways are certain to shift, technologies develop, and priorities change, the project at the very least presents the institutional framework necessary to take the work outlined in the RDF forward.
To continue to develop and build on this year-long process, San Diego County should leverage both national and global fora for resource input, process benchmarking, and access to other experts. In addition to the key fora highlighted below, Appendix 9.A provides extensive lists of other national and global consortia that San Diego County and other regional jurisdictions can connect with to promote this kind of exercise elsewhere.
Nationally, the campaign "America Is All In"
ii is the most expansive coalition of leaders ever
established in support of climate action in the United States. Led by climate champions across the country and consisting of thousands of US cities, states, tribal nations, businesses, schools, and faith, health, and cultural institutions, the coalition is working alongside the federal government to develop a national climate strategy to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Sharing the findings of the San Diego RDF can help the ~4,000 signatories of the coalition’s joint declaration of support for climate action understand how to carry out local decarbonization planning, so that they can effectively act on their pledges. Moreover, connecting with the US Department of Energy’s National Labs
iii across the country also provides the opportunity to receive support from national interdisciplinary experts and their vast arrays of networks and resources, as well as to elevate the impact of regional decarbonization frameworks like the San Diego RDF by engaging with top-level practitioners. The Saoradh Enterprise Partners Cleantech Innovation Hubs
iv can provide a good starting point to identify opportunities for engaging with
i https://www.sandag.org/
ii https://www.americaisallin.com/
iii https://www.energy.gov/national-laboratories
iv https://www.saoradh.com/research#hubs
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 485 of 560
447
innovative private sector companies working in the clean tech space, through their deep mapping of emerging hubs and ranking of the top 40 US hubs based on the strength of their research funding and results, technology development, venture development, and other metrics.
At the state level, the US Climate Alliance,
i a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the Paris Agreement, offers an excellent opportunity for the findings of the RDF to inform smart, coordinated climate action. The National Governors Association,
ii the US bipartisan organization of the nation’s governors, is another platform where the RDF can contribute to state solutions that improve citizens’ lives through decarbonization efforts. With the state of California already being a formal member of both fora, the RDF can easily support and encourage other states to follow in San Diego and California’s footsteps. Moreover, facilitating decarbonization across US states with the RDF, and demonstrating continued US climate leadership via such groups, will further encourage other nations to do the same.
At the city level, with 1,400 mayors of large US cities as its members and sharing best practices as one of its primary roles, disseminating the findings of the RDF at the US Conference of Mayors
iii provides a great opportunity to contribute to the development of national urban policy. The benefits of engaging with the conference also extend beyond the city level because the policy positions adopted at the annual meeting, which represent the views of the nation’s mayors, are distributed to the President of the United States and Congress.
And finally, for the districts included within the San Diego RDF, the Urban Sustainability Directors Network
iv offers a very practical opportunity to work alongside other municipal leaders at the county level toward implementing climate resilience work. While San Diego County is already one of the 200 communities representing nearly 90 million residents that are part of this network, other US and Canadian local governments are eligible to join.
Globally, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) offers the most premier stage to share the RDF. While the Paris Agreement consists of national efforts, city and regional networks have been increasingly highlighted as key innovators and solution providers to help nations implement their emissions reduction goals. The annual UNFCCC Yearbook
v is a great resource to explore to understand sectoral solutions and needs from a global perspective to ensure that the local aspects of the RDF are comprehensive and aligned with global goals.
Additionally, two of the main global city networks that are actively involved with the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties include the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40)vi and the
i http://www.usclimatealliance.org/
ii https://www.nga.org/
iii https://www.usmayors.org/
iv https://www.usdn.org/index.html#/
v https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Yearbook_GCA_2021.pdf vi https://www.c40.org/
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 486 of 560
448
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).i C40 is a network of mayors of nearly 100 world-leading cities specifically working together on climate action based on a science-based and collaborative approach, which the San Diego RDF and pathways-based planning align well with and contribute to. Also, with the cities of Encinitas and Chula Vista as members, San Diego County already has established connections in the ICLEI, a global network of more than 2,500 local and regional governments committed to sustainable urban development that can significantly benefit from learning how to create regional decarbonization frameworks on the road to net zero.
Another key global forum to engage with and disseminate the learnings of the San Diego RDF and other decarbonization frameworks through is the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy,
ii the largest global alliance for city climate leadership in the world. The RDF can contribute to the covenant’s three core initiatives––Data4Cities, Innovate4Cities, and Invest4Cities––which aim to facilitate local government climate action with knowledge, data, tools, and technical support. Furthermore, since 2014, the City of San Diego has participated in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).
iii The RDF experience should be shared with them as a
showcase of how carbon mitigation efforts can be scaled regionally and how other variables for land use conservation can be incorporated into comprehensive planning efforts. Given the CDP’s global reach, sharing the work here could influence similar districts across the country and around the globe.
Expanding the impact of the San Diego RDF is exactly the objective of the Guide which accompanies this report. While this chapter and Appendix 9.A present extensive lists of fora that San Diego County – and other jurisdictions with decarbonization frameworks––should connect with, attend, and join the networks of to disseminate their findings across different scales, the Guide supplements these strategies by outlining how the San Diego RDF process can be replicated and customized to other jurisdictions in their efforts to chart their own paths toward decarbonization. Targeted toward other jurisdictions in the US, the Guide provides process and technical guidance on how to get started on regional decarbonization frameworks, examples of the tools and methodology available to design and carry out needed analyses, recommendations for future research, and provides a directory of US and international decarbonization resources. The Guide is intended to be used by jurisdictions at all phases of the decarbonization process, whether they are just getting started or building on already existing climate action plans. By disseminating the findings of the larger RDF report and creating the accompanying Guide, it is our hope that the process undertaken by San Diego County will help equip jurisdictions with the strategies and resources they need to accelerate deep decarbonization efforts during this decisive Decade of Action.
We welcome stakeholders to read and share the accompanying Guide to Regional Decarbonization created in tandem with this report at http://sdgpolicyinitiative.org/guide/ .
i https://www.iclei.org/
ii https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/
iii https://www.cdp.net/en
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 487 of 560
449
Appendix 9.A Relevant US and Global Communities of Practice Lists
San Diego Level
Building Industry Association of San Diego
Relevant departments of the City of San Diego
below (full list at www.sandiego.gov/city-hall /
departments)
Fleet Operations Division
Engineering & Capital Projects
Environmental Services Department
Parks and Recreation
Performance & Analytics Department
Planning Department
Public Utilities
Department of Real Estate and Airport
Management
Sustainability
Transportation Department
Clean Coalition
Clean Energy Alliance
Cleantech San Diego
Live Well San Diego
San Diego Building Electrification Coalition
San Diego Community Choice Alliance
San Diego Gas & Electric
San Diego Food System Alliance
San Diego Quality of Life Coalition
San Diego Regional Clean Cities Coalition
San Diego Urban Sustainability Coalition
From “RDF Figure 7.1: Role of the County of San
Diego in the Regional Decarbonization Context”
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
San Diego Airport Authority
San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG)
Energy Working Group
Environmental Mitigation Program
Working Group
Military Working Group
Public Health Stakeholders Group
Regional Housing Working Group
Regional Planning Technical Working
Group
Shoreline Preservation Working Group
San Diego Climate Advisory Committee
San Diego Community Power (SDCP)
San Diego County Water Authority
San Diego County’s 18 cities
San Diego County Land Use and
Environment Group
San Diego County Office of Environmental
and Climate Justice
San Diego County Office of Evaluation,
Performance, and Analytics
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
San Diego North County Transit District
Port of San Diego
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 488 of 560
450
California State Level
Building Decarbonization Coalition
Building Industry Association of Southern
California
CalEPA Climate Action Team
California Building Industry Association
California Climate & Agriculture Network
California Climate and Energy Collaborative
California Electric Transportation Coalition
California Energy Alliance
California Energy Storage Alliance
California Indian Environmental Alliance
California Solar & Storage Association
Central Coast Community Energy
Clean Cities Coalition Network (search for
“California” in full list at https://cleancities.
energy.gov/coalitions/contacts/)
Climate Science Alliance
Community Alliance with Family Farmers
East Bay Community Energy
Energy Coalition
Institute for Local Government’s Beacon
Program
MCE Community Choice Energy
Mobility 21
North State Building Industry Association
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Southern California Edison
TECH Clean California
The Climate Center
The Greenlining Institute
Tri-County Regional Energy Network
Relevant State Agencies below (full list at
https://www.ca.gov/agenciesall/)
California Air Resources Board
California Alternative Energy and Advanced
Transportation Financing Authority
California Boating and Waterways Commission
California Building Standards Commission
California Coastal Commission
California Department of Conservation
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection
California Department of Industrial Relations
California Department of Insurance
California Department of Parks and Recreation
California Department of Public Health
California Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery
California Department of Transportation
California Energy Commission
California Environmental Protection Agency
California High-Speed Rail Authority
California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank
California Natural Resources Agency
California Pollution Control Financing Authority
California Public Utilities Commission
California State Lands Commission
California State Mining and Geology Board
California State Transportation Agency
California Transportation Commission
California Workforce Development Board
Cool California
Governor's Office of the Tribal Advisor
Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety
Office of the Governor
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 489 of 560
451
US Regional & National Levels
Alliance for Transportation Electrification
Amalgamated Transit Union
America is All In
American Federation of Labor–Congress of
Industrial Organizations
American Planning Association
American Public Power Association
Better Buildings Initiative
Building Decarbonization Coalition
Buildings Performance Standards Coalition
Business Council for Sustainable Energy
Clean Cities Coalition Network
Clean Energy States Alliance
Clean Power Alliance
Climate Mayors
Coalition of Northeastern Governors
Confederation of International Contractors'
Association
Construction Associations (full lists at https://
guides.emich.edu/c.php?g=188171&p=1241588
& https://jobstars.com/construction-prof ession
al-associations-organizations/)
Consumer Energy Alliance
Cooperative Automated Transportation
Coalition
DOE Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable
Energy
Electric Power Research Institute
Energy, Emissions, and Equity Initiative
Energy Foundation
Energy Information Administration
EPA Climate Change Partnerships
Equitable & Just National Climate Platform
Federal and State Recognized Tribes (full list at
https://www.ncsl.org/legislators-
staff/legislators/quad-caucus/list-of-federal-
and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx)
Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance
Georgetown Climate Center
Indigenous Climate Action
Indigenous Environmental Network
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
International Union of Operating Engineers
Interstate Renewable Energy Council
Native American Finance Officers Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Congress of American Indians
National Energy Marketers Association
National Governors Association
National League of Cities
National Operations Center of Excellence
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
North America's Building Trades Unions
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
Rural Utilities Service
Solar Energy Industries Association
Strategic Organizing Center
The American Clean Power Association
The Eastern Transportation Coalition
Transport Workers Union of America
Transportation & Climate Initiative
Tribal Organizations (full list at https://www.
ncai.org/tribal-directory/tribal-organizations)
United Auto Workers
United Food and Commercial Workers
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 490 of 560
452
Urban Sustainability Directors Network
US Climate Action Network
US Climate Alliance
US Conference of Mayors
US Energy Association
Relevant US Executive Government Agencies
below (full list https://www. loc.gov/rr/news/
fedgov.html)
US Department of Agriculture
US Department of Commerce
US Department of Defense
US Department of Energy
US Department of Housing and Urban
Development
US Department of the Interior
US Department of Labor
US Department of Transportation
US Farmers and Ranchers in Action
US Government Agencies (full list at
https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies)
Office of Climate Change and Health Equity
Office of Conservation and Water
Office of Environmental Quality
Office of Global Change
Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for
Climate
Working for Advanced Transmission
Technologies Coalition
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 491 of 560
453
International/Global Level
Alliance of Bioversity International and the
International Center for Tropical Agriculture
Alliances for Climate Action
Allied for Climate Transformation by 2025
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Climate Action Network International
Climate Alliance
Climate Ambition Alliance
Climate and Clean Air Coalition
Climate Land Ambition & Rights Alliance
Coalition for Supporting Cities To Deliver
Integrated Urban Energy Systems
Coalition for Urban Transitions (now run by a
team at the World Resources Institute)
Council on Urban Initiatives
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group
Energy Transitions Commission
EPA International Climate Partnerships
Glasgow Action for Climate Empowerment
Work Programme
Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture
Global Alliance of Territorial Communities
Global Climate Forum
Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate &
Energy
Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet
Global Network of Regional Sustainable Energy
Centres
G7
G20
High-level Political Forum on Sustainable
Development
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives
International Council on Clean Transportation
International Energy Agency
International Housing Association
International Renewable Energy Agency
International Renewable Energy Agency
Coalition for Action
Least Developed Countries Renewable Energy
and Energy Efficiency Initiative for Sustainable
Development
NDC Partnership
Net Zero World Initiative
Organisation for Economic Co-o peration and
Development
Powering Past Coal Alliance
Race to Zero
Rocky Mountain Institute
Transport Decarbonisation Alliance
Under2 Coalition
United Nations Economic and Social Council
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change
UNFCCC partners and relevant
organizations (full list at https://unfccc.
int/topics/science/resources/partners-
and-relevant-organizations-0)
UN-Habitat for a Better Urban Future
UN specialized agencies (full list at https://
www.un.org/en/about-us/specialized-agencies)
Urban Land Institute
World Wind Energy Association
World Urban Forum
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 492 of 560
454
10. Conclusion
Gordon C. McCord, UC San Diego
Elise Hanson, UC San Diego
The global scientific consensus is unequivocal: the world is in the midst of a climate crisis.
Human activities and influence have warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land through rapid accumulations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere and the ocean, causing rapid and alarming changes. Global accords like the Paris Climate Agreement and California executive orders recognize the urgency of decarbonization across all sectors of society and the economy.
Regional and local plans for deep decarbonization that account for both global commitments and local needs represent critical steps toward finding least-cost solutions that adequately consider trade-offs and equity considerations.
The San Diego Regional Decarbonization Framework (RDF) Technical Report provides technical pathways to decarbonization in the medium-term to inform near-term policy making in regional, County, and city governments toward collectively reducing net GHG emissions such that they align with the State goal of net zero by 2045. The RDF does not identify the “right” pathway; instead, it shows multiple ways forward to reach net zero energy system goals that fit within State- and national-level net zero pathways and highlights trade-offs, decision points, risks, and synergies in the pathways. The framework is flexible and should be continuously updated as science, technology, and costs evolve and as uncertainties are resolved or clarified.
Decarbonizing requires collective action through regional collaboration and information sharing. The RDF proposes region-wide institutional governance for decarbonization that incentivizes experimentation and learning. Organized into a Regional Steering Committee, Sector Working Groups, and Front-Line Advisors, this evolving structure can coordinate learning efforts across jurisdictions and adapt to changing technological and political realities. A mechanism such as a Regional Climate Action Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) could scale strategic thinking and decision-making and facilitate closer coordination around decarbonization. Given limited local leverage over many emitting activities, regional climate governance institutions must directly engage with State and federal governments to advocate for policies and programs that support local decarbonization.
The RDF analyzes technical pathways for electricity generation, transportation, and buildings. It finds that decarbonizing each sector in the region is technically feasible but will require concerted effort, political will to make difficult trade-offs, and active planning to ensure the transition does not exacerbate social inequities. Climate plans must also consider the fundamental importance of natural lands, which provide both carbon storage and annual Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 493 of 560
455
sequestration, as well as working lands, which can be managed to provide carbon storage and sequestration while supporting local agricultural production.
The RDF also analyzes decarbonization’s net impact on energy sector jobs, showing that the regional pathways will generate decarbonization industry jobs and result in no net job losses, even with fossil fuel contractions during the period. It is important for regional governments to begin developing policies for a just transition for fossil fuel workers now. This will allow workers to transition into jobs of equivalent or better quality in the clean energy economy or elsewhere both before and after significant reductions in fossil fuel use. A workforce development report, titled “Putting San Diego County on the High Road: Climate Workforce Recommendations for 2030 and 2050” by Inclusive Economics, complements the Technical Report details these policy recommendations.
i
Since the individual jurisdictions in the San Diego region each prepare Climate Action Plans (CAPs), the RDF assessed current commitments in CAPs to understand gaps between plans and decarbonization goals. This entailed both a comparative CAP analysis and a scenario analysis.
An additional analysis applied the CAP measure with the largest GHG reductions to every jurisdiction, regardless of CAP status, and found that the region would still fall short of decarbonization goals. Following an analysis of local jurisdictions’ legal authority, the RDF finds that local governments can influence and regulate GHG emissions by accelerating State statutory targets and policies, adopting ordinances to go beyond State law, and using unique authority to adopt and implement policies. However, the full extent of a local jurisdiction’s power to regulate GHG emissions remains unknown.
The process undertaken by the County of San Diego in producing the RDF can serve as a model for other jurisdictions across the United States and the world. To facilitate dissemination, the RDF project team collaborates closely with the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), showcasing this effort in various State, national, and international meetings and reports. Additionally, the project team is developing an accompanying Guide to serve as a toolkit for other municipalities and communities pursuing regional decarbonization. The Guide is a separate effort commissioned by the County to facilitate information sharing, highlight the enabling factors for success, and provide step-by-step instructions for other communities wishing to undertake similar long-term planning processes in their efforts to combat climate change.
The Regional Decarbonization Framework brings together the best scientific understanding of what actions should be taken in the coming years to set the San Diego region on a pathway to
i Available here: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/lueg/regional -de carb- frameworkfiles/Putting%20San%20Diego%20County%20on%20the%20High%20Road_June%202022.pdf Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 494 of 560
456
decarbonization by 2045. In particular, the Framework highlights “low-regret” strategies and investments that will be worthwhile regardless of how the longer-term picture evolves. Moving forward quickly and meaningfully can generate political momentum and inspire other regions across the country and abroad to follow the science-based, inclusive process that the San Diego region is pioneering.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 495 of 560
457
Appendix A. Summary of Statewide Energy System
Modeling
As noted in the Study Framework chapter, the detailed sectoral analysis presented in the RDF was informed by energy system modeling at the state and national level. This work was done by Evolved Energy Research using the modeling tools EnergyPATHWAYS and RIO presented in Williams et al. (2021).
1 These same modeling tools were also used in the Princeton Net-Zero America study,2 SDSN’s Zero Carbon Action Plan,3 and the Decarb America Initiative.4 Unlike in these national studies, the state-level analysis includes two zones for California (north and south), zones for each of the other ten western states, and a final “other states” zone that helped to set the boundary conditions for the west around variables such as the availability of imported biofuels. The zonal representation is shown graphically in Figure A1 and is the same used for the analysis in Wu et al. (forthcoming).
The Study Framework (Chapter 1) also notes that the energy system modeling was not prescriptive when it came to the RDF. Instead, it is meant to guide more detailed local-level analyses capturing the specific circumstances of the San Diego region. The larger energy system context presented here creates an important backdrop for the region and explicitly acknowledges the interconnectedness of our energy and land systems. This appendix focuses on summary results from the EnergyPATHWAYS and RIO modeling, along with the basic input assumptions. Readers looking for a more detailed description of both the methods and the underlying system-level dynamics outside of California should reference Williams et al. (2021).
Figure A1. Western state representation used in the EnergyPATHWAYS and RIO models that helped provide the broader energy system context for the San Diego region.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 496 of 560
458
A.1 Informational flow: state-wide energy system models to regional pathways The modeling framework used to identify decarbonization pathways at the state and national levels is organized around energy demand and supply. First, modelers use EnergyPATHWAYS to estimate final energy demand by type in up to 64 different demand subsectors for each study year (2020-2045). Inputs to the model include the most recent data on subsector final energy demand from the Energy Information Agency Annual Energy Outlook and modelers’ assumptions of how technology-use will change over time (e.g., the rate that customers switch from fossil-fuel to electric appliances or cars, or how the economy activities may shift over time). The resulting subsector estimates of energy demand are time-varying, meaning that they include hourly estimates of energy demand for a set of representative days. Next, modelers input the hourly and yearly demand estimates into the RIO model, which determines the “best” set of new and existing energy supplies to meet demand in each geographic area. The choices are constrained by things like emissions limits, operational constraints (e.g., the need to balance supply and demand in real time), resource scarcity (e.g., biomass), or policy (e.g., a ban on nuclear energy). The result is a least-cost pathway--an energy investment “plan” – under the assumptions and constraints applied.
Past decarbonization models have found that reaching net-zero nationwide and in California by 2045 can be done at manageable cost. In their national-level model, Williams et al. (2021) 1 estimate that net costs of decarbonization would fall between 0.4% and 0.9% of GDP, depending on the scenario, compared to a historical range of total US spending on energy between 5.5%-13% of GDP from 1970 to the present. The geographic distribution of these costs is not modeled at a high resolution, and so we do not present total decarbonization costs for the San Diego region in the RDF. However, it should be noted that higher costs in a particular geographic region are not necessarily a negative, as they imply greater investment, growth in local industry and employment, and new infrastructure.
These system-level decarbonization pathways provide a useful guide for the detailed, sector- level pathways laid out in the remainder of the RDF. No individual pathway should be treated as a plan because the underlying assumptions are too uncertain. However, by applying several different sets of assumptions and constraints--scenarios--to generate several different least- cost pathways, modelers get a sense of which types of energy supply investments are most robust, or chosen as “best” in most circumstances. This gives policymakers a common general direction, at least initially, helping to alleviate policy gridlock, prevent conflicting approaches, and eliminate dead-end strategies.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 497 of 560
459
A.2 Scenario Descriptions
A set of five scenarios were modeled to help inform the RDF. First, a reference, or “baseline,” scenario that does not enforce emissions constraints was run for comparison purposes. From there, the other four scenarios explore sensitivity to different uncertainties in behavior, societal preference, and technology development. These were chosen to reflect the broad debates happening around climate policy and human behavior at the state level, and reflect a wide range of plausible futures. The Central scenario meets reference energy service demand with high demand-side uptake of electric, efficient technologies and with all energy-supply technology options available. The Low Demand scenario uses assumptions from Williams et al. (2021) to examine the implication of higher energy conservation on mitigating emissions from the energy system. The Electrification Delay introduces a 20-year lag in the speed at which customers adopt electric technologies. Finally, the No Sequestration scenario disallows geologic storage of CO
2 and subsequently emphasizes drop-in use of clean fuels, rather than continued use of fossil fuels with captured carbon offsetting those emissions. This scenario reflects that, while technical potential exists for geologic storage of carbon in California, political, regulatory, and economic barriers may prevent this from becoming a reality. A summary of the inputs used across each of the five scenarios is provided in Table A1.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 498 of 560
460
Table A1. Input summary for each of the five macro-energy scenarios analyzed in the EnergyPATHWAYS and RIO models.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 499 of 560
461
A.3 Model Implications and Supplementary Results
Some relevant results from the EER state-level energy system modeling are shown below in Figures A2-A10. Across the scenarios modeled, several broad themes emerge that inform the detailed sector-level pathways for the San Diego region.
In all scenarios consistent with net zero emissions state-wide by 2045, energy end-uses must rapidly electrify, implying dramatic reductions in the end-use of pipeline gas and gasoline fuel, relative to the reference scenario (Figure A2). This means that, even with uncertainty around the overall rate and extent of electrification, reaching net-zero emissions will require that nearly all light duty vehicles and many medium and heavy-duty vehicles be electric by 2045 (Figure A7). Likewise, demand for heating and cooling in the built environment, mostly expected to increase (Figure A6) as new buildings are constructed and temperatures rise (Figure A5), must be met increasingly by electric devices.
The need for massive electrification drives the regional analyses of the transport and buildings sectors. In transport, the RDF pathways outlines a need for significant efforts across jurisdictions to rapidly increase EV adoption and the buildout of charging infrastructure. In buildings, the RDF pathway emphasizes efforts to incentivize adoption of efficient heat pump- based space and water heating systems in both new and existing buildings, with particular focus on assistance for low-income residents and rental buildings.
Simultaneously, the electric sector itself must decarbonize, which in California means massive increases in solar generation capacity and less in wind (Figure A3). This finding drives the regional energy production pathway analysis, which identifies substantial opportunity for solar development throughout the region.
Finally, the EER models show that, if allowed by policy, carbon sequestration will likely be necessary to achieve net-zero emissions. The land use and natural climate solutions regional pathway analysis broadly assumes that this will require some level of natural carbon sequestration and identifies land use and natural climate solutions which can enhance or increase net negative land emissions.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 500 of 560
462
Figure A2. Final energy demand for different fuel blends in California. Final energy demand for the No Sequestration scenario is the same as that of the Central scenario; however, pipeline gas in the No Sequestration scenario would need to come from low carbon sources, such as drop- in fuels.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 501 of 560
463
Figure A3. Total installed electricity capacity in California.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 502 of 560
464
Figure A4. CO2 emissions from energy and industrial processes in California. Colors above the x -axis represent positive emissions, and colors below represent offsetting negative emissions. The black line indicates net CO2 emissions. Product and bunkered CO2 is carbon that ends up sequestered in materials (e.g., asphalt) or CO2 not counted in current inventories (e.g., interstate aviation).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 503 of 560
465
Figure A5. Percent change from 2020 to 2050 for some of the important drivers of energy service demand in California, where state CDD stands for cooling degree days and HDD stands for heating degree days.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 504 of 560
466
Figure A6. California's energy service demand for the largest energy consuming subsectors for the Reference and Low Demand scenarios. Scenarios not pictured have the same energy service demands as the reference case.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 505 of 560
467
Figure A7. Vehicle sales shares and resulting stocks in California Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 506 of 560
468
Figure A8. California 2050 electricity consumption and supply. Fuel conversion loads include both electric boilers and electrolysis.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 507 of 560
469
Figure A9. Transmission tie capacity from Northern and Southern California to surrounding zones.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 508 of 560
4 70
Figure A10. Capture and utilization of CO2 in California for net-zero scenarios.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 509 of 560
471
A.4 Limitations
While the EER modeling offers several robust insights about where decarbonization pathways should begin--massive electrification and renewable deployment--uncertainty makes it impossible to perfectly model the optimal trajectory, and some questions remain without a robust answer.
One important area of uncertainty not fully addressed by this modeling exercise is reliability.
Electrification of end uses means greater reliance on the power grid to provide vital energy services, and large increases of intermittent renewable resources on the grid imply possibly large changes in energy system reliability over the course of the transition. While EER models do include grid structure and some temporal granularity, they plan for system reliability only 2- 5 years into the future, rather than over the whole 25-30 years modeled. Thus, model results on the quantity of energy supply resources at the end of the modeling period (eg. X MW in 2050) should be understood as directional, rather than precise measurements.
Also, regional level costs—both demand and supply-side—reported by the EER model are subject to significant uncertainty. These models are meant to estimate costs over broad geographic areas, and do not produce detailed outlines of the geographic distribution of these costs in sub-regions. The distribution of costs depends on many factors—including fuel availability, sequestration costs, and economic and population trends, among other—which are very difficult to estimate over time at a high spatial resolution. For this reason, regional analyses have treated EER model cost estimates for zones (like Southern California) as broad approximations and have not been precisely reported here in this Appendix.
Works Cited:
1. Williams, J. H. et al. Carbon-Neutral Pathways for the United States. AGU Adv. 2, e2020AV000284 (2021).
2. Larson, E. et al. Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, interim report . 345 (2020).
3. SDSN. Zero Carbon Action Plan. (2020). https://www.unsdsn.org/Zero-Carbon-Action-Plan
4. Decarb America Research Initiative. Reports. https://decarbamerica.org/report/ (2021).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 510 of 560
472
Appendix B. Review of Authority for Local Jurisdictions and Agencies to Influence and Regulate GHG Emissions
Joe Kaatz, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego School of Law
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE NOR CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ENERGY
POLICY INITIATIVE CENTER (EPIC) OR UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO (USD) AND ANY USER OF THE INFORMATION. USE OF THIS INFORMATION IS AT USERS SOLE RISK AND DISCRETION. EPIC AND USD ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTEE OR GUARANTEE IS CREATED BY THIS DOCUMENT.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 511 of 560
473
B.1 Introduction
EPIC reviewed constitutionally derived local jurisdiction police power, delegate authority from the state, and federal and state preemption that may limit local authority. EPIC used this analysis to determine if and how local jurisdictions and other agencies in the region may influence or regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We also identified key players, regulation, and legislation that effect local authority to add context regarding a local jurisdiction’s ability to act on its own and in concert with others within the San Diego region.
In general, local authority derives from both constitutionally derived police power and delegated authority from state statutes. Constitutionally derived police power grants a broad, elastic grant of authority to act where such action is reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose and has a reasonable tendency to promote public health, safety, or the general welfare of the community. It is limited by general state law and the state and federal constitutions. The full extent of local jurisdiction police power with regards to regulating GHG emissions is unknown. Delegated authority includes, among other things, analyzing land use environmental impacts and mitigating them, adopting more stringent building codes, building infrastructure, or creating community choice aggregators to supply electricity. The following will summarize local authority by decarbonization pathway.
B.1.1 Summary of Local Authority
Local jurisdiction authority to regulate GHGs is created by broad, general constitutionally derived “police power”
i or delegated authority under state or federally law. Use of police power may not conflict with “general” law (e.g., state law) under preemption principles found in California Constitutional Article XI, § 7 or federal expressed or implied preemption under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. ii
State and federal preemption analysis, as well as the analysis on the full extent of local police power to regulate GHG emissions, are factually specific with local jurisdiction authority uncertainty dependent on the type of action.
Police power of a city or county within its own boundaries is as broad as that of the state legislature and subject only to limitations of general law.
iii Police power "is not a circumscribed prerogative, but is elastic and, in keeping with the growth of knowledge and the belief in the popular mind of the need for its application, capable of expansion to meet existing conditions of modern life and thereby keep pace with the social, economic, moral, and intellectual evolution of the human race."iv Its exercise must be both:
a) Reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose,v and b) Have a reasonable tendency to promote the public health, morals, safety, or general welfare of the community.
vi
i Cal. Const. art. XI, § 7.
ii U.S. Const. art. VI, § 2.
iii Candid Enters., Inc. v. Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist., 39 Cal. 3d 878, 885 (1985); Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129, 140 (1976); Carlin v. City of Palm Springs, 14 Cal. App. 3d 706, 711 (1971). iv Miller v. Board of Pub. Works, 195 Cal. 477, 485 (1925). v Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129, 158 (1976). See Consolidated Rock Prods. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 57 Cal. 2d 515, 522 (1962).
vi Carlin v. City of Palm Springs, 14 Cal. App. 3d 706, 711 (1971).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 512 of 560
474
Police power is especially well established in enacting and enforcing land use laws. City and county land use authority does not rely on delegated general law of the state or federal government. Instead, state and federal laws are limitations on a city’s or county’s exercise of its police power. i To this end, local
jurisdictions act with both police power and delegated authority to establish climate changes policies and regulations to reduce GHGs in general plans (GPs), climate action plans (CAPs), zoning, transit- oriented development regulations, carbon sequestration (including urban forestry), energy conservation actions through green building practices and reach codes, water conservation, and solid waste reduction. Land use authority is subject to the vested right doctrine ii and Subdivision Map Actiii that
limits how a subsequent change in local law or the authority to impose conditions apply to a particular improvement to land or a vesting tentative map for subdivisions.
Local jurisdiction police power is also subject to state preemption. Examples include the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) authority to site and license thermal power plants of 50 megawatts iv or more
and energy storage resources of 20 MWs or more that discharge for at least two hours or more and will deliver net peak energy by October 31, 2021.
v It is notable that the Governor may curtail local land use authority over siting and regional air quality regulation of these and other related energy resources, including emergency backup generation, when an emergency declaration is issued for a specified time period.
vi Such declarations can suspend local and state laws by either establishing exclusive licensing authority that preempts or by expressly suspending air quality laws, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the California Coastal Act (CAC). Emergency declarations may also have the effect of limiting judicial review of such licenses.
Local land use authority is generally concurrent to, and not preempted by, air quality authority law and regulation of air pollutants from stationary, nonvehicular source of emissions. Concurrent authority may allow local jurisdictions to further regulate air quality under its police power. vii It should be noted that
there is no power granted to local air districts to infringe on an existing local jurisdiction’s authority over land use (e.g., zoning).viii
Charter cities and counties act with more autonomy over governance decisions than common law cities and counties,ix however, all local jurisdictions are controlled and subject to general state law. Of the nineteen local governments in the San Diego region, there are eight charter citiesx and the County of San Diego is a charter county. Notably, all cities act with a higher level of autonomy than the county because they are voluntarily formed and perform many essential services. Charter cities also act with
i DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763, 782 (1995); Candid Enters., Inc. v. Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist., 39 Cal. 3d 878, 885 (1985).
ii Avco Community Developers v. South Coast Reg'l Comm'n, 17 Cal. 3d 785, 791 (1976), superseded by statute as stated in Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County Bd. of Supervisors, 84 Cal. 4th 221, 229 (2000).
iii See Government Code §§ 66410–66499.38; Government Code §§ 66474.2 & 66498.1(b). iv See Public Resources Code §§ 25500 et seq.; See Public Resources Code §§ 25120 & 25123. v See California Energy Commission Order No. 21-0908-1 (Adopted Sept. 8, 2021). vi See Governor’s July 30, 2021 Proclamation of A State of Emergency to address energy supply and demand issues; see U.S. Const. Amendment X; See California Emergency Services Act: Government Code §§ 8558, 8567, 8571, 8625, & 8627.
vii See Health & Safety Code §§ 39002 & 41508.
viii See Health & Safety Code §§ 40716(b) & 41015.
ix See Cal. Const. art. XI; See Government Code § 34871. x Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Del Mar, El Cajon, Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, and Vista.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 513 of 560
475
more autonomy than common law cities under the “home rule” power to govern matters of “municipal affairs.”i Charter counties exercise limited home rule authority.ii This power allows local laws to expand beyond state law requirements. However, the extent of home rule authority is a legal determination that depends on the specific charter and municipal code of individual charter jurisdiction, whether the exercised authority is for a municipal affair, and whether the matter is of statewide concern where it is the intent and purpose of the general laws to occupy the field to the exclusion of municipal regulation. iii
Finally, because counties are the legal subdivision of the state, the state may delegate or rescind any delegated function of the state to a county.
Local jurisdictions also act with the authority to tax,iv issue bonds,v and impose fees, charges, and rates.vi This authority is derived from and limited by the California Constitution and statute, including requiring voter approval for taxes and bonds. vii
B.2 Local Authority to Decarbonize Transportation
Transportation emissions may be reduced by regulating direct (e.g., tailpipe) emissions from vehicles, including by switching to low carbon fuels such as clean electricity, by changing land use patterns to reduce the distances needed to be traveled (e.g., reducing VMT and/or providing alternative transportation modes to single-occupant vehicles), and by designing communities to reduce system inefficiencies such as those caused by transportation congestion (e.g., synchronized traffic lights). The legal authority to regulate each type of transportation emissions is described below.
Local authority over transportation is rooted in land use authority over planning and development that determines where residents live and work. City and county land use authority does not rely on delegated general law of the state or federal government. Instead, state and federal laws are limitations on a city’s or county’s exercise of its police power.
viii To this end, local jurisdictions act with both police
i Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5.
ii Charter County limited “home rule” authority includes: 1) providing for lection, compensation, terms, removal, and salary of the governing board; 2) for the election or appointment (except the sheriff, district attorney, and assessor who must be elected), compensation, terms, and removal of all county officers; 3) for the powers and duties of all officers; and for consolidation and segregation of county offices. It excludes additional authority over:
1) local regulations; 2) revenue-raising abilities; 3) budgetary decisions; or 4) intergovernmental relations. iii See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5, subd. (a).; See Jackson v. City of Los An geles, 111 Cal. App. 4th 899 (2d Dist. 2003); See City of Santa Clara v. Von Raesfeld, 3 Cal. 3d 239 (1970); See Baron v. City of Los Angeles, 2 Cal. 3d 535 (1970); Dairy Belle Farms v. Brock, 97 Cal. App. 2d 146, 217 P.2d 704 (1st Dist. 1950); See Wilkes v. City and County of San Francisco, 44 Cal. App. 2d 393, (1st Dist. 1941); See People ex rel. Scholler v. City of Long Beach, 155 Cal. 604 (1909); See Galli v. Brown, 110 Cal. App. 2d 764 (1st Dist. 1952); See Pearson v. Los Angeles County, 49 Cal. 2d 523 (1957).
iv Cal. Const. art. XIIIC, § 2(a) & (d).
v See generally Municipal Bond Act of 1901 (Government Code §§ 43600 –43638) & Government Code §§ 50665.1– 50670.
vi Cal. Const. art. XI, § 7; see also Revenue Bond Act of 1941 (Government Code §§ 54300 et seq ., Uniform Standby Charge Procedure Act (Government Code §§ 54984 et seq.); Government Code § 66013; Government Code § 66014; Health & Safety Code §§ 5471 & 5473; See generally Government Code § 37112. vii See generally Cal. Const. art. XIIIA, XIIIC, & XIIID; see Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (Revenue & Tax Code §§ 7200 et seq.).
viii DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763, 782 (1995); Candid Enters., Inc. v. Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist., 39 Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 514 of 560
476
power and delegated authority to establish climate changes policies and regulations to reduce GHGs from transportation in GPs, CAPs, zoning, and transit-oriented development regulations. Land use authority is subject to the vested right doctrinei and Subdivision Map Actii that limit how a subsequent change in local law or the authority to impose conditions apply to a particular improvement to land or a vesting tentative map for subdivisions.
State law creates planning requirements that do not preempt local land use authority. For example, state law directs local jurisdictions to identify and mitigate GHG emissions that are found to have significant environmental impacts under CEQA for projects or GPs and to address infill and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under SB 743 (Steinberg, Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013). State law also provides CEQA streamlining benefits for implementing sustainable community strategies (SCS) to achieve regional GHG reduction targets under SB 375 (Steinberg, Chapter 728, Statues of 2008).
However, federal and state preemption exists regarding mobile sources of emissions (e.g., vehicles).
B.2.1 Authority to Reduce VMT through Land Use Planning and Related Transportation GHG Emissions
The following describes the mileage of public roads in San Diego County by regulating authority to provide background on how existing authority may apply to which roads in the region. The discussion then turns to land use planning authority and requirements.
Table B1 San Diego County Public Road Mileages and Resulting Authority
There is limited federal preemption with regards to local land use, but there may be federal preemption for certain transportation land use actions. For example, congestion pricing and low emission zones are local means to reduce VMT on city and county roads under existing local authority, iii but there is
potential federal preemption under the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA), Clean Air Act (CAA), and Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA)iv that must be evaluated and resolved.v Additionally, tolls on “federal-aid highways” would require compliance with Federal United States Code section 23 related to highways and approval from the Federal Highway Administration. SANDAG
Cal. 3d 878, 885 (1985).
i Avco Community Developers v. South Coast Reg'l Comm'n, 17 Cal. 3d 785, 791 (1976), superseded by statute as stated in Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County Bd. of Supervisors, 84 Cal. App. 4th 221, 229 (2000).
ii See Government Code §§ 66410–66499.38; Government Code §§ 66474.2 & 66498.1(b). iii See Streets and Highways Code § 900 et seq. & § 1800-1967.11 et seq. iv 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 14501(c)(1) & (c)(2)(A)
v Turner, Amy E. and Burger, Michael, "Cities Climate Law: A Legal Framework for Local Action in the U.S." (2021).
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. p. 37: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sabin_climate_change/2 .
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 515 of 560
477
operates high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes along I-15 under this type of federal approval.i
State authority extends over state highways under Streets and Highway Code §§ 250 et seq., which includes acquisition of land, construction of roads, and care to preserve value and utility of the road.
State law also authorizes the creation of toll bridges, roads, and ferries. ii It is unclear whether the state
may create congestion pricing or low emission zones in light of EPCA, CAA, and FAAAA preemption issues. California is also exploring piloting a road user mileage-based fee under SB 339 (Wiener, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2021) that may offer additional means of addressing GHG emissions. Whether there is applicability to the local level will need to be further examined.
Local governments have been granted inherent police powers under the California constitution (California Constitution art. XI, § 7) with primary local control over local land use, including local iii and
county roads.iv The primacy of city and county’s control over land use, therefore, does not rely on delegated general law of the state or federal government. Instead, state and federal laws act only as minimal limitations on a city or county’s exercise of its police power.v
To this end, local jurisdictions may establish climate change policies and regulations to reduce GHGs from transportation in GPs, CAPs, zoning, transit-oriented development regulations, or other types of plans (e.g., Active Transport Plans). However, land use authority is subject to the vested right doctrine vi
and Subdivision Map Actvii that limit how a subsequent change in local law or the authority to impose conditions apply to a particular improvement to land or a vesting tentative map for subdivisions. State law directs local jurisdictions to mitigate GHG emissions that are found to have significant environmental impacts under CEQA for projects or GPs, to address infill and reduce VMT under SB 743 (Steinberg, Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013), and to incorporate Complete Streets plans viii in major
revisions to a city or county Circulation Element that include all roadways users (e.g., pedestrians and bicyclists). State law provides grant funding under the Active Transportation Program to mitigate the impact of proposed transportation facilities or to enhance the environment, where such actions would otherwise be beyond the authority of the lead agency.
ix State law also creates a CEQA streamlining
benefit to implementing SCS to achieve regional GHG reduction targets under SB 375 (Steinberg, Chapter 728, Statues of 2008). These planning requirements do not preempt local land use authority but are instead requirements that inform land use decisions.
i See 23 U.S.C.A. § 166.
ii See Streets and Highways Code § 30000 et seq.
iii See Streets and Highways Code § 1800 et seq.
iv See Streets and Highways Code § 900 et seq.
v DeVita v County of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763, 782 (1995); Candid Enters., Inc. v. Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist., 39 Cal. 3d 878, 885 (1985).
vi Avco Community Developers v. South Coast Reg'l Comm'n, 17 Cal. 3d 785, 791 (1976), superseded by statute as stated in Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County Bd. of Supervisors, 84 Cal. App. 4th 221, 229 (2000).
vii See Government Code §§ 66410–66499.38; Government Code §§ 66474.2 & 66498.1(b). viii Government Code § 65302 (b)(2)(A)-(B).
ix Note: State law helps to fund Complete Street plans and other active transport activities and plans with funds appropriated through the Active Transport Program; See SB 99 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 359, Statutes of 2013) and AB 101 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 354, Statutes of 2013); See also SANDAG Active Transportation Program Funding:
https://www.sandag.org/index.asp?classid=34&projectid=483&fuseaction=projects.detail .
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 516 of 560
478
State and regional entity authority to preempt local land use authority is limited in terms of transportation land use planning.i At the regional level, SANDAG is responsible for, among other things:
1) regional transportation planning, resource allocation, project development (excluding airport and Port of San Diego services); 2) preparing a Regional Housing Needs Assessment; and 3) developing a Regional Comprehensive Plan to integrate transportation and local land use plans. SANDAG, as the region’s metropolitan planning organization (MPO), is required to prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan (RTP) under federal law
ii to receive federal funding. Under state law, the RTP must include a long-range SCS per SB 375 (2008) to achieve CARB’s per capita regional GHG reduction targets for 2020 and 2035.iii CARB’s targets call for the San Diego region to reduce GHG emissions by 15% per capita by 2020 and 19% per capita by 2035 from a 2005 baseline.iv SANDAG’s SCS must feasibly achieve the GHG reduction goals based on anticipated development patterns pursuant to local plans, or it must prepare an alternative planning strategy showing how the regional targets can be met through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies. v
CARB must approve SCS or an alternative development plan to determine if the relevant plan would achieve the regional emission reduction target. SANDAG submitted and received approval of its most recent RTP for federal funding purposes in 2019. SANDAG is currently developing a 2050 Regional Plan that combines the RTP, the SCS, and a Regional Comprehensive Plan and which aligns the region’s transportation, housing, and land use around CARB GHG reduction targets. These CARB GHG reduction targets from the RTP are also required to be addressed in SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Plan, recently adopted on December 10, 2021, and the Regional Plan must include strategies that provide for mode shift to public transit per AB 805 (Gonzalez Fletcher, Chapter 658, Statutes of 2017).
Notably, the SCS expressly does not regulate land use decisions nor create state approval authority for local land use decisions, including consistency between the RTP and GPs, or abrogating any existing vested right created by statute or common law.
vi The primary way that the SCS impacts land use
development is through CEQA streamlining. If CARB approves the SCS, then that approved SCS may serve as the basis for CEQA streamlining of certain residential, transit priority (including residential), and infill projects that are consistent with the SCS.
vii
SB 743 (2013) required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to create criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within and outside of transit priority areas that better align with California’s GHG goals.
viii The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) amended the CEQA Guidelines to require VMT impacts of projects as the criteria to measure transportation environmental impacts starting on July 1, 2020. Lead agencies still exercise discretionary
i See Streets and Highways Code § 50 et seq.
ii 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c); 49 U.S.C. § 5303; 23 C.F.R. Parts 450 & 771; 49 C.F.R. Part 613. iii See Government Code § 65080.
iv See California Resources Board (CARB) SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets by MPO:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-targets ; Note: Per capita GHG emissions include all wells-to-wheels emissions per Appendix F, Final Environmental Analysis, Prepared for the Proposed Update to SB 375 GHG Emissions Reduction Targets (May 9, 2018), p. 69:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/S B375_Final_Target_Staff_Report_%202018_AppendixF.pdf. v Government Code § 65080(b)(2)(B).
vi Government Code § 65080(b)(2)(K).
vii See Public Resources Code §§ 21155.1, 21094.5, 21159.28, CEQA Guidelines § 15183.3, CEQA Guidelines Appendixes M and N; see also SB 743 (Steinberg, Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013) and Public Resources Code § 21155.4.
viii Public Resources Code § 21099(b).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 517 of 560
479
authority over which VMT methods to adopt and how to implement the chosen methodology by project type (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, etc.).i The methodology chosen affects which projects are either exempt or are found to be above or below the environmental impact threshold of significance.
This determines directly which projects require transportation impact GHG mitigation and may allow a local jurisdiction to prioritize infill and transit-oriented projects.
Under CEQA, local jurisdictions as lead agencies act with discretion in determining thresholds of significance to evaluate significant environmental impacts and consequent mitigation from transportation.
ii This may include adopting specific GHG thresholds of significance for the specific jurisdiction, using compliance with California climate policy such as AB 32 (Núñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006) to determine a threshold of significance, or adopting an air pollution control district recommended threshold for transportation GHG emission.
iii The threshold of significant controls impact
analysis and mitigation and drives the use of overriding considerations where impacts cannot be mitigated below the threshold of significance or where mitigation is infeasible.
Recently, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (BAAQMD) adopted the following thresholds of significance for both land use projects and land use development plans that lead agency may voluntary adopt:
Land Use Project (Must Include A or B):
A. Project must include, at a minimum, the following design elements:
a) Buildings
i) The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
ii) The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines
b) Transportation
i) Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan 9currenlty 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
(1) Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita (2) Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee (3) Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
ii) Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
B. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)
Land-use Development Plans (Must include A or B):
A. Meet the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045; or
i See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research: Transportation Impacts SB 743 (Last visited on October 28, 2021): https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/sb-743/.
ii See 14 C.C.R. § 15064.4.
iii See Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife , 62 Cal. 4th 204, 230 (2015).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 518 of 560
480
B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).i
BAAQMD is further developing guidance around these thresholds and will also return to its board in late 2022 with any recommendations on thresholds of significance for climate impacts from stationary sources upon completing additional evaluation.
B.2.2 Air District Indirect Emissions and Local Jurisdiction Concurrent Authority Stationary source direct air pollution is controlled by federal CAA and California air quality laws. Local land use authority is not preemptive by and is generally concurrent to air quality authority statutes and regulations that are used by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SD APCD) to regulate indirect transportation air pollutants from a stationary, nonvehicular source of emissions (e.g., transportation emissions related to buildings). Concurrent authority may allow a local jurisdiction to further regulate air quality under its police power,
ii although local jurisdictions would need to develop
internal technical expertise by hiring staff and avoid state and federal preemption. It should be noted that there is no statutory power granted to SD APCD to infringe on the existing local government authority over land use with regards to air quality regulation (e.g., zoning). iii
The SD APCD is expressly authorized to “consider indirect source rule to address pollution from mobile sources that is associated with stationary sources, such as ports, warehouses, and distribution centers,”
iv but has not done so to date but may do so in the future. The SD APCD may also regulate indirect emissions from transportation to reduce emissions from transportation and areawide emission sources to achieve and maintain state ambient air quality standards. v This allows regulation of direct and
indirect emissions sources, including large office buildings and large residential and commercial developments. In certain instances, a permit may be required to carry out activities that emit air containment or pollutants. However, there is uncertainty over jurisdiction and how to interpret this authority for indirect emission.
vi Additionally, existing authority is used by other air districts to create a voluntary GHG reduction credit generation and certification program to help address emissions of this type. Examples exist of creating a voluntary program for transportation emissions reductions at this time that may be applicable to the SD APCD (see Section 4.1 below). vii
i Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Threshold for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans, Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Item 15 (Adopted April 20, 2022), p. 152 –221:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/board-of-di rectors/2022/bod_agenda_042022_op_rv- pdf.pdf?la=en&rev=c8360ec141654c22b244e5e07f8b88b4.
ii See Health & Safety Code §§ 39002, 39037, & 41508.
iii See Health & Safety Code §§ 40716(b) & 41015.
iv See Health & Safety Code § 40100.6.5.
v Health & Safety Code §§ 40910, 40716–40717.
vi Health & Safety Code §§ 42300–42339; See Health & Safety Code §§ 40716(b) & 41015 (sometimes interpreted as not prohibiting parallel permitting systems for indirect sources); See 76 Ops Call Atty Gen 11 (1993) (Attorney General opinion that authority of an APCD or AQMD does not extend to requiring permits for indirect sources; Note: Attorney General opinions are nonbinding).
vii See Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 206 Mobile and Transportation Source Emission Reduction Credits (Adopted December 15, 1992; Amended December 5, 1996):
http://www.airquality.org/ProgramCoordination/Documents/rule206.pdf .
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 519 of 560
481
Air pollution control district authority exists to address indirect emissions subject to expressed limits.
Health and Safety Code §§ 40716 and 40717 authorizes regulations to reduce VMT and allows the enforcement of transportation control measures in non-attainment areas by SD APCD and SANDAG.
Health and Safety Code section 40918 allows for regulation where there is moderate air pollution. This may include transportation control measures to reduce VMT, area wide source control programs, and indirect source control programs.
In this respect, ozone (O
3) is the only air pollutant with nonattainment status in the San Diego region directly regulated at the local level.i Regional O3 is now considered severe as of July 2, 2021, under the 2015 Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by U.S. EPA. Under the previous moderate designation, the currentii and previousiii Regional Transportation Plan and SD APCD Plan for Attaining Air Quality Standards of Ozone in San Diego County showed implementation surpassed for transportation control measures and indirect regulation of O 3 with all actions and
measures implemented.iv It is possible that this may be updated to address the recent severe nonattainment designation that now sets August 3, 2033, as the new attainment date.
The following is a non-exhaustive list of additional restrictions on SD APCD and local jurisdiction authority with regards to transportation emissions:
• SD APCD is prohibited from requiring an employee trip reduction program unless required by federal law;
v
• SD APCD and regional and local jurisdictions are generally prohibited from requiring that private parties impose parking charges, restrict parking, or impose measures to reduce retail shopping trips;
vi
• SD APCD or its delegate is limited in imposing transport control measures on event centers;vii • SD APCD is prohibited from adopting new or more stringent control measures with respect to pollutants where standards have not been violated unless it prepares an analysis of the costs and benefits of achieving attainment;viii and
• SD APCD is prohibited from adopting or enforcing a regulation requiring fleet operators to purchase or lease only those vehicles that meet state motor vehicle pollutant standards, ix but under its
i Note: Nonattainment exists in the region for PM2.5 and PM 10 under 17 C.C.R. §§ 60205 & 60210, but these are directly regulated by CARB with some local enforcement implemented by SD APCD; See SD APCD’s Mobile Source Program: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/compliance/compliance -req uirements/mobile-source-
program.html.
ii SANDAG San Diego Forward, Federal Regional Transportation Plan, Appendix B Air Quality Planning and Transportation Conformity), p. 22 (Adopted October 25, 2019 by SANDAG: Adopted November 15, 2019 by U.S.
DOT: https://sdforward.com/docs/default-so
urce/2019federalrtp/draftfinal/app-b---air-quality-planning-and- transportation-conformity.pdf?sfvrsn=1a47ff65_2.
iii SANDAG Federal Regional Transportation Plan for 2050, Appendix B Air Quality Planning and Transportation Conformity (2011), p. B-16.
iv SD APCD Plan for Attaining National Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County, Attachment H (October 2020), p. H-1 (p.338):
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/docum ents/grants/planning/Att%20A%20(Attainment%20Plan)_ws .pdf.
v Health & Safety Code § 40717.9 (a).
vi Health & Safety Code § 40717.6.
vii Health & Safety Code § 40717.8.
viii Health & Safety Code § 40930.
ix See Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246 (2004).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 520 of 560
482
authority to regulate indirect sources of air pollution may regulate emissions from groups of non- road construction equipment at development sites (Note: non-road construction equipment is included as “off-road” emissions in regional and local GHG inventories).i B.2.3 Legal Authority to Regulate Direct Emissions from Vehicles
Federal and state law and regulation preempt local jurisdictions from regulating GHG emissions directly from on-road and off-road mobile sources. The federal Energy Policy & Conservation Act (EPCA) preempts California or a local jurisdiction from setting fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards for automobiles.ii Several federal courts have held that local jurisdictions are preempted under the EPCA from requiring clean energy technology for certain classes of vehicles (e.g., hybrid taxis).
iii Direct tailpipe GHG emissions are also regulated by the U.S. EPA under the CAA Section 202.iv U.S. EPA and Department of Transportation (DOT) National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) act with concurrent jurisdiction to regulate GHGs and fuel economy standards for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles under the CAA.
Through this concurrent jurisdiction, the U.S. EPA and NHTSA have promulgated fuel economy standards with GHG tailpipe emissions standards for specified model years. Consequently, federal preemption exists under NHTSA's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) v standards for passenger cars and light-
duty truck models (model years 2017–2021 and 2021–2026vi), medium-duty vehicles (model years 2014–2018), and heavy-duty vehicles (model years 2014–2018vii and 2018–2027 (currently stayed and pending proposal to withdrawviii)).
California uses delegated federal authority to enforce more stringent emission standards under its California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for new vehicles using the CAA Section 209 waiver provision.
California, through CARB, regulates light-duty vehicles under the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program
i See National Ass'n of Home Builders v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. , 627 F.3d 730 (9th Cir 2010).
ii 49 U.S.C.A § 32919(a).
iii Metro. Taxicab Bd. of Trade v. City of New York, 615 F.3d 152, 157 (2d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1264 (2011); Ophir v. City of Boston, 647 F.Supp. 2d 86, 94 (D. Mass. 2009). iv See Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards (Model Years 2023–2024), Final Rule Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0208, 40 C.F.R Part 19, 86, 523, 600, 1066, & 1867:
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emis sions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-revise-existing-national-ghg- emissions.
v See NHTSA: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (Last visited October 29, 2021): https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws- regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy.
vi 40 CFR Parts 531, 531.5(d) and 533; Note: NHTSA proposed new CAFE rules for model years 2024– 2026 on August 10, 2021: DOT, NHTSA, 49 CFR Parts 531, 533, 536, and 537, Docket No. NHTSA- 2021-0053, RIN 2127- AM34, Proposed Rulemaking: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-09-03/pdf/2021-17496.pdf. vii 40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 600, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1065, 1066, and 1068 (U.S. EPA) and 40 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535 (NHTSA); partially withdrawn in 2013 under 40 CFR Part 1037, 1039, 1042, and 1068 (U.S. EPA) and 40 CFR Parts 535 (NHTSA).
viii See Final Rule for Phase 2 fuel efficiency and GHG emissions standards for medium- & heavy-duty vehicles, MY2018–2027 is currently stayed pursuant to an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued on September 29, 2020 in Case No. 16-1430; NHTSA proposed to repeal the stayed SAFE I rule on April 22, 2021: DOT, NHTSA, 49 CFR Parts 531 and 533, Docket No. NHTSA -2021-0030, RIN 21217-AM33, CAFE Preemption, Notice of Proposed Rule Making: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2021- 04/cafe_preemption_nprm_04222021_1_0.pdf.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 521 of 560
483
with recent action including adopting GHG standards for models years 2022–2025, requiring zero emission vehicles (ZEV) be developed and sold by manufacturers, developing regulations for model years 2026 and beyond (Advanced Clean Cars IIi and LEV IV), and enforcing particulate matter standards.ii CARB approved its funding plan for the Fiscal Year 2021–2022 on November 19, 2021; allocating $675 million to light-duty related incentives, including $150 million for equity programs (see programs below). Notably, the CAA preempts the SD APCD from adopting or enforcing any state or local standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines.iii
It is unclear whether local jurisdiction police power or delegated permit, fees, rules, and regulations under California Public Utilities Code § 5371.4 (f)–(g) related to city and counties may allow for the acceleration of the reduction targets and goals for transportation network companies (TNCs). TNCs are regulated under SB 1014 (Skinner, Chapter 269, Statutes of 2018), with CARB mandated to establish GHG emission reduction targets, goals, and baselines that are then implemented by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to reduce GHG emission per passenger-mile starting in 2023 as part of the CPUC’s regulation of TNCs as charter-party carriers.
iv Additionally, the San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority (SDCRAA) is authorized by the CPUC to directly regulate TNCs at its airports, which may allow further regulation of GHG emissions from TNC related trips either through these rules,v its Clean Vehicle Conversion Incentive Program,vi or through its local police and land use authorityvii related to environmental impacts for current and future construction, which is subject to federal preemption over airport operations and review under National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).viii
In terms of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, there are a wide range of regulations for on-road vehicles that include prohibitions on diesel idling for heavy-duty long haul trucks ix and school buses,x the LEV III
i See CARB Public Workshop on Advanced Clean Cars II, Draft Regulatory Language for ACC II (October 13, 2021). ii See Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) Regulation, LEV III Criteria & LEV III GHG, ZEV Regulation, and ACC II & LEV IV; see 13 California Code of Regulations (C.C.R.) § 1360 et seq. iii 42 U.S.C.A. § 7543 (a); Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541 U.S. 246 (2004). iv See Cal. Const. art. XII; See California Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act (California Public Utilities Code §§ 5351 et seq.); See California Public Utilities Commission Rulemaking R.12-12-011 & Decision D.13-09-045, Order Instituting Rulemaking on Regulations Relating to Passenger Carriers, Ridesharing, and New Online -Enabled Transportation Services (2013); See California Public Utilities Commission General Order 157- E (Effective October 31, 2019): https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M322/K150/322150628.pdf . v California Public Utilities Commission D.13-09-045, Decision Adopting Rules and Regulation to Protect Public Safety While Allowing New Entrants To the Transportation Industry (September 23, 2013), p. 33:
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M077/K192/77192335.PDF ; See San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) Rules and Regulations, V7.0, § 5.4 (July 2019):
https://www.san.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?EntryId=7364&Command=Core_ Download&language=en-US&PortalId=0&TabId=585.
vi See SDCRAA Clean Transportation Plan (July 2020), p. 28 & 47:
https://www.san.org/Portals/0/Documents/Environmental/2020-Plans/2020_Clean-Transportation-Plan-min.pdf. vii See SDCRAA Carbon Neutrality Plan (July 2020), p. 51. viii See U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, Western -Pacific Region, Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision, Proposed Airfield Improvements and Terminal 1 Replacement Project, San Diego International Airport, San Diego, San Diego County, California (October 21, 2021), p. 8:
https://www.san.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?Command=Core_Download&Ent ryId=14744&language=en-US&PortalId=0&TabId=225.
ix 13 C.C.R. § 2485.
x 13 C.C.R. § 2480.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 522 of 560
484
standards as part of the ACC program,i GHG emission control through Phase 1 and Phase 2 GHG standards,ii the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation,iii Truck and Bus Regulation,iv Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas (TTGGH) regulation, the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation,v and other regulations specific to class or use case.vi These regulations will continue to change to address the executive orders and to more directly regulate GHG emissions out to 2035. CARB approved its funding plan for the Fiscal Year 2021–2022 on November 19, 2021; allocating $678.14 million to heavy-duty related incentive programs (see more detail on these programs below).
Regulation of non-road and off-road engines includes both regulations from U.S. EPA and CARB applied to specific types and uses of vehicles and engines (Note: off-road is omitted from the policy opportunity section of Chapter 8). Notably, most of these regulations do not address GHG emissions directly or regulate GHG emissions indirectly by regulating other pollutants. Zero emission technology also may not be feasible for off-road engines leaving combustion standards as the best means to reduce emissions.
CARB approved its funding plan for the Fiscal Year 2021–2022 on November 19, 2021, allocating specifically $194.5 million to the Clean Off-Road Equipment Vouchers (CORE) program with additional supports of these regulations by other allocations to heavy-duty vehicle programs.
Local authority may exist to regulate certain small off-road engines, but further research is required.
Existing regulations apply to small off-road engines (excluding engines under 25 horsepower (hp)), vii off-
highway recreational vehicles and engines,viii off-road compression-ignition engines and equipment,ix SIP credit for mobile agricultural equipment in the San Joaquin Valley APCD,x off-road large spark-ignition engines,xi spark-ignition marine engines,xii in-use off-road diesel-fueled fleets (Tier 4 regulationsxiii (U.S.
EPA preempts emission standards for new farm and construction equipment with engines less than 175 HP (130 kW)
xiv)) with Tier 5 regulation stakeholder engagement proposals just introducedxv), portable
i 13 C.C.R. § 1956.8.
ii 13 C.C.R. §§ 1963 et. seq.
iii See Truck and Bus Regulation information: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our -work/programs/truck-and-bus- regulation.
iv See TTGHG Regulation Information: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our -work/programs/ttghg. v See Heavy-Duty OBD Regulation and Rulemaking: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/heavy-duty -obd- regulations-and-rulemaking.
vi See Zero-Emission Transport Refrigeration Units Regulation: 13 C.C.R §§ 2477.1–2477.6; 13 C.C.R § 2477.13; 13 C.C.R §§ 2477.17–2477.19; see Zero-Emission Powertrain Certification Regulation: 13 C.C.R § 1956.8; see Zero - Emission Drayage Truck Regulation: 13 C.C.R § 2027.
vii 13 C.C.R. §§ 2400–2409.
viii 13 C.C.R. §§ 2410–2419.4.
ix 13 C.C.R. §§ 2420–2427.
x 13 C.C.R. §§ 2428.
xi 13 C.C.R. §§ 2430–2439.
xii 13 C.C.R. §§ 2440–2448.
xiii 13 C.C.R. §§ 2449–2449.3 & Appendix A; See also CARB Non-Road Diesel Engine Certification Tier Chart (Last accessed on November 1, 2021): https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/non-road-d iesel-engine- certification-tier-chart?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery. xiv See SORE – List to Determine Preempt Off-Road Applications (Last accessed November 1, 2021):
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sore-list-determine-preempt-road-applications. xv See CARB, Potential Amendments to the Diesel Engine Off-Road Emission Standards: Tier 5 Criterial Pollutants and CO2 Standards (last access on November 1, 2021): https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/tier5?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ; see CARB November 3, 2021 Workshop to Discuss Potential Amendments to the Diesel Engine Off-Road Emission Standards: Tier 5 Criterial Pollutants and Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 523 of 560
485
engine and equipmenti (including fuel containers and spoutsii), portable outboard marine tanks and componentsiii, aftermarket off-road parts certification proceduresiv, and off-road airborne toxic control measures for in-use diesel-fueled transport refrigeration units (TRU) and TRU generator sets (including facilities where TRUs operate).v Additional off-road regulations include evaporative emission requirements for off-road equipmentvi, large spark-ignition (LSI) engine fleet requirements,vii regulation of retrofits to control emission from off-road large spark-ignition engines,viii and evaporative emission requirements for spark-ignition marine watercraft with gasoline-fueled engines.ix There are certain engine sizes and types that are not regulated, such as small off-road engines under 25 hp, that may be regulated by a local jurisdiction. It is uncertain as to whether a local jurisdiction may regulate these types of engines and vehicles for GHG purposes where emissions are regulated for criteria pollutants and airborne toxins.
California continues to invest heavily in reducing emissions from all transportation sources through its state agencies and programs, particularly CARB and the CEC. Aligning local actions and policies with state policy and funding may accelerate local implementation and decrease costs. It is unclear how much previous or future funding has been or will be received by the San Diego region, but increasing funding from these sources should be a priority. The region will compete for these funds as most if not all, funds are administered through a competitive bidding process.
CARB administered Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) funded $438 million in projects from Fiscal Year 2008–2009 through Fiscal Year 2019–2020 and the Low Carbon Transportation Project allocation from Fiscal Year 2013–2014 through Fiscal Year 2019–2020 totals $2.134 billion. x The State Budget Year
for Fiscal Year 2021–22, including over $1.5 billion for a ZEV Acceleration Package and Air Quality Improvement Program, received an appropriation of over $1.5 billion for CARB with an additional $3.9 billion over the next three fiscal years across all state agencies (CARB expects to receive $2.3 billion of this over the next three fiscal years).xi CARB’s approved the following funding plan for Fiscal Year 2021– 2022 on November 19, 2021, for a total of $1,548.09 million allocated in the following ways:
• $525 million for Vehicle Purchase Incentives (Light-duty Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) and Electric Bicycles);
CO2 Standards (last access on November 1, 2021): https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-wo rk/programs/tier-5/meetings- workshops?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.
i 13 C.C.R. §§ 2540–2466.
ii 13 C.C.R. §§ 2467–2467.9.
iii 13 C.C.R. §§ 2468–2468.10.
iv 13 C.C.R. §§ 2470–2476.
v 13 C.C.R. §§ 2477–2479.
vi 13 C.C.R. §§ 2750–2774.
vii 13 C.C.R. §§ 2775–2775.2.
viii 13 C.C.R. §§ 2780-2789.
ix See 13 C.C.R. §§ 2850–2869.
x CARB Proposed Fiscal Year 2020–21 Funding Plan for Clean Transportation Incentives (Release Date: November 6, 2020; Board Consideration: December 10–11, 2020), p. 5–8: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 11/proposed_fy2020-21_fundingplan.pdf .
xi CARB, Proposed Fiscal Year 2021–22 Funding Plan for Clean Transportation Incentives (October 8, 2021 Release) (Board Vote on November 19, 2021), p. 4: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 10/f y21- 22_fundingplan.pdf.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 524 of 560
486
• $150 million for Clean Transportation Equity Investments (includes Clean Cars 4 All, Financing Assistance, Clean Mobility Options, Clean Mobility In Schools Pilot Project, Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP), and others);
• $873.09 million for Heavy-Duty and Off-Road Equipment (including Clean Truck and Bus Vouchers (HVIP), Clean Off-Road Equipment Vouchers (CORE), Drayage Truck and Infrastructure Project, Truck Loan Assistance, and Demonstration and Pilot Projects). i
The CEC currently administers the $100 million per year Clean Transportation Fund (formerly the Alternative and Renewable Fueled and Vehicle Technology Program) created by AB 118 (Núñez, Chapter 759, Statutes of 2007) and reauthorized by AB 8 (Perea, Chapter 401, Statutes of 2013). This program received additional funding this fiscal year with the CEC approving a 2021–2023 Investment Plan Update totaling $1.4 billion on November 15, 2021.
ii In terms of vehicle-related investment, the plan will fund $244 million for ZEV manufacturing that complements CARB administered funding. It sunsets in January 2024.
B.2.4 Fuels and Infrastructure
State preemption exists in the form of the CARB administered Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which regulates the carbon intensity of transportation fuels in California by reducing the carbon intensity of fuel by at least 20% by 2030 from a 2010 baseline
iii and requires continuing to reduce the carbon
intensity of fuels beyond 2030 with consideration of the full life cycle of carbon.iv State preemption also exists in the form of what types of reformed fuels are sold in California, including the Low Emission Diesel and Standards for Diesel Fuel regulations.
v California’s Alternative Diesel Fuel regulation governs the development and commercialization of alternative diesel fuels for sale in California.vi Notably, the CPUC does not automatically regulate compressed natural gas and hydrogen fueling stationsvii but acts with regulatory authority over intrastate pipelines for natural gas and hydrogen with authority over entities that meet the public utility definition. There is uncertainty as to whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) acts with authority over interstate hydrogen pipelines under the Natural Gas Act specific to whether hydrogen is considered an “artificial gas” and whether, and at what percentage, hydrogen is mixed with natural gas.
viii
In terms of fuels, local jurisdictions may exercise police and land use authority to prohibit zoning for new
i CARB, Proposed Fiscal Year 2021–22 Funding Plan for Clean Transportation Incentives (Release Date: October 8, 2021; Board Consideration: November 19, 2021), p. 27: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021 -10/f y21- 22_fundingplan.pdf; CARB approves $1.5 billion investment — lar gest to date — in clean cars, trucks, mobility options, Press Release, Release No. 21-57 (November 19, 2021): https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb-appr oves-15- billion-investment-largest-date-clean-cars-trucks-mobility-options. ii CEC Lead Commissioner Report, 2021–2023 Investment Plan Updated for the Clean Transportation Program, CEC - 600-2021-038-LCF (November 2021): https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2021/2021-2023 -investment-plan- update-clean-transportation-program.
iii See 17 C.C.R. §§ 95480–95503.
iv Executive Order N-79-20, Order No. 9 (September 23, 2020): https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate.pdf. v See 13 C.C.R. §§ 2281–2285, 2299–2299.5; 17 C.C.R. §§ 93114, 93117, 93118, 93118.2, 93118.3, 93118.5; 13 C.C.R. §§ 2281–2285 & 2299–2299.5.
vi 13 C.C.R. §§ 2293-2293.9.
vii California Public Utilities Code § 216 (f).
viii See 14 U.S.C.A §717a (5).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 525 of 560
487
gas stations or support alternative fuel infrastructure through zoning and expediting permitting for renewable natural gas fueling stations, hydrogen fueling stations, and electric vehicle charging equipment (EVSE). Local jurisdictions may also require installation or pre-wiring for EVSE in the public right of way, on new residential and/or nonresidential buildings, or when additions or alterations to existing residential and/or non-residential buildings occur. i
Local authorities should also consider state assessments of infrastructure need and funding to inform the exercise of their own authority to develop and fund fuels and infrastructure. California analyzes the need for and funds infrastructure to achieve the statutory goals for transportation electrification under SB 350 (de León, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) and ZEVs under Executive Order N-79-20. To this end, SB 2127 (Ting, Chapter 365, Statutes of 2018) requires the CEC, CARB, and CPUC to conduct a biannual assessment for electric vehicle charging infrastructure needs to support 5 million ZEVs by 2030 and to reduce emissions of GHG to 40% below 1990 level by 2030; AB 8 (Perea, Chapter 401, Statutes of 2013) directs CARB to evaluate fuel cell electric vehicle deployment and hydrogen fuel station network development; and Executive Order N-79-20 Order 4 directs the CEC, CPUC, and CARB to accelerate affordable fueling and charging options for ZEVs, particularly in low-income and disadvantaged communities, and Order 6, subsection c) directs the State Transportation Agency, Department of Transportation, and the California Transportation Commission to support ZEV and infrastructure as part of larger transportation projects.
CARB’s previously discussed Fiscal Year 2021–2022 funding plan provides significant funding in this regard, specific to use case and vehicle type. However, infrastructure development is the primary focus of CEC’s Clean Transportation Program funding approved on November 15, 2021, to close the infrastructure gap necessary to meet California’s ZEV goals as follows:
• $314 million for light-duty electric vehicle charging infrastructure; • $690 million for medium- and heavy-duty ZEV infrastructure (battery-electric and hydrogen); • $77 million for hydrogen refueling;
• $25 million for zero and near-zero carbon fuel production and supply; and • $15 million for workforce training and development.ii Specific to hydrogen, AB 8 (2013) set a target of co-funding 100 hydrogen fueling stations (currently, there are 48 hydrogen fueling stations with another $115.7 million in CEC grant solicitation to co-fund another 94 stationsiii) and 200 hydrogen stations by 2025 per Executive Order B-48-18. There is currently one operational hydrogen station in San Diego County, with one more expected to open in 2021iv and three more stations expected to open in 2022.v There is an opportunity to further develop San Diego County hydrogen fueling stations with the available state funds and matching private or local funding.
i See 12 C.C.R. Part 11 (2021); See Health & Safety Code §§ 17958.5, 17958.7 & 18941.5(b). ii CEC Approves $1.4 Billion Plan for Zero-Emission Transportation Infrastructure and Manufacturing (November 15, 2021): https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-11/ cec-approves-14-billion-plan-zero-emission-transportation- infrastructure-and; CEC Lead Commissioner Report, 2021-202 3 Investment Update for the Clean Transportation Program (November 2021): https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2021/2021- 2023-inv estment-plan-update- clean-transportation-program.
iii CARB, 2021 Annual Evaluation of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network Development (September 2021), p. ix: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021 -09/2021_AB-8_FINAL.pdf. iv It is unknown whether this station opened as of January 7, 2022. v CARB, 2021 Annual Evaluation of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network Development (September 2021), Appendix B.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 526 of 560
488
Investor Owned Utility (IOU) specific electric vehicle investment funding began in 2016 and was augmented by SB 350’s (2015) mandate to electrify transportation.i The CPUC approved SDG&E’s first pilot in 2016ii for $45 million at 350 sites corresponding to approximately 3,500 EV stations over three years, and the CPUC recently approved a renewal of its Power Your Drive Extension Program for $43.5 million to fund nearly 2,000 L2 EVSEs at workplaces and multi-family dwellings in its service territory.iii The pilot and original Power Your Drive Program installed 3,040 utility-owned and operated charging ports at 254 sites at a total cost of $70,253,053, exceeding the approved budget by $25,253,053, marking the difficulty and expense of implementing this type of program.iv Additionally, AB 1082 (Burke, Chapter 637, Statutes of 2017) and AB 1083 (Burke, Chapter 638, Statutes of 2017) authorized but did not require IOUs to support charging infrastructure at schools, state parks, and beaches. SDG&E applied and received approval for 30 school sites (184 L2 ports and 12 DC Fast Chargers (DCFCs) with either the customer or SDG&E owning the EVSE), 12 state park and beach sites (64 L2 ports & 10 DCFCs owned by SDG&E), and 10 sites at city and county parks (52 L2 ports & 10 DCFCs owned by SDG&E). v
Finally, the Volkswagen Diesel Emission Settlement Beneficiary Mitigation Planvi provides $10 million statewide for light-duty vehicle fueling infrastructure, split evenly between electric vehicles and hydrogen.
B.2.5 New Vehicle Sales and Fleet Procurement Requirements
Local jurisdictions act with clear authority to procure fleets for their operations with limited federal preemption under the “market participant exception.” The market participant exception applies to the Dormant Commerce Clause and is expressly included in the EPCA, vii applied by case law to the CAA,viii
and applied by case law to the FAAAA.ix Local jurisdictions have been prohibited from mandating the purchase of the certain type of clean technology vehicles for private classes of vehicles, such as taxis.x
Local jurisdictions act with clear authority to procure fleets for their operations with limited preemption by the state. However, California policy seeks to create a zero-emission only market for new vehicles under Executive Order No. N-79-20, establishing a 100% in-state sales of new zero-emission passenger
i Public Utilities Code § 740.12(a)(1).
ii CPUC D.16-01-045, Decision Regarding Underlying Vehicle Integration Application and Motion to Adopt Settlement Agreement (February 4, 2016):
(https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M158/K241/158241020.PDF . iii CPUC D. 19-10-012, Decision Authorizing SDG&E Company’s Power Your Drive Extension Electric Vehicle Charging Program (April 19, 2021): https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M378/K429/378429298.PDF . iv CPUC R.18-12-006, Electric Vehicle-Grid Integration Pilot Program Eight Semi-Annual Report of SDG&E Company (U902-E) (April 1, 2020), p. 3: https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/regulatory/R.18-12- 006%20SDG%26E%20April%201%2C%202020%20Eighth%20Semi%20Annual%20PYD%20Report.pdf . v CPUC D. 19-11-017, Decision on the Transportation Electrification Pilots for Schools and Parks Pursuant to Assembly Bills 1082 and 1083 (November 7, 2019).
vi State of California Beneficiary Mitigation Plan For the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust (June 2018), p. 33–36: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-07/bmp_june2018.pdf. vii 49 U.S.C.A § 32919(c).
viii See Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 498 F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). ix Tocher v. City of Santa Ana, 219 F.3d 1040, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000); See also City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 431 (2002).
x Metro. Taxicab Bd. of Trade v. City of New York, 615 F.3d 152, 157 (2d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1264 (2011); Ophir v. City of Boston, 647 F.Supp. 2d 86, 94 (D. Mass. 2009).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 527 of 560
489
cars and truck by 2035, and to build the electric vehicle charging infrastructure to deploy 5 million ZEVs by 2030 under Executive Order B-48-18 and to develop ZEV and related supply chains and infrastructure in California under Executive Order B-16-12.
Consequently, the Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) regulation requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to a 100-percent zero-emission bus fleet and encourages these agencies to provide innovative first and last-mile connectivity and improved mobility for transit riders.i The Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation sets a ZEV sales requirement and a one-time reporting requirement for large entities and fleets.ii The Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle regulationiii requires private and public airport shuttle fleet owners with fixed routes serving California’s 13 largest airports (including San Diego International Airport) to fully transition their fleet to zero-emission shuttles by 2035 to reduce and eliminate GHG emissions, NOx, and other criteria pollution reductions.iv
Additionally, CARB is proposing an Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) regulation to deploy medium- and heavy- duty ZEV where feasible. CARB describes this proposed rule as requiring the deployment of ZEVs as follows: 100% of new drayage trucks by 2035; 100% of new off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035 (where feasible), and 100% medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045 (where feasible). v It is expected
that similar types of programs will be implemented for light-duty vehicles post-2026 model years.
Significant state funding exists to achieve state policy. The Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust provides the following amounts per use-case:
• $130 million for zero-emission transit, school, and shuttle buses; • $90 million for zero-emission Class 8 freight and drayage trucks; • $70 million for zero-emission freight and marine projects; and • $60 million for freight and marine projects.
vi
The CEC’s funding provides the following:
• $75 million SB 110 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 55, Statutes of 2017) per Proposition 39 and $14 million Clean Transportation Program funds for school bus replacement. vii
CARB adopted the following funding allocations for Fiscal Year 2021–2022 for a total of $1,548.09 million allocated in the following ways:
• $525 million for Vehicle Purchase Incentives including:
o $515 million for the Light-duty Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP); and o $10 million for the Electric Bicycle Incentive program; • $150 million for Clean Transportation Equity Investments including:
o $75 million for Clean Cars 4 All;
i 13 C.C.R. §§ 2023 et seq.
ii See 13 C.C.R. §§ 1963, 1963.1, 1963.2, 1963.3, 1963.4, 1963.5, 2012, 2012.1, & 2012.2. iii 17 CCR §§ 95690.1, 95690.2, 95690.3, 95690.4, 95690.5, 95690.6, 95690.7, and 95690.8. iv 17 C.C.R. §§ 95690.1, 95690.3, 95690.5, and 95690.6. v See CARB, Advanced Clean Fleets Fact Sheet (Last accessed on July 12, 2022): https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/advanced-clean-fleets/advanced-clean-fleets-fact-sheets. vi State of California Beneficiary Mitigation Plan for the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust (June 2018), p. 20–32: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-07/bmp_june2018.pdf. vii CEC Lead Commissioner Report, 2021–2023 Investment Plan Updated for the Clean Transportation Program, CEC-600-2021-038-LCF, p. 32 (November 2021): https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2021/2021-2023 - investment-plan-update-clean-transportation-program
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 528 of 560
490
o $23.5 million for Financing Assistance;
o $10 million for Clean Mobility Options;
o $10 million for Clean Mobility In Schools Pilot Project; o $25 million for the Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP); o $5 million for Outreach, Community Needs Assessment, Technical Assistance, and Access Clean California; and
o $1.5 million for Workforce Training and Development;
• $873.09 for Heavy-Duty and Off-Road Equipment including:
o $569.5 million for the Clean Truck and Bus Vouchers (HVIP) program; o $194.95 million for the Clean Off-Road Equipment Vouchers (CORE); o $28.64 million for the Truck Loan Assistance; and
o $80 million for the Demonstration and Pilot Projects (includes $40 million for the Drayage Truck and Infrastructure Project).
i
An example of local implementation of funding from state programs includes a local Clean Cars 4 All program approved by CARB on November 19, 2021, that will fund a $5 million program in the County of San Diego administered by the SD APCD.
ii San Diego County Supervisors voted in October 2019 to bring this program to San Diego County, but the COVID-19 pandemic delayed it until 2021. SD APCD also operates a Scrap Car Reimbursement Assistance Program (SCRAP) that provides $1000 for qualified cars from 1997 or older that are voluntarily retired to reduce air pollution. iii
B.3 Local Authority Related to Building Decarbonization At the local level, the police power and delegated authority to regulate energy end-uses are the primary means of implementing building decarbonization actions. Local jurisdictions may use their police power to prohibit the installation of natural gas plumbing in new buildings,iv identify buildings or neighborhoods that are in need of natural gas infrastructure replacement to electrify (e.g., natural gas infrastructure pruning), require energy benchmarking for buildings not covered by Title 20 Benchmarking requirements,
v and/or encourage fuel switching to low- or zero-emission fuels (e.g., renewable natural gas or green hydrogen) through GHG emission performance standards based on energy benchmarking information and disclosure. Local jurisdictions act with delegated authority to require more stringent Title 24, Part 6 Energy Codes, Part 11 CALGreen Codes, and procurement
i CARB, Proposed Fiscal Year 2021–22 Funding Plan for Clean Transportation Incentives (Release Date: October 8, 2021; Board Approved: November 19, 2021), p. 6: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/f y21- 22_fundingplan.pdf.
ii See CARB, Proposed Fiscal Year 2021–22 Funding Plan for Clean Transportation Incentives (Release Date: October 8, 2021; Board Approved: November 19, 2021), p 59–60: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/f y21- 22_fundingplan.pdf; See also SD APCD Passenger Vehicle Programs: Clean Cars 4 All:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/grants/grants-equipment/passenger-vehicles.html. iii SD APCD Passenger Vehicle Programs: SCRAP: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/grants/grants - equipment/passenger-vehicles.html.
iv Note: the City of Berkeley’s prohibition is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ( CRA v. City of Berkeley, No. 21-16278, (9th Cir. filed August 5, 2021)); See CRA v. City of Berkeley, Docket No. 4:19- cv-07668, Judgment, Document 76 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019) which dismissed with prejudice cause of action for EPCA preemption and dismissed without prejudice California state law preemption cause of action. v See AB 802 (Williams, Chapter 590, Statutes of 2015); 20 C.C.R. § 1680 (2021) et seq.; see also City of San Diego Building Benchmarking Ordinance adopted pursuant to 20 C.C.R. § 1684 (2021).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 529 of 560
491
authority, including sole source procurement authority for energy conservation, cogeneration, and alternative energy supply projects on public buildings.i Local governments should evaluate how to align local requirements and actions with state policy and programs to decrease costs related to building decarbonization.
At the federal level, the Energy Act of 2020 updated and added provisions and funding for, among other things, energy and water efficiency, renewable energy and storage, carbon management and removal from buildings and industry, industry and manufacturing technologies that decrease emissions, grid modernization and building integration, and related research, development, and deployment. ii President
Biden recently signed Executive Order 14057 directs the federal executive branch to achieve a net-zero emissions path by 2050. Specific to building decarbonization, the Executive Order, among other things, orders:
• 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity on a net annual basis by 2030, including 50 percent 24/7 carbon pollution-free electricity;
• A net-zero emissions building portfolio by 2045, including a 50 percent emissions reduction by 2032;
• A 65 percent reduction in scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions, as defined by the Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance, from Federal operations by 2030 from 2008 levels;
• Net-zero emissions from Federal procurement, including a Buy Clean policy to promote the use of construction materials with lower embodied emissions; and • Climate resilient infrastructure and operations.
iii
This order builds upon Executive Order 13990 that directed federal agencies to review action from 2017–2022 that may be inconsistent with or conflict with improving public health, protecting the environment, accessing clean air and water, reducing GHG emissions, and bolstering resiliency to climate change. Additionally, Executive Order 14008 sets goals for a carbon-free electricity by 2035 and economy wide net-zero emissions by 2050. Whether these executive order are codified in federal law remains to be seen, and the orders are subject to rescission by future Administrations.
California policy benefits from over forty years of state regulation designed to decrease energy consumption from buildings and appliances with a focus on reducing consumer energy consumption and GHG emissions from buildings. In 2015, AB 350 (de León, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2019) set a goal of cumulative doubling energy efficiency savings and demand reduction in electricity and natural gas end- uses by January 1, 2030. AB 350 (2015) tasked the CEC with establishing an annual target to achieve these reductions with the CEC and the CPUC taking further action through buildings standards, appliance standards, and CPUC regulated energy efficiency programs administered by IOUs, CCAs, and other third- party program administrators.
iv CCAs may also create their energy efficiency programs separate from
i See Government Code § 4217.10 et seq.
ii 47 H.R. 133 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2021. December 27, 2020 (Public Law No: 116-260), Division Z (Energy Act of 2020): https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th -congress/house-bill/133/text. iii Presidential Executive Order No. 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability 86 Federal Register 70935 (2021-27114), Sec. 102 (December 8, 2021):
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-ro om/presidential-actions/2021/12/08/executive-order-on-catalyzing- clean-energy-industries-and-jobs-through-federal-sustainability/ & https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/13/2021-27114/catalyzing-clean-energy-industries-and- jobs-through-federal-sustainability.
iv See CPUC Energy Efficiency Rule Making R.13-11-005 & R.19-01-011.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 530 of 560
492
CPUC regulated programs. Innovation is needed to achieve the SB 350 targets, particularly when converting energy efficiency to avoid GHG emissions, in terms of how to implement demand reduction flexibility that decreases energy use when GHG emissions are the highest (e.g., seasonal and daily peak electric load).
i
This resulted in a major policy shift towards building decarbonization in 2018 with Executive Order B-55- 18 directing state agencies to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, AB 3232 (Friedman, Chapter 373, Statutes of 2018) requiring the CEC in consultation with CARB, the CPUC, and CAISO to assess the potential to reduce GHG in buildings by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and SB 1477 (Stern, Chapter 378, Statutes of 2018) allocating $50 million per year through 2023 to fund the Building Initiative for Low-Emissions Development (Build) and Technology and Equipment for Clean Heating (TECH).
Additionally, the CPUC adopted changes to its existing energy efficiency rolling portfolio that will set energy efficiency goals to maximize GHG reductions and grid benefits, including equity, using a Total System Benefit (TSB) test that expresses the dollar value of lifecycle energy, capacity, and GHG benefits on a utility’s energy efficiency program portfolio starting in 2024. ii The CPUC set energy efficiency
portfolio goals for 2022–2032 in D.21-09-037 on September 23, 2021.
Pursuant to AB 3232 (2018), the CEC issued a California Building Decarbonization Assessment iii report
showing that achieving reduction of GHG by 40% below 1990 level by 2030 requires residential and commercial building decarbonization through electrification, decarbonizing electricity supply, energy efficiency, refrigerant conversation and leakage reduction, distribute energy resources (DER) deployment, gas system decarbonization, and demand flexibility. The report found the most readily achievable pathway to meet the AB 3232 target was through efficient electrification of space and water heating in buildings combined with refrigerant leakage reduction.
Local governments should evaluate how to align local requirements and actions with state policy and programs to decrease costs related to building decarbonization. The CEC’s most recent ratepayer- funded Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) plan for 2021–2025 reflects continued investment in achieving these targets for electrification, high efficiency and low-GWP heat pump water heaters and HVAC heater pumps, building envelope upgrades, combined heat pump for hot water and heating conditioning, nanogrid HVAC module development, smart energy management systems, large building HVAC decarbonization, industrial decarbonization, low-carbon and high-temperature industrial heating, energy efficient and decarbonization of concrete manufacturing, and industrial energy efficiency separation processes.
iv These investments will serve to vet viable actions to decarbonize these types of end-uses and lower costs. It will also help to determine what end-uses cannot be decarbonized and which GHG emissions by source must be removed or sequestered.
i See CEC Final Staff Report, 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan, November 2019, p. 4. ii See CPUC D.21-05-031, Rulemaking 12-11-005 Assessment of Energy Efficiency Potential and Goals and Modification of Portfolio Approval and Oversight Process (May 31, 2021), p. 2:
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M385/K864/385864616.PDF . iii California Energy Commission: Final Commission Report California Building Decarbonization Assessment, Publication Number: CEC-400-2021-006-CMF (2021): https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2021/california- building-decarbonization-assessment.
iv California Energy Commission: Final Commission Report The Electric Program Investment Charge Proposed 2021– 2025 Investment Plan, EPIC 4 Investment Plan, (November 2021), p. 130-181:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2021/electric-p rogram-investment-charge-proposed-2021-2025- investment-plan-epic-4.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 531 of 560
493
Per SB 1477 (2018), the BUILD program aims to incent near-zero-emission building technologies that reduce GHG emissions significantly beyond minimum code requirements for residential buildings. BUILD currently provides incentives to new residential housing projects that are all-electric and have no hook up to the gas distribution system. The TECH program aims to advance California’s market for low- emission space and water heating technologies that are in early-stage development. These programs, combined with existing utility energy efficiency programs, form the state policy to address building decarbonization. Local governments should evaluate how to align local requirements and actions with state policy and programs to decrease costs related to building decarbonization. There is also an opportunity to engage in the CPUC’s proceeding on building decarbonization that is implementing the BUILD and TECH programs, amongst other building decarbonization efforts. i
B.3.1 Energy Efficiency and Building Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency
Using delegated authority, local jurisdictions may adopt more stringent building code standards that address energy efficiency, water conservation, building material conservation, or resource efficiency based on GHG requirements (e.g., material carbon intensity). Where the requirement addresses energy consumption, the adopted local code must be at least as energy efficient as the state codes, cost- effective (e.g., all-electric reach codes or building performance standards), ii and submitted to the CEC to
review for compliance with state law.iii In all cases where Title 24 is amended, the standards must be submitted to the Building Standard Commission with the findings for local climatic, geological, or topical conditions that authorize the change to Title 24. In terms of police authority, the full extent of local jurisdiction police authority is unknown and largely untested. Additional research is required to vet other local actions.
Federal preemption exists over setting energy efficiency standards for covered products iv (e.g.,
appliances) under EPCA with limited exception for new construction.v Local jurisdictions are subject to state preemption in the form of Title 20 appliance standards that regulate many appliances not preempted by the EPCA and the triennially updated Title 24 building standards that the CEC adopts.
In California, there is delegated authority for local jurisdictions to adopt more stringent building standards under Title 24 for energy efficiency and building materials. For example, local jurisdictions may adopt more stringent Green Building programs — including water conservation vi — by making
voluntary CALGreen standards mandatory or other measures that may include building material
i See CPUC R. 19-01-011: Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Building Decarbonization:
https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=401:56:0::NO:RP,57,RIR:P5_PROCEEDING_SELECT:R1901011 . ii See to Public Resources Code § 25402.1(h)(2) and Health & Safety Code §§ 17958.5 & 17958.7. iii See Public Resources Code § 25402.1 (h)(2); see Title 24, Part 6, Section 10-106 (2021). iv 42 U.S.C. § 6295; See also 10 CFR Parts 430, 431, & 429. v 42 U.S.C. §§ 6297(c) & 6297(f)(3); see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 6291 et seq. (Part A- Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles); 42 U.S.C. §§ 6311 et seq. (Part A -1-Certain Industrial Equipment). viNote: Water conservation and enforcement programs are also authorized by Water Code §§ 375 –378 & 1009, including water saving devices and rate structure design, which must also comply with Prop 218 limits (Cal. Const. art. XIIIC–XIIID); See also Water Code §§ 10680.20, 10680.24 (urban retail water suppliers must develop urban water use targets that cumulatively result in a 20 % reduction from a baseline da ily per capita water use by December 31, 2020); see also Water Code §§ 10609.2, 10609.4 (requires the State Water Control Board, in coordination with the Department of Water Resources, to adopt a long -term standard for efficient use of water and establish 55 gallons per capita as the daily indoor residential standard water use).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 532 of 560
494
conservation and resource efficiency based on GHG emissionsi, carbon intensity, or carbon sequestration (e.g., cement made from synthetic aggregate produced from captured compressed CO2) if it is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.ii SB 596 (Becker, Chapter 246, Statutes of 2021) aids in this endeavor by requiring CARB to develop a strategy to achieve net-zero emission of GHG associated with cement used within California as soon as possible, but no later than December 31, 2045, with interim targets that include a carbon intensity reduction for cement of 40% below 2019 average levels by December 31, 2035. It may be possible for local jurisdictions to help accelerate or surpass this type of state mandate.
B.3.2 CEQA Environmental Impact Mitigation Authority
CEQA offers another means to address emissions from the built environment. A lead agency acts with discretion to determine whether an adverse environmental effect identified in an environmental impact report (EIR) should be classified as "significant" or "less than significant." iii A lead agency may adopt and
publish a threshold of significance that sets a high threshold for GHG emissions, which could include requiring all projects to be carbon neutral or zero net carbon, iv and must be based on scientific and
factual data to the extent possiblev to meet the substantial evidence standard.vi This is limited by existing implied or expressed authority to impose mitigation measures on a project.vii Mitigation measures cannot be legally infeasibleviii — meaning that they may not be beyond the power conferred on lead and responsible agencies — and are also subject to express limitations, including limits on reducing housing units.ix
B.3.3 Direct Regulation of Building GHG Emissions
Direct regulation of GHG emissions, not currently regulated by Cap-and-Trade, may provide additional means to reduce emissions, but uncertainty exists around authority. It may be possible to create a GHG performance standards for buildings. It may also be possible to directly regulate building and appliance oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from natural gas under existing authority. Finally, it is uncertain whether existing tax or fee authority may be used to regulate GHGs.
At the state level, California addresses GHG emissions through both direct emissions regulation as well as procurement of renewable fuel sources. California’s Cap-and-Trade program also regulates covered entities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO
2e per data year, including cogeneration, self-
i Note: current mandatory and voluntary 2019 Title 24, Part 11 CALGreen Codes are not based on GHG life cycle analysis except for Nonresidential Voluntary Section A5.409 Life Cycle Assessment which allows GHG to be used in the impacts considered for the analysis of life cycle.
ii See 12 C.C.R. Part 11 (2021); See Health & Safety Code §§ 17958.5, 17958.7 & 18941.5(b). iii 14 C.C.R. § 15064(b)(1) (2021).
iv 14 C.C.R. § 15064.7(b) (2021); see also definition of “threshold of significance” under 14 CCR § 15064.7(a) (2021); See also Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Threshold for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans, Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Item 15 (Adopted April 20, 2022), p. 152–221: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/board-of-d irectors/2022/bod_agenda_042022_op_rv- pdf.pdf?la=en&rev=c8360ec141654c22b244e5e07f8b88b4.
v 14 C.C.R. § 15064(b)(1) (2021).
vi Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. & Infrastructure, 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 206 (2016). vii See 14 C.C.R. § 15040(d)–(d).
viii See Public Resources Code § 21004; See 14 C.C.R. § 15040. ix See Public Resources Code § 21159.26; See 14 C.C.R. § 15092(c).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 533 of 560
495
generation of electricity, cement production, glass production, hydrogen production, iron and steel production, lead production, nitric acid production, petroleum and natural gas system, petroleum refining, pulp and paper manufacturing, suppliers of natural gas, suppliers of RBOB and distillate fuel oil, suppliers of liquefied petroleum gas, suppliers of liquified natural gas and compressed natural gas, carbon dioxide suppliers, and stationary combustion.
i Regulation of sources below the 25,000 metric ton
of CO2e per data year is not preempted but would require identifying authority to directly regulate, such as the police power.
For example, it may be possible to create GHG performance standards for buildings based on building type, square footage, and emission profiles. This would be an exercise of either police power or delegated authority to amend Title 24 if it is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions using Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5(b).
Because such standards do not address the diminution of energy, a CEC review would not be required.
The same authority can also be used to create building benchmarking requirements for energy use and GHG emission disclosures at point-of-sale or point-of-listing that are more expansive than those required under AB 802 (2015).
ii The energy and GHG benchmarking would then serve as the measure to implement building GHG emission standards that utilize enforcement authority under existing municipal code for compliance.iii A potential funding source for upgrades could include creating a transfer tax rebate that refunds a percentage of the transfer tax to property owners who make electrification, energy efficiency, and water conservation retrofits.iv Equity considerations must be addressed. Because a fund transfer rebate only benefits property owners who made a recent purchase, other funding would need to be identified to fund upgrades for recent low-income owners, renters, and long-term homeowners with limited incomes. Additional research is required to further vet this action.
SD APCD is one of nine air districts that regulates NOx emissions from space heaters and water heaters and currently sets the most stringent emission limit of 10 ng/j NOx for water heaters in the state. v It may
be possible for a city, county, or air district to take additional action to strengthen these regulations for water, space heating, or other natural gas end-use or directly regulate natural gas NOx emissions from buildings and appliances using Health and Safety Code Sections 39002, 39013, 39037, and 41508. For example, it may be possible for SD APCD to use an incentive to encourage purchase of zero-emission technologies, adopt zero-emission NOx regulations for space and water heating, and/or regulations to reduce NOx where zero-emission appliances may not be technically feasible. vi Any regulation that
i 17 C.C.R. §§ 95811 (a)–(b) & 95812(c).
ii California Public Resources Code § 25402.10 (d)(2)(F) & 20 C.C.R. § 1684; See City of Berkeley Municipal Code
19.81 – the Building Energy Savings Ordinance (BESO) (2021). iii See City of Berkeley Administrative Draft, Existing Buildings Electrification Strategy (April 2021), p. 140 –141; See City of Berkeley Building Energy Savings Ordinance Evaluation Report, p. 12– 21, Appendix C, & Appendix I, (February 11, 2020); See City of Berkeley Municipal Code 1.28 – Administrative Citations (2021). iv See City of Berkeley Building Energy Savings Ordinance Evaluation Report (February 11, 2020), p. 5. vSee SD APCD Rules 68-69.6: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/rules.html ; see also CARB, Draft 2022 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan, January 31, 2022, p. 86:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
01/Draft_2022_State_SIP_Strategy.pdf?utm_source=Master+List+Created+on+1%2F23%2F2017&utm_campaign= d9aa050b56-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_14_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0c851e413b - d9aa050b56-92657441.
vi See South Coast AQMD. 2021. "Agenda Item 5 - Proposed Draft NOx Stationary Source Measures." Air Quality Management Plan - November 10, 2021 Public Workshop. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/am-pres-agenda-item-5- Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 534 of 560
496
requires zero-emission NOx emitting appliances within its district would also need to be concurrent with regulation on the installation of natural gas appliances across the district.i It is also possible that SD APCD would enforce similar state zero-emission regulation if CARB decides to develop and adopt a rule to ban natural gas water and space heaters by 2030 under the proposed 2022 California State Implementation Plan and 2022 Draft AB 32 Scoping Plan.ii
Because these code sections further allow local authorities (e.g., city or county) to enact such regulation under Health and Safety Code Section 39002 as the entity with primary responsibility for air pollution from all sources other than vehicle sources, it suggests that additional action is possible beyond existing or future SD APCD regulation. Any such standard may be set more stringent than set by law or CARB for non-vehicle sources. The full extent of this authority is unknown and untested in terms of a zero- emission NOx regulation but there are air districts with existing more stringent space heating standards iii
than SD APCD and other air districts are proposing incentives and zero-emission NOx regulations for water, space, and other natural gas end-uses.iv Importantly, there are no examples of an exercise of this type of authority by a city or county in this respect. It would likely be expensive for a city or county to create and operate such a program, given the required technical expertise needed to implement and enforce it.
It is uncertain whether a local government may raise a tax or fee on GHG emissions. Local jurisdictions act with authority — subject to voter approval if a tax — to raise general taxes, special taxes, and fees for specified purposes under California Constitution Article XIII C & D. Taxes may be placed on real property and tangible personal property where the property is located. Taxes may also take the form of license taxes, sale and use taxes, documentary transfer taxes, retail transaction and use taxes, utility users’ taxes, occupancy taxes, local vehicle license fees, v community facilities taxes, and excise taxes on
developers. Under California Constitution Article XIII C § 2, general taxes must be approved by a majority vote, while special taxes must be approved by a two-thirds vote. Additionally, a charge that meets one
nox-measures-110621.pdf?sfvrsn=6; see also Bay Area AQMD. 2021. "Draft Amendments to Building Appliance Rules Regulation 9, Rule 4: Nitrogen Oxides from Fan Type Residential Central Furnaces and Rule 6: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boilers and Water Heaters." Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-com
pliance/rules/reg-9-rule-4-nitrogen-oxides-from-fan-type-residential- central-furnaces?rule_version=2021%20Amendment.
i See City of Berkeley, Administrative Draft Existing Building Electrification Strategy, April 2021, p. 129. ii CARB, Draft 2022 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan, January 31, 2022, p. 86- 88:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
01/Draft_2022_State_SIP_Strategy.pdf?utm_source=Master+List+Created+on+1%2F23%2F2017&utm_campaign= d9aa050b56-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_14_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0c851e413b - d9aa050b56-92657441; see also CARB Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update, May 10, 2022, p, 172:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-draft-sp.pdf. iii San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) set an emission limit of 14 ng/J NOx for space heaters.
iv See South Coast AQMD. 2021. "Agenda Item 5 - Proposed Draft NOx Stationary Source Measures." Air Quality Management Plan – November 10, 2021 Public Workshop. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default - source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/am-pres-agenda-item-5- nox-measures-110621.pdf?sfvrsn=6; see also Bay Area AQMD. 2021. "Draft Amendments to Building Appliance Rules Regulation 9, Rule 4: Nitrogen Oxides from Fan Type Residential Central Furnaces and Rule 6: Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boilers and Water Heaters." Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-com pliance/rules/reg-9-rule-4-nitrogen-oxides-from-fan-type-residential- central-furnaces?rule_version=2021%20Amendment.
v See California Revenue Code § 11101 et seq.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 535 of 560
497
of the requirements is not considered a tax under California Constitution Article XIII C, § 1 (e)(1)-(7) including, but not limited to:
• A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege; • A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product;
• A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof; • A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property;
• A charge imposed as a condition of property development; and • Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D.
If the charge or fee is a “property-related service,” it must also meet the requirements of California Constitution Article XIII D. It is unclear if any of these charges are viable to place a fee on GHG emissions and whether California Constitution Article XIII D would apply.
B.3.4 Fuel Switching and Emissions related to End-Uses
Police power authority may be used to require fuel switching to low or zero-carbon sources through prohibitions on the installation of certain energy infrastructure (e.g., natural gas plumbing) in buildings.
Police power may take the form of adopting an ordinance that expressly prohibits natural gas plumbing without either amending Title 24, Part 6, changing minimum efficiency standards for covered products under the EPCA, or requiring the installation of specific appliances or systems as a condition of approval.
i There is currently an effort to preempt local jurisdiction police power under the EPCA. The City of Berkeley’s Ordinance No. 7,672-N.S. adopted on July 16, 2019, used police power without amending Title 24 to prohibit natural gas plumbing in new construction. This ordinance survived the preemption challenge in federal district court and is now on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.ii
There is an opportunity to engage in the legislature and CPUC on the future of natural gas infrastructure.
California regulates natural gas supply, transmission, storage, and the development of renewable natural gas or biomethane, including procurement targets for IOUs preempting some but not all additional local action or regulation.
iii Natural gas distribution and storage monitoring, leak abatement, and decreasing emissions from short-lived climate pollutants round out current state policy.iv The CPUC
i See City of Berkeley Ordinance No. 7,672-N.S. (Adopted July 16, 2019), City of Morgan Hill Ordinance No. 5906 (adopted October 23, 2019), City of San Jose Ordinance No. 30330 (adopted September 17, 2019), and City of Santa Cruz Ordinance No. 2020-06 (adopted April 14, 2020). ii See California Restaurant Ass. v. City of Berkeley, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss, Document 75, Case No. 4:19-cv-07668-YGR (July 6, 2021); See California Restaurant Ass. v. City of Berkeley, Case No. 21-16278 (9th Cir.), filed Aug. 5, 2021.
iii See AB 2313 (Williams, Chapter 571, Statutes of 2016); SB 1440 (Hueso, Chapter 739, Statutes of 2018); see also AB 1900 (Gatto, Chapter 602, Statutes of 2012); See also SB 1440 (Hueso, Chapter 739, Statutes of 2018); AB 3163 (Salas, Chapter 358, Statutes of 2020).
iv See AB 1496 (Thurmond, Chapter 604, Statutes of 2015), SB 1371 (Leno, Chapter 525, Statutes of 2014) and SB 887 (Pavley, Chapter 673, Statutes of 2016), SB 605 (Lara, Chapter 523, Statutes of 2014), SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 536 of 560
498
also mandated to decrease GHG emissions from the intrastate transmission and distribution lines.i In addition, the CPUC regulates climate impacts to and adaptation for IOU infrastructureii and is currently adjudicating a proceeding over the future regulation of natural gas in California.iii These proceedings and the decisions that come out of them will determine how infrastructure is maintained, invested in, removed, and how stranded costs will be socialized.
Local jurisdiction act with authority to develop local hydrogen production and infrastructure through land use, constitutional authority to provide municipal services under California Constitution Article XI, § 9, franchise agreement authority, and police power authority. The CPUC would regulate intrastate hydrogen pipelines as a public utility if not owned by a municipal-owned utility. iv Development,
procurement, and use of hydrogen also exist in state law through the statutory designation of E- hydrogen procurement as an eligible and carbon-neutral form of energy storage that can be used prospectively in the renewable energy grid or to fuel certain forms of transportation that can be used by IOUs to achieve state policy.
v Hydrogen development offers more opportunities to support or further fuel switching to low-emission or green hydrogen as a fuel source for buildings, industrial processes, or thermal power plants.vi However, current hydrogen production is small, and hydrogen infrastructure and end-use equipment and appliances are nonexistent or limited. There are current CEC and U.S.
Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) funding efforts to decrease cost and develop end-uses.vii
End-uses that depend on ozone depleting substances (ODS) and ODS substitutes with high-GWP gases, particularly HFC refrigerants, are subject to federal and state regulations that ban, limit or phase out the regulated substance. GHG emissions are caused by annual leakage during the equipment’s use and at end-of-life when the high-GWP gas is vented instead of being captured and destroyed as required by law. Local authorities may seek to strengthen or accelerate state and federal actions by providing local enforcement, incentives to install low-GWP equipment, or potentially regulating equipment that uses these substances under its police power, if not preempted.
HFC refrigerants are common in heat pumps and commercial refrigeration, and certain industrial production with heat-pump installation projected to increase significantly because of building
395, Statutes of 2016), and AB 1496 (Thurmond, Chapter 604, Statutes of 2015). i See SB 1371 (Leno, Chapter 525, Statutes of 2014).
ii See CPUC Rulemaking R.18-04-019, Order Institution Rulemaking to Consider Strategies and Guidance for Climate Change Adaptation; See CPUC Rulemaking R.18-12-005, Order Instituting Rulemaking to Examine Electric Utility De-Energization of Power Lines in Dangerous Conditions; See CPUC Rulemaking R. 18 -10-007, Order Instituting Rulemaking to Implement Electric Utility Wildfire Mitigation Plans Pursuant to SB 901 (2018). iii See CPUC Rulemaking R. 20-01-007, Order Instituting Rulemaking to Establish Policies, Processes, and Rules to Ensure Safe and Reliable Gas Systems in California and Perform Long -Term Gas System Planning. iv See Public Utilities Code § 216.
v See SB 1369 (Skinner, Chapter 567, Statutes of 2018). vi See LADWP Joins HyDeal LA, Targets Green Hydrogen at $1.50/Kilogram by 2030 (May 17, 2021):
https://www.ladwpnews.com/ladwp-joins-hydeal-la-targets-green-hydrogen-at-1-50-kilogram-by-2030/; See Mayor Eric Garcetti, City of Los Angeles, Announcement of Findings of Historic 100 Percent Renewable Energy Study; See Mayor Eric Garcetti’s 2021 State of City Address: https://lamayor.org/SOT C2021; See HyDeal Los
Angeles: https://www.ghcoalition.org/hydeal-la.
vii See California Energy Commission, Introduction of EPIC Initiative – The Role of Green Hydrogen in a Decarbonized CA – A Roadmap and Strategic Plan, Docket No. 21-IEPR-05, TN# 239050, (July 27, 2021), accessed from Docket Log: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docket number=21-IEPR-05; see US DOE Hydrogen Shot, https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-sh ot.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 537 of 560
499
electrification.i The U.S. EPA regulates acceptable substitutes for existing refrigerants used in various end-use applications in the refrigeration and air conditioning (including transportation), foam blowing, and fire suppression sectors under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP).ii On May 6, 2021, new final SNAP regulations became effective, authorizing new refrigerant options with lower-GWP for retail food cooling as well as residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pumps.iii The American Innovation and Manufacturing (AMI) Act of 2020, part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021,iv required the U.S. EPA to phase down production and consumption of HFCs in the United States by 85 percent over the next 15 years. On April 30, 2021, the U.S. EPA proposed an HFC phase down regulation for refrigerants and other industrial purposes under an allowance allocation and trading program v to
implement the recently passed AMI Act of 2020.vi The rule will phase down the production and importation of 18 types of HFCs. This rule became effective on November 4, 2021, except for amendatory instruction 3 adding 40 CFR part 84, which became effective on October 5, 2021.
The CAA further prohibits the production and use of CFCs in the United States, vii preventing replacing a
high-GWP ODS substitute with a new lower-GWP CFC refrigerant system. CAA Title VI, Section 605 also phased out the allowed use of HCFCs, starting with specific HCFCs and then moving to a total ban subject to limited exceptions.
viii Beginning January 1, 2020, there is a ban on the production and import of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b,ix and it will be unlawful to produce any HCFCs after January 1, 2030.x Additionally, CAA Title VI, Section 608xi sets national recycling and emission reduction standards for Class I ODS covered under Sections 604 and Class II ODS under Section 605.
California regulates high-GWP refrigerants under its Refrigerant Management Program xii created by AB
32 (Núñez, Chapter 433, Statutes of 2006), set a target of a 40% reduction of HFC emission below 2014 levels by 2030 under SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016), operates a California SNAP program xiii
i See Figure 30 in Kenney, Michael, Nicholas Janusch, Ingrid Neumann, and Mike Jaske. 2021. California Building Decarbonization Assessment. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC -400-2021-006-CMF. (August 2021), p. 76; see Figure 3 in Achieving Carbon Neutrality in California: PATHWAYS Scenarios Developed for the California Air Resources Board. Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (October 2020), p. 25. ii 40 CFR Part 82.
iii U.S. EPA, Final Rule: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes Under the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2019–0698; FRL–10020–41– OAR], Published Federal Register: Vol 86, No. 86, May 6, 2021: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2021-05-06/pdf/2021-08968.pdf. iv 47 H.R. 133 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2021. December 27, 2020 (Public Law No: 116-260), American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020: https://www.congre ss.gov/bill/116th- congress/house-bill/133/text; 42 U.S.C.A. § 7675.
v See U.S. EPA Proposed Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Establishing the Allowance Allocation and Trading Program under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, 40 CFR Part 82 [EP A-HQ-OAR-2021-0044; FRL- 10023-08-OAR], April 30, 2021: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021- 05/documents/hfc_allocation_nprm_043021_admin.pdf.
vi See U.S. EPA: Proposed Rule - Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Establishing the Allowance Allocation and Trading Program under the AIM Act: https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfc s-reduction/proposed-rule-phasedown- hydrofluorocarbons-establishing-allowance-allocation.
vii Title VI of the Clean Air Act Section 604: 42 U.S.C.A. § 7671c. viii 42 U.S.C.A. § 7671b & d.
ix Ibid.
x Ibid.
xi 42 U.S.C.A. § 7671g.
xii 17 C.C.R. §§ 95380–95398.
xiii 17 C.C.R. §§ 95371–95377.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 538 of 560
500
per SB 1013 (Lara, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2018), and received final approval for a CARB regulation prohibiting certain HFCs in specified stationary refrigeration, chillers, aerosols-propellants, and foam end-uses and requiring refrigerant recovery, reclaim, and reuse per SB 1383 (2016).i Additionally, SB 1013 (2018) directed the CPUC to consider including low-GWP refrigerants in energy efficiency portfolios. On April 16, 2020, CPUC D.20-04-010 adopted policies that affect all distributed energy resources, including energy efficiency, requiring program administrators to account for avoided costs of high-GWP gases in the energy efficiency portfolio, including refrigerant emissions and methane. CPUC D.20-04-010 applies avoided costs to, among other things, fuel substitution measures (e.g., the benefit is lowered methane emissions and costs are refrigerant emissions) and programs that encourage the use of lower-GWP refrigerants than current practice or regulation. CPUC D.21-05-031, adopted May 20, 2021, required the Refrigerant Avoided Cost Calculator from D.20-04-010 to be used by rolling energy efficiency program administrators for portfolio forecasts and filings beginning in 2022. Future changes will be tied to CARB’s rulemaking, market development, and program administrator experiences.
B.4 Local Authority to Decarbonize the Electricity Supply Electricity regulation is divided between state regulation of the distribution system and procurement of supply and federal regulation of bulk-power transmission systems and bulk-power markets. In both instances, reliability requirements preempt local authority over electricity procurement where the procurement impacts either CPUC resource adequacy (RA) requirementsii or FERC authority over electric reliability in bulk-power systems.iii The following will discuss local authority in light of the state and federal regulation of conventional and renewable electricity supply resources.
B.4.1 Conventional and Fossil Fuel Generation
The Energy Act of 2020 made several amendments to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to address reducing GHG emissions from fossil generation through funding technological pilots to decrease emissions or fuel use from natural gas and coal turbines, improve carbon capture and storage, develop a carbon utilization programs, and study blue hydrogen, among other things. iv There were no new mandates
regarding direct regulation of GHG emissions from power plants from this legislation.
In terms of state authority over GHG emissions, California’s Cap-and-Trade program regulates covered entities that include cogeneration, self-generation of electricity, stationary combustion, and first deliverers of electricity that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO 2e per data year.v State authority also
exists over power siting. The CEC is the siting authority for thermal power plants of 50 megawatts or more with authority that preempts local jurisdiction land use authority.vi The CEC is prohibited from siting new nuclear power plants unless there is demonstrated technology or disposal site for high-level
i See California Air Resources Board, Prohibitions on Use of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons in Stationary Refrigeration, Chillers, Aerosols-Propellants, and Foam End-Uses Regulation, Last Visited January 5, 2022:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hfc2020.
ii See Public Utilities Code § 380; see CPUC Resource Adequacy Proceeding R.19- 11-009. iii See 14 U.S.C. § 8240.
iv 47 H.R. 133 — 116th Congress (2019–2020): Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2021. December 27, 2020 (Public Law No: 116-260), Division Z (Energy Act of 2020), Title IV & V: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th - congress/house-bill/133/text.
v 17 C.C.R. §§ 95811 (a)–(b) & 95812(c).
vi Public Resources Code §§ 25500 et seq.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 539 of 560
501
nuclear waste.i The Governor may also preempt local land use authority on a limited basis through an emergency declaration.ii Finally, all electric utilities and load-serving entities are prohibited from entering into any baseload power generating commitments of 5 years or more if such projects are not as clean as a combined-cycle gas turbine project.iii
In terms of air quality, there is uncertainty as to the extent that a local air district may further regulate GHG emissions in relation to CARB’s authority, U.S. EPA authority, and continued uncertainty over power plant GHG regulations due to litigation and presidential administration changes. However, authority exists to create voluntary GHG reduction generation and certification programs in a district.
The U.S. EPA acts with regulatory authority over existing iv and new power plantv criteria pollutantvi and
GHG emissions standards under the CAAvii with approval authority over local air district rules and regulations for the California SIP. Any state standard must satisfy the requirements of the CAA and U.S.
EPA’s implementing regulation with U.S. EPA approved SIPs having the force and effect of federal law. viii
SIPs or parts of SIPs that are approved by a state but not yet approved by U.S. EPA are only enforceable under state law. There is disagreement and uncertainty regarding the authority to regulate GHG emissions directly using California air quality statutes. However, the CAA preserves state authority to adopt stationary emissions standards that are as or more stringent than federal requirements. ix
To this end, California adopted its own air quality management statutes, which do not directly call for the regulation of GHGs but instead mirror the federal CAA with certain sections prohibiting the enforcement of federal regulations that are less stringent than those that existed in 2002. x Cap-and-
Trade also largely negates and may preempt additional regulation of power plant GHG emissions at the local level. Consequently, local authority to adopt more stringent GHG standards is subject to California’s Clean Air Act,
xi California Cap-and-Trade statute, California Air Resources Board authority and review, and U.S. EPA review. It should also be noted that a governor may issue an emergency declaration suspending air quality regulations during specific events or over a limited period of time, which may increase GHG emissions that must be quantified and mitigated or removed to meet state policy.xii
The CAA regulatory framework is currently filled with uncertainty because of regulatory changes and litigation at the federal level vacating both Obama and Trump administration GHG emissions regulations
i Public Resources Code § 25524.2.
ii See Governor’s July 30, 2021 Proclamation of A State of Emergency to address energy supply and demand issues; see U.S. Const. Amendment X; see California Emergency Services Act: Government Code §§ 8558, 8567, 8571, 8625, & 8627.
iii Public Utilities Code §§ 8340–8341.
iv 42 U.S.C.A. § 7411 (a) & (d).
v 42 U.S.C.A. § 7411(f).
vi See 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da (Standards of Performance for Electricity Steam Generation Units). vii 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
viii 42.U.S.C.A. §§ 7410 (k) & (a)(5)(A), 7413.
ix See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 7407 & 7416.
x See Health and Safety Code § 39000 et seq.
xi Health and Safety Code §§ 42500 et seq.
xii See Governor’s July 30, 2021 Proclamation of A State of Emergency to address energy supply and demand issues; See U.S. Const. Amendment X; See California Emergency Services Act: Government Code §§ 8558, 8567, 8571, 8625, & 8627.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 540 of 560
502
under CAA Section 111(b)i for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants and 111(d)ii for existing power plants. On January 1, 2021, U.S. EPA finalized a revised rule for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants amending existing requirements that set New Performance Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to limit CO
2 emissions from fossil fuel-fueled power plants.iii On March 17, 2021, per President Biden’s Executive Order No. 13990, U.S. EPA asked the D.C. Circuit to vacate and remand this final rule, which occurred on April 5, 2021,
iv leaving U.S. EPA’s 2015 Final Rule in place.v In January 2021, the D.C.
Circuit struck down the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule for emissions from existing power plants,vi leaving no effective GHG regulation in place for existing power plants. Emission limits for existing power plants are now under development. However, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on June 30, 2022 that limits U.S. EPA’s ability to regulate GHG emissions from new and existing facilities and may further limit U.S. EPA’s reliance on CAA delegated authority for regulation that touch other parts of the economy through electricity decarbonization.
vii What new regulations U.S. EPA will issue for new and existing facilities remains uncertain at this time. The current state of affairs is reflected in SD APCD’s Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Electric Generating Units, viii which
implements Title V thresholds for stationary sources of emissions from new or modified steam generation units, integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC), or stationary combustion turbines that commence construction after January 8, 2014 or reconstruction/modification after June 18, 2014.
With U.S. EPA in the process of creating new standards subject to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, local authority to enact more stringent requirements is uncertain but may become clearer in the near term. The uncertainty stems from enforcement depending on non-preempted state authority and delegated authority from U.S. EPA through the approval of a local air quality standard in the SIP.
Once U.S. EPA issues new standards, California likely will evaluate whether and how to adopt more stringent standards under the CAA. To date, the U.S. EPA has not approved ix any of the following GHG
related local air districts rules for enforcement under California’s SIP:
• Feather River AQMD Rule 10.11
x;
i 42 U.S.C.A. § 7411(f).
ii 42 U.S.C.A. § 7411 (a) & (d).
iii Federal Register, 86 FR 2542, 2542-2558 (2021): https://www.fe deralregister.gov/documents/2021/01/13/2021- 00389/pollutant-specific-significant-contribution-finding-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-new-modified. iv See California v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 21-1035, order at p. 1, Document # 1893155 (D.C. Cir.
Apr. 5, 2021).
v See 40 CFR Parts 60, 70, 71, and 98 (2015): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-10-23/pdf/2015-22837.pdf. vi See American Lung Association v. Environmental Protection Agency , 985 F.3d 914 (2021). vii West Virginia v. U.S. EPA, 597 U.S. __ (2022). See also West Virginia v. U.S. EPA, Docket No. 20- 1530, 142 S. Ct. 420 (2021) (petitions for writs of certiorari in No. 20-1531, No. 20-1778, and No. 20-1780, granted October 29, 2021): https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1530/1 76915/20210429133443663_2021.04.29%20- %20West%20Virginia%20v.%20EPA%20Petition.pdf.
viii See Title 40, Part 60, Subpart TTTT:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/appendices/nsps/Subpart-TTTT.pdf. ix See U.S. EPA Approved Air Quality Implementation Plans in California (last visited January 12, 2022):
https://www.epa.gov/sips-ca.
x See FR AQMD Rule 10.11 (Adopted August 1, 2011):
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/technology-clearinghouse/rules/RuleID993.pdf.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 541 of 560
503
• Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1211i;
• North Coast Unified AQMD Rule 111ii; and
• Tehama County APCD Rule 7:3.iii
These rules would be enforced pursuant to authority derived from existing state air quality laws.iv It is unclear whether California air quality law authority by itself allows enforcement without U.S. EPA approval, specifically with regards to carbon dioxide emissions (but not other GHGs) from stationary sources subject to Cap-and-Trade.
v
Additionally, two air quality management districts have used their existing authority vi to create
voluntary programs that certify voluntary GHG reductions generated by in district activity: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules 2700–2702 vii and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD
Rule 100 et seq.viii Certification of GHG reduction credits may be issued either through use of a third party verifier (e.g., a carbon registry), through a GHG reduction project developed by the district itself, or both. These programs are designed to allow generation ownership, sale, trade, or retirement of the GHG reduction credit. SCAQMD’s program is notable because it allows both third-party certification for reduction projects in its districts under Rule 2700–2701 as well as a program where a fee is paid to the district to implement a GHG reduction project in the district under Rule 2702 using approved protocols. ix
It is unclear whether these voluntary programs are successful or whether there is authority to create mandatory GHG reduction rules and programs. However, authority appears to exist to create a voluntary GHG reduction program in the SD APCD.
B.4.2 Renewable Energy
Existing authority allows local jurisdictions to procure electricity supply on behalf of their citizens, to determine the carbon content of this supply, franchise public rights of way for energy infrastructure, and support distributed generation.
At the federal level, Executive Order 14057 directs the federal executive branch on a net-zero emissions path by 2050. Specific to renewable energy at the utility and distributed energy level, the Executive Order, among other things, requires:
• 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity on a net annual basis by 2030, including 50 percent 24/7 carbon pollution-free electricity;
i See Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1211 (Adopted February 28, 2011):
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/technology-clearinghouse/rules/RuleID1972.pdf. ii See North Coast Unified AQMD Rule 111 (July 9, 2015):
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/technology-clearinghouse/rules/RuleID2138.pdf. iii Tehama County APCD Rule 7:3 (Adopted February 1, 2011):
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/technology-clearinghouse/rules/RuleID3898.pdf. iv See Health & Safety Codes §§ 40702, 40703, 40704, 40752; See also Health & Safety Code § 42400 et seq. v Health & Safety Code § 38594 (b).
vi Health & Safety Code §§ 39000 et seq.; see also Health & Safety Code §§ 40400 et seq. and §§ 40950 et seq. vii South Coast AQMD Rule 2700-2702 (Adopted February 6, 2009; Amended June 4, 2010):
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/rules/scaqmd-rule-book/regulation-xxvii. viii Sacramento Metropolitan Rule 100 et seq. (adopted February 23, 2010):
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/technology-clearinghouse/rules/RuleID3566.pdf. ix South Coast AQMD Rule 2702 (Adopted February 6, 2009; Amended June 4, 2010), Table 1.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 542 of 560
504
• A net-zero emissions building portfolio by 2045, including a 50 percent emissions reduction by 2032;
• A 65 percent reduction in scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions, as defined by the Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance, from Federal operations by 2030 from 2008 levels; and • Net-zero emissions from Federal procurement, including a Buy Clean policy to promote the use of construction materials with lower embodied emissions; and • Climate resilient infrastructure and operations.i
Implementing these orders will impact federal facilities across the San Diego region and may create opportunities to scale and benefit from federal action at the local jurisdiction level.
California’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requires 60% renewable energy supply by 2030 for all load-serving entities with SB 100 (de León, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018), further mandating that load- serving entities procure 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045. ii The CEC certifies the eligibility of
generating resources to patriciate in the RPS with state law changing eligibility requirements over time (e.g., renewable hydrogen-fueled generation and biomethane).iii CPUC regulated load serving entities may be required by the CPUC to exceed the RPS procurement target,iv which suggests that local jurisdiction may petition the CPUC to require the local electric corporation to procure higher renewable energy content for their customers. CPUC regulated load serving entity may also voluntarily exceed procurement targets for any year of a three-year compliance period under the RPS for later use in a subsequent compliance period if it meets CPUC requirements. v This allows the load serving entity to
supply higher renewable energy contents earlier than a target year. SB 350 (2015) also required the CPUC to create an integrated resource planning (IRP) that forms the regulated load serving entities (LSE) component of the ten-year prospective long-term procurement plan to meet state mandates and ensure reliability.
vi This process sets procurement targets to achieve California GHG reductions for CPUC regulated LSEs with the current proceeding seeking to implement significant energy storage and renewable energy procurement that further decrease GHG emissions. vii
California offers limited retail competition options in the form of statutes that authorize both a direct access (DA) program
viii to serve a statutorily capped number of commercial customers and the creation of community choice aggregators (CCA) to serve all customers. This further complicates decarbonizing electric supply because there may be an IOU, CCA, and/or DA supplying electricity to customers in a
i Presidential Executive Order No. 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability, 86 Federal Register 70935 (No. 2021-27114), Sec. 102 (December 8, 2021):
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/12/08/executive-order-on-catalyzing-clean-energy- industries-and-jobs-through-federal-sustainability/ & https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/13/2021- 27114/catalyzing-clean-energy-industries-and-jobs-through-federal-sustainability. ii See Public Utilities Code §§ 399.11 et seq.
iii See California Energy Commission, Commission Guidebook Renewable Portfolio Standard Eligibility, Ninth Revised Edition, CEC-300-2016-006-ED9-CMF-REV (January 2017). iv Public Utilities Code § 399.15 (b)(3).
v Public Utilities Code § 399.13 (A)(5)(B).
vi See Public Utilities Code §§ 454.51 & 454.52.
vii See CPUC Proceeding R.16-02-007, Order Instituting Rulemaking to Develop an Electricity Integrated Resource Planning Framework and to Coordinate and Refine Long-Term Procurement Planning Requirements:
https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=401:56:0::NO:RP,57,RIR:P5_PROCEEDING_SELECT:R1602007 ; see CPUC R.20- 05-003, Order Instituting Rulemaking to Continue Electric Integrated Resource Planning and Related Procurement Processes: https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/apex/f?p=401:56:0::NO:RP,57,RIR:P5_PROCEEDING_SELECT:R2005003 . viii See Public Utilities Code § 365.1.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 543 of 560
505
local jurisdiction. California Constitution Article XI, § 9 also allows local jurisdictions, as municipal corporations, to establish, purchase, and operate public works to furnish light, water, power, heat, and other services to residents. These services may be offered outside of a local government’s boundaries with the consent of the applicable jurisdiction. However, there are no publicly owned electric or natural gas utilities in the San Diego region and the limited retail competition options of DA and CCAs are used in the region with the effect that local jurisdictions do not own the electric and natural gas distribution and transmission systems.
Local jurisdictions also control the public right-of-way needed to deliver electricity, natural gas, or any other molecule like hydrogen to customers. Local jurisdictions operate with long-term or perpetual franchise agreements that set terms for SDG&E to install and operate its infrastructure in the public right-of-way. Franchise agreements provide revenue to local jurisdictions and complicate the removal of infrastructure. However, it may be possible to exercise franchise rights as a way to increase renewable energy fuel, such as renewable hydrogen for power plant consumption, by either repurposing existing infrastructure or building new infrastructure.
Local governments act with the ability to procure their own supply of electricity under a CCA i — such as
San Diego Community Energyii and Clean Energy Allianceiii — subject to requirements like the RPS. CCAs allow local jurisdictions to exceed the RPS targets (e.g., 100% renewable energy) through the procurement authority of the CCA to serve customers. CCAs are subject to reliability requirements under state and federal law, which may complicate achieving a 100% renewable energy supply portfolio or require carbon removal to address carbon emissions from resources that must run for reliability purposes to prevent brown or blackouts. CCAs are opt-in by default, but customers may opt-out to return to the incumbent utility or to a DA electric service provider if there is room under the DA cap.
IOUs are also the provider of last resort (POLR) per SB 520 (Hertzberg, Chapter 408, Statutes of 2019), currently being instituted by CPUC decisions under R.21-03-011, further complicating decarbonization of supply portfolios to supply customers that either leave CCAs or DA providers or where a CCA or DA provider fails resulting in customers returning to the incumbent IOU. iv
Police power allows local jurisdictions to determine the supply portfolio supplied from a CCA for their citizens and businesses in their jurisdictions pursuant to either a general plan GHG mitigation plan (e.g., climate action plan)
v or as part of their membership in a CCA. This allows a local government by resolution to procure a high or 100% renewable energy supply as the default offering for all of their municipal accounts and/or all of the CCA customers in that jurisdiction who do not opt-out. vi
Local jurisdictions also play an essential role in furthering distributed generation through CCAs, reach codes, and permit streamlining. CCAs can create distributed generation procurement programs in the form of net energy metering or feed-in tariffs (FIT) to increase customer installation of renewable energy generation, including energy storage. Under net energy metering, the CCA credits the customer
i See AB 117 (Migden, Chapter 838, Statutes of 2002).
ii Includes Cities of San Diego, Imperial Beach, Encinitas, La Mesa, Chula Vista, and the County of San Diego. iii Includes Cities of Carlsbad, Del Mar, and Solana Beach. iv See Western Community Energy Chapter 9 Bankruptcy: Western Community Energy , 6:21-bk-12821-SY (Bankr.
C.D. Cal.) (Filed May 24, 2021).
v See CEQA Guidelines § 15183 (2021) (14 C.C.R. § 15183). vi See City of Encinitas Regular City Council Meeting, February 24, 2021, Agenda Item 10B: Adopt Res ol ution 2021- 17: https://encinitas.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=2347&meta_id=120211.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 544 of 560
506
for the net generation exported to the grid after the onsite load is served. Under a FIT, the CCA pays the customer for all generation produced by the generating resource with no onsite load served. In terms of reach codes, Title 24 now requires new low-rise residential construction (1–3 stories) to install solar.
However, local jurisdiction may require additions and alterations of existing residential and nonresidential buildings to install solar if it is cost-effective pursuant to Public Resource Code § 25402.1 (h)(2) and Title 24, Part 6, Section 10-106. Finally, AB 2188 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 521, Statutes of 2014) requires permit streamlining for small residential rooftop solar systems and AB 45 (Blakeslee, Chapter 404, Statutes of 2009) encourage adoption of county ordinances to reduce permitting obstacles for small wind energy systems. Local jurisdictions act with the authority to further streamline permitting and decrease cost for these types of energy systems or to expand streamlined permit review to more extensive systems or additional types of buildings (e.g., nonresidential for rooftop solar).
B.5 Local Authority Related to Natural Climate Solutions and Other Land Use Considerations
The San Diego region is composed of federal, tribal, state, local, and privately held land. The following will discuss authority over this land, submerged land, water, and coast (land(s)). Authority over the land(s) directly determines its uses, potentially limiting whether the use can support GHG reductions, removal, and/or storage. The following will review federal, tribal, California, and local authority. It concludes with an analysis on agricultural land.
B.5.1 Federal Authority Over Natural Climate Solutions and Other Land Use Considerations The primary actions local jurisdictions may take related to federal lands is through lobbying Congress, engaging with federal lands management agencies to create government to government agreements (e.g., a memorandum of understanding (MOU)), and working directly with federal lands managers to achieve local objectives across the region.
The U.S. Government owns fee titles in surface land, subsurface mineral rights, less-than-fee in other surface and mineral rights,
i mineral resources under the outer continental shelf, and living marine resources out to 200 miles offshore.ii Federal land in the San Diego region includes national forest, land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, a national monument, wildlife refuge, and land managed by the Department of Defense.
Federal public land law is complex, requiring specific legal and factual analysis that may involve both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946
iii and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.iv Waters of the United States also include wetlands that are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.v Specific to geological carbon
i The United States owns severed surface estates, severed mineral estates, easements for access, acquired "wetlands easements" for the benefit of migratory waterfowl, and general conservation or nondevelopment easements.
ii Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1801–1882. iii 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 551–706.
iv 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 4321–4370d.
v 33. U.S.C.A § 1344; See generally 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 1251 et seq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers implementing regulations at 33 C.F.R. §§ 320–330 and U.S. EPA § 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material at 40 C.F.R. §§ 230–233.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 545 of 560
507
sequestration on public lands, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required the Secretary of the Interior to submit to the House Committee on Natural Resources and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in coordination with U.S. EPA, the Secretary of Energy, and heads of other appropriate agencies, a report:
• Recommending criteria for identifying candidate geological sequestration sites in statutorily specified types of geological settings (e.g., oil & gas fields, saline formations, etc.); • A proposed regulatory framework for the leasing of public land or an interest in public land for the long-term geological sequestration of carbon dioxide, proposed procedures to ensure public review and comment and protection of natural and cultural resources; • A description of the status of Federal leasehold or Federal mineral estate liability issues related to the geological subsurface trespass of or caused by carbon dioxide stored in public land, including any relevant experience from enhanced oil recovery using carbon dioxide on public land; • Recommendations for additional legislation that may be required to ensure that public land management and leasing laws are adequate to accommodate the long-term geological sequestration of carbon dioxide;
• An identification of the legal and regulatory issues specific to carbon dioxide sequestration on land in cases in which title to mineral resources is held by the United States but title to the surface estate is not held by the United States;
• An identification of the issues specific to the issuance of pipeline rights-of-way on public land under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) for natural or anthropogenic carbon dioxide; and • Recommendations for additional legislation that may be required to clarify the appropriate framework for issuing rights-of-way for carbon dioxide pipelines on public land. i
This report is a starting point for sequestration activity on federal lands and should be used in concert with land use authority described below.
Additionally, the Energy Act of 2020 amended the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.A § 16291 et seq.) to establish a research, development, and demonstration program to test, validate, or improve technologies and strategies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere on a large scale through activities that include:
• Direct air capture and storage technologies;
• Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage technologies; • Enhanced geological weathering;
• Agricultural practices;
• Forest management and afforestation; and
• Planned or managed carbon sinks, including natural and artificial. ii
There is opportunity at the state and local level to develop and demonstrate or benefit from projects funded by this legislation. Further efforts should be made to investigate this opportunity, particularly with regard to federal land in the region.
i Public Land No. 110-140, § 714(a), 121 Stat. 1492, 1715. ii 47 H.R. 133 — 116th Congress (2019–2020): Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2021. December 27, 2020 (Public Law No: 116-260), Division Z (Energy Act of 2020), Title V: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con gress/house- bill/133/text.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 546 of 560
508
The following will provide a general explanation of the four primary federal public lands and resources agencies. An analysis of the Department of Defense is excluded but the Department of Defense should be included in any regional negotiations and planning. The analysis focuses on opportunities for local governments or the State of California to engage federal lands managers based on federal lands and resources in the San Diego region:
• National Parks Service (NPS): The National Park System Act of 1916 i is the primary law governing
national parks; the Act grants the NPS broad discretion in achieving its main goals of preservation and recreation. The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978ii creates general planning obligations for the NPS. The Antiquities Act of 1906iii authorizes the presidential designation of national monuments and the protection of scientific and historical objects. It may be used to preserve additional land in the San Diego region where such land is already federally owned and the designation limited to the smallest area compatible with preservation for “historic or scientific interest,”
iv with courts often granting deference to presidential discretion. The Cabrillo National Monument is the only NPS land in the San Diego region established by Presidential Proclamation 4319 (September 28, 1974).
The NPS’s discretion in achieving its mission suggests that partnering with local jurisdictions to decrease carbon emissions related to the Cabrillo Monument and increase natural land carbon removal may be feasible. Any action would need to be consistent with the purpose of creating the Cabrillo National Monument.
v It may also be possible to preserve land through the creation of a national park or additional monument in the San Diego region.
• Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): FWS mission includes land management of wildlife refuge system units created by statute and presidential executive proclamation, and national regulation for wildlife protection that applies off and on federal lands. Wildlife refuge system units are governed by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, vi the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997,vii the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962,viii and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1964.ix The National Wildlife Refuge Act of 1997 also created three tiers of use: 1) Conservation of wildlife, plants, and their habitats; 2) If human use is allowed, wildlife-dependent recreational uses are entitled to the highest priority; and 3) All other uses with the lowest priority or prohibition of use.x,xi There is some level of discretion afforded to FWS officials with regards to uses. Funds to acquire refuge land are authorized by specific appropriation or under multiple existing statutes including: the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act xii; the Migratory Bird
i 54 U.S.C.A. §§ 100101–100906.
ii 54 U.S.C.A. §§ 100101, 100502, 100507, 100751, 100754, 100901, 100906, 100302, 100702- 100703, 100751, 100754, 101301, 10212, 101302, 102701-102702, 104906.
iii 54 U.S.C.A. §§ 320301-320303.
iv 54 U.S.C.A. § 320301.
v See United States v. City & County of Denver, 656 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1982). vi 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 668dd–668ee.
vii Public Law No. 105-57, 111 Stat.1252.
viii 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 460k–460k-4.
ix 16 U.S.C.A. § 715s.
x 16 U.S.C.A. § 668dd(a)(2).
xi See 71 Fed. Reg. 36408 (2006); Final Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy, available at http://policy.fws.gov/ser600.html.
xii 54 U.S.C.A. §§ 100506, 100904 to 100905, & 200301–200310.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 547 of 560
509
Conservation Act of 1929i; and the Water Bank Act of 1970.ii FWS acts with exclusive or shared enforcement authority over wildlife affecting federal, state, and private land. These include the:
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973iii; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918iv; the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940v; and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.vi FFWS administration includes the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge.
There is some level of discretion afforded to FWS officials with regards to uses that should be further analyzed. Opportunities may include increasing the size of existing refuge and working with FWS officials to exercise their discretion in a way that benefits regional decarbonization goals.
• Bureau of Land Management (BLM): BLM administers federal lands not reserved to parks or refuge under a complex statutory regime that dates back to the founding of the Republic. BLM authority comes from: the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMP) of 1976, vii range
management authority contained in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934viii and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978,ix land manager authority contained in the FLMP,x Color of Title Act,xi and Desert Lands Act of 1877,xii and mineral manager authority under General Mining Law Act of 1872,xiii the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920,xiv the Acquired Lands Leasing Act of 1947,xv and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970.xvi
BLM land managers act with broad discretion to plan and manage land and resources. Local BLM managers act with different authorities when compared to U.S. Forest Service officials, who must change already established localized plans developed in compliance with existing broad agency rules that limit discretion. This may provide an opportunity for local jurisdictions to work directly with local BLM land managers on decarbonization efforts in the San Diego region.
• The U.S. Forest Service (U.S.F.S.): The Organic Act of 1897 xvii grants authority over forest land,
defines the purpose of national forest management, and set strict limits on timber harvest. Some management practices, like livestock grazing, administrative wilderness designation, and multi-use management actions were later codified in law. The Organic Act of 1897 originally granted a wide range of management discretion. However, the National Forests are now managed with less discretion because of the Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of
i 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 715–715r.
ii 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1301–1311.
iii 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1531–1543.
iv 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 703–711.
v 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 668–668d.
vi 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1361–1407.
vii 43 U.S.C.A. §§ 1701–1784.
viii 43 U.S.C.A. §§ 315–315r.
ix 43 U.S.C.A. §§ 1901–1908.
x 43 U.S.C.A. §§ 1713–1721.
xi 43 U.S.C.A. §§ 1068–1068b.
xii 43 U.S.C.A. §§ 321–323.
xiii 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 22–47.
xiv 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 181–287.
xv 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 351–354.
xvi 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001–1026.
xvii 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 473–482 (partially repealed 1976).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 548 of 560
510
1974, as amended by and merged into the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976,i which created an inclusive forest wide planning process for the entire national forest system, including localized planning. This authority grants discretion to U.S.F.S. to create broad, encompassing management regulations but compliance with these regulations limits local manager discretion over local plans. Forest land is also affected by the FLPMA, ii wilderness
designations,iii and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.iv Because there are localized planning requirements and less manager discretion, there is less flexibility with National Forest land than BLM land without amending or creating a new local plan under the NFMA. However, the inclusion of decarbonization actions in U.S.F.S. authority to issue broad rules of applicability to manage forest land does create an opportunity for local jurisdictions to engage in the U.S.F.S. regulatory process that affects local planning in addition to advocating for changes to existing local plans, such as the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan.
B.5.2 Tribal Authority Over Natural Climate Solutions and Other Land Use Considerations States and local governments generally act with limited to no authority over tribal land use and activity.
Cooperative intergovernmental policies and agreements that support tribal land preservation, land conservation, and decarbonization efforts through mechanisms that include the fee-to-trust process appear to be existing paths to work with tribes in achieving regional decarbonization goals.
There are eighteen federally recognized tribes and seventeen tribal governments (Note: the Barona and Viejas Bands share joint-trust and administrative responsibility for the Capitan Grande Reservation) in the San Diego region.
v In terms of natural resources, tribal and individual aboriginal titles include exclusive rights to use land and resources unless abrogated by treaty or statute.vi On trust and restricted lands, the U.S. holds natural resources in trust for the tribal or individual owner, owing a fiduciary duty to the tribe or allottee. Federal executive authority over Indian Affairs, including trust land, flows from the President to the Secretary of the Interior and through delegation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).vii BIA regulations include: the process to acquire land in trust status for a tribe or individual Indians (fee-to-trust) viii; removing restrictions on the alienation of Indian allotmentsix; approval and cancelation of leases on tribal and individual trust landx; issuance of grazing permits on Indian landxi; governing the leasing of mineral resourcesxii; management of timber resources on tribal landxiii; regulation of certain
i 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1600–1616.
ii 43 U.S.C.A. §§ 1732(b), 1751–1753, & 1765–1771.
iii 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1131–1136.
iv 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 1131–1136.
v Note: the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians and Mount Laguna Band of Luiseño Indians Tribal Governments do not have federally recognized land but are active in the region. vi See, e.g., United States v. Dann, 873 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir. 1989), on remand from United States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39 (1985) (individual aboriginal use rights).
vii See 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 1s, & 2; 43 U.S.C.A. § 1457.
viii 25 C.F.R. part 151.
ix 25 C.F.R. part 152.
x 25 C.F.R. part 162.
xi 25 C.F.R. part 166.
xii 25 C.F.R. parts 200, 211, 212, 225.
xiii 25 C.F.R. § 163.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 549 of 560
511
fishing activitiesi; regulation of Indian tradersii; implementation of portions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Actiii; and regulation of certain water rights and irrigation issues.iv Indian tribes possess the inherent power to govern their territories. While these powers may be limited by federal laws in certain respects, the authority over tribal health and welfare remains substantial, allowing tribes to act to the full limit of their inherent governmental authority.v Tribes may enact environmental tribal codes that establish standards, permit requirements, and penalties for violations and provide for enforcement in tribal court and through tribal agency proceedings. Tribes may also exercise environmental law authority delegated by Congress, with tribes assumed to be the primary regulatory authority or to have primacy for administering most federal environmental law programs. vi
Federal environmental law applies in a tribal territory with either the tribe or the federal agency — generally the U.S. EPA — responsible for administering the environmental statute. vii
States and local governments generally act with limited to no authority over tribal land use and activity.
viii State and local environmental laws do not apply to Sovereign Tribal Nations unless required by the Compact with the Stateix or through independent agreements between Tribal Governments and local agencies. Local jurisdictions may enact policies that affect tribal land expansion through the existing fee-to-trust applications process, which transfers purchased land to the BIA as trustee. x Per SB
712 (Hueso, Chapter 291, Statutes of 2021), local jurisdictions are now encouraged to work cooperatively with tribes in a tribe’s nongaming fee-to-trust application and prohibited from adopting or enforcing a resolution or ordinance that prevents the local government from conducting a fair evolution of the application based on its merits. The County of San Diego recently acted before this law was signed by the Governor by voiding Resolution Nos. 94-115, which created a blanket policy of opposition to fee- to-trust applications in 1994, and 01-162, which set strict criteria for liquor licenses, in May of 2021. The County of San Diego will be compliant with SB 713 (2021) as it takes effect on January 1, 2022, creating a cooperative intergovernmental policy that can support tribal land preservation, land conservation, and decarbonization efforts through the fee-to-trust process.
i 25 C.F.R. parts 241, 242, 247–249.
ii 25 C.F.R. part 140.
iii 25 C.F.R. parts 290 and 291.
iv 25 C.F.R. parts 159, 171–173.
v See Backcountry Against Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d 147, 151 (D.C. Cir. 1996). vi See 1 Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 10.01 (2021). vii See Donovan v. Coeur d’ Alene Tribal Farm, 751 F.2d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 1985) (quo ting United States v. Farris, 624 F.2d 890, 893–894 (9th Cir. 1980)).
viii See Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
ix See Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-497; 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1166 et seq. & 25 U.S.C.A §§ 2701 et seq.).
x See County of San Diego Resolution No. 94-115 (1994) creating policy to oppose all tribal fee-to-trust applications and Resolution No. 01-162 (2001) adopting strict criteria for tribal liquor licensing for their facilities (both resolutions voided by a 4-1 vote on May 5, 2021 of the County of San Diego Board of Supervisor- Land Use, Regular Meeting, Agenda Item No. 9: “FRAMEWORK FOR OUR FUTURE: COOPERATIVE APPROACH TO TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND FEE TO TRUST PROPOSALS”:
https://bosagenda.sandiegocounty.gov/cob/cosd/cob/doc?id=0901127e80cfcf57 ; https://bosagenda.sandiegocounty.gov/cob/cosd/cob/doc?id=0901127e80cfdd81 ).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 550 of 560
512
B.5.3 State of California Authority Over Natural Climate Solutions and Other Land Use Considerations
B.5.3.1 General Authority
State ownership and authority over state and private natural and working lands are inextricably tied to federal public lands and statutes. Federal lands are often geographically contiguous with state land or surrounds state land acquired from a federal government grant or state acquisition of federal land. For example, the equal footing doctrine and Submerged Lands Act of 1953 i presumes that states own title to
submerged lands beneath inland navigable waters and beneath territorial waters within three nautical miles of the state’s coast. Additionally, federal land grants are often restricted, limiting state discretion as to the use and disposition of the land.
ii
Beyond state land with a federal nexus, California actively manages natural and working lands through various agencies with a wide range of authority and missions. State authority and specific agency authority to preempt local police power over zoning is narrow and limited iii to specific statewide objects.
These objectives include housing requirements that determine the number of residential units to be zoned, including affordable housing, but not where the units should be zoned.iv They also include specific areas, such as the coastal zone or under the Subdivision Map Act,v which allows specified local supplementary regulation.vi State preemption over charter city municipal affairs is expressly limited by California Constitution Article XI, §§ 3 and 5. Additionally, CEQA applies to a broad range of projects, as defined, on natural and working lands and is a major consideration when analyzing land and resource uses. The California Endangered Species Act may also affect use of habitat and would need to be specifically analyzed.
vii The following discusses both state policy and relevant laws and agencies.
AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (Pavley, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016) authorized programs — such as Cap-and- Trade — do not directly regulate land use. However, SB 1386 (Wolk, Chapter 545, Statutes of 2016) established protecting and managing natural and working lands as state policy to be considered by all parts of the state government, that this policy is important to achieving California’s GHG reduction goals, and that state policy includes the intent to promote cooperation of owners of natural and working lands. In addition, the carbon neutrality by 2045 target required by 2018 Executive Order B-55-18’s incorporates working lands, including agriculture, in the 2022 AB 32 Scoping Plan update that is in draft form and expected to be approved by the end of 2022. CARB completed several technical working groups on natural and working lands as part of the Scoping Plan update, with the most recent on December 2, 2021. In addition, CARB is developing methods to model business-as-usual and several alternatives that will inform statewide goals in the 2022 Scoping Plan for five natural and working land categories: 1) forest, shrubland, and grasslands; 2) agriculture; 3) settlements (e.g., urban forests, wildland urban interface, and rural intermix and influence forests); 4) wetlands; 5) deserts and other
i Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C.A. §§ 1301–1315: The 1953 Act gave coastal states title to the offshore lands three miles seaward from the coastline; See also United States v. Alaska, 521 U.S. 1 (1997) (ANWR Ownership). ii George Cameron Coggins and Robert L. Glicksman, Public Natural Resources Law, § 1:7 (2nd Ed., October 2021 Update).
iii See Government Code § 65000 et seq.; See Scrutton v. County of Sacramento , 275 Cal. App. 2d 412, 417 (1978). iv See Government Code §§ 65913.1(a), 65863.5, 65583(a)(3), 65584, & 65584.01. v Government Code §§ 66410 et seq.
vi See Government Code §§ 66411, 66421, 66477, 66478, 66479, 66483, & 66484; see also Friends of Lake Arrowhead v. Board of Supervisors, 38 Cal. App. 3d 497, 505, (1974). vii Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 551 of 560
513
lands.i
Executive Order B-55-18 was furthered in 2020 by Executive Order N-82-20’s language regarding biodiversity, 30% land and coastal water conservation, acceleration of natural carbon sequestration and climate resiliency on natural and working lands, and creation of the Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy, including setting a statewide target to meet the 2045 carbon neutrality goal. The legislature codified part of Executive Order N-82-20 under SB 27 (Skinner, Chapter 237, Statutes of 2021) regarding establishing a Natural and Working Land Climate Smart Strategy that includes developing a framework to achieve California’s climate goals and mandates CARB to set CO 2 removal targets for 2030
and beyond under its Scoping Plan for all emission sectors including those in this framework. Finally, SB 27 (2021) requires the Natural Resources Agency to create a carbon removal and sequestration registry to identify, list, fund projects by state agencies and private entities, and retire projects in the state that drive climate action on the state’s natural and working lands.
Previously, the 2017 AB 32 Scoping Plan, guided by SB 1386 (2016), sought to address GHG emissions from natural and working lands, including forests, rangelands, agriculture, wetlands, and soils. The 2017 Scoping Plan sought to maintain natural and working “land as carbon sinks (i.e., net zero or negative GHG emissions) and, where appropriate, minimize the net GHG and black carbon associated with management, biomass utilization, and wildfire events”
ii out to 2030 as it predated the 2018 executive
order for carbon neutrality. It set a target of sequestering and avoiding emissions in this sector by at least 15–20 million metric tons by 2030.
The 2022 Draft AB 32 Scoping Plan takes a different track after modeling projected carbon stock losses on natural and working lands that increase over time.
iii It instead seeks to mitigate emissions from
natural and working lands through active climate smart land management. Strategies from the 2022 Draft AB 32 Scoping Plan specific to natural and working lands (excluding agriculture discussed below), include but are not limited to:
• Increasing forest, shrubland, and grassland management to at least 2.3 million acres a year; • Increasing annual investment in urban trees in developed lands by at least 20 percent above historic levels and establishing defensible space on all parcels; • Restoring at least 60,000 acres, or approximately 15 percent of all Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) wetlands, by 2045; and
• Cutting land conversion of deserts and sparsely vegetated landscapes by at least 50 percent annually from current levels.
iv
CARB and related agencies completed a Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan (NWL Implementation Plan) in April 2019. The NWL Implementation Plan was informed by SB 859 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 368, Statutes of 2016) Natural and Working Land Inventory that quantitatively estimated the existing state of ecosystem carbon stored in the State’s land base and excluded GHG emissions associated from direct human activity quantified in CARB’s annual
i See 2022 Scoping Plan Update Modeling and Scenario Workshop, Natural and Working lands, December 2, 2021:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/NWLPublicWorkshopSlides_Dec2_PublicDistribution.pdf . ii CARB California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (November 2017), p. 81:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf . iii CARB Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update, May 10, 2022, pp. 200-201:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-draft-sp.pdf. iv CARB Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update, May 10, 2022, p. 201: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 05/2022-draft-sp.pdf.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 552 of 560
514
statewide GHG inventory.i The NWL Implementation Plan sets targets out to 2030 and pathways to at least double the pace and scale of state-funded restoration and management activities, including: 1) increasing the acreage in soil conservation practices for cultivated land and rangelands by five times to change agricultural land from a net emitter to a sink by 2030; 2) doubling the pace and scale of forest managed or restored; 3) tripling the pace of restoration of oak savannas and riparian areas; and 4) and doubling the rate of wetland seagrass restoration.ii The Draft 2022 AB 32 Scoping Plan calls for a ten times increase to forest, shrublands, and grassland management and a five times increase in healthy soil practices.
iii The NWL Implementation Plan also calls for a wide range of activities and acreage goals based across activities and land types.iv
B.5.3.2 Specific Statutes and Agencies Applicable in San Diego Region
The following discusses specific statutes and agencies that regulate natural and working lands in the San Diego region. It is non-exhaustive.
The California Coastal Act of 1976
v created the California Coastal Commission that administers planning and permitting regulatory schemes over California’s coastal land and territorial waters (including wetlands in the coastal zone
vi) to balance uses with protecting coastal natural resources. The coastal zone is as defined in identified maps by the legislature. Local jurisdictions, including ports through certification of port master plans, play a primary role in implementing the Coastal Act by developing local coastal plans (LCPs) for certification by the Coastal Commission that determine use and density.
LCPs are subject to CEQA and congruent with the local jurisdiction’s GPvii and become part of the GP once adopted.viii Once certified, the California Coastal Commission delegates authority to issue coastal development permits to the local jurisdiction or port. The Coastal Commission retains jurisdictions over tidelands, submerged land, public trust lands, any state university or college within the coastal zone, ix
where an LCP is not certified, and on appeal of certain types of developments.x The Coastal Commission is also designated as a planning and management agency under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. It determines consistency with California’s federally approved coastal management program with regards to proposed federal activity or federal permitted activity within the coastal zone. xi
The Public Trust Doctrine, enshrined in California Constitution Articles I, § 25, Article X §§ 3–4, and Article XVI, § 6, creates the basis for stewardship of lands, waterways, and resources entrusted to the
i See CARB California Natural and Working Land Inventory (2018), pp. 7 & 15: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/nwl - inventory .
ii See January 2019 Draft California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan (Updated January 2019), p. 13–14: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/draft-nwl-ip-040419.pdf. iii CARB Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update, May 10, 2022, p, 55, 201:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-draft-sp.pdf. iv See January 2019 Draft California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan (Updated January 2019), p. 14–20: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/draft-nwl-ip-040419.pdf. v See Government Code § 30000 et seq.
vi See California Coastal Commission Procedural Guidance for the Review of Wetland Projects in California’s Coastal Zone, Chapter 3: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/wetrev/wettc.html. vii Public Resources Code §§ 301085 & 30108.6.
viii Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553, 571 (1990). ix Public Resources Code § 30519(b).
x Public Resources Code §§ 30519, 30603(a), & 30604.
xi Public Resources Code § 30330; 16 U.S.C.A. § 1456(c).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 553 of 560
515
state. Accordingly, the State Lands Act created the California State Lands Commission to manage tide and submerged lands and the beds of naturally navigable rivers, streams, lakes, bays, estuaries, inlets, and straits.i This includes classifying any or all state lands for their different possible uses and leasing and sale of state land (including oil and gas leases in the California Coastal Sanctuaryii).
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife acts with authority over wetland resources associated with rivers, streams, and lakes which is broader than U.S. Army Corps of Engineer authority under Clean Water Act Section 404 because it includes streamside habitats. iii This authority allows the regulation of
work that: substantially diverts, obstructs, or changes the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; substantially changes the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; uses material from a streambed; or deposits or disposes of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, including a broad range of activities such as gravel mining and timber harvesting.
iv
The State Water Resources Control Board acts with authority over “waters of the state” under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act that are not under federal jurisdiction.v The State Water Resources Control Board regulates projects filling wetlands through General Orders that local Regional Water Quality Boards implement. In addition, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board acts with regulatory authority over wetlands through Waste Discharge Requirements and Clean Water Act Section 401 certificates of state water quality standards compliance for fill projects in wetlands and other State waters.
vi
Timber harvests on private and state-owned forest lands are regulated by the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973
vii and CEQA.viii The Board of Forestry adopts regulations under this authority, and CAL Fire administers the rules that address productivity of timberland and sustained production of timber that considers sequestration of carbon dioxide,
ix recreation, watershed, wildlife, range and
forage, fisheries, regional economic vitality, employment, and aesthetic enjoyment. Adopted rules must protect the environment,
x and more recently, legislation was adopted to address sequestration of carbon dioxide in forests through the Forest Practice Act of 2010,xi the Working Forest Management Plan,xii and Programmatic Timberland Environmental Impact Report for Carbon Sequestration and Fuel
i Public Resources Code § 6001 et seq.
ii See Public Resource Code §§ 6240–6245.
iii Fish & Game Code §§ 1600–1616.
iv Fish & Game § 1602.
v See January 25, 2001, Memorandum from SWRCB Chief Counsel to State Board Members and Regional Board Executive Officers, Effect of SWANCC v. United States on the 401 Certification Program, available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/401_certification/docs/swancc.pdf . vi See, e.g., Memo from SWRCB Executive Director to Regional Board Executi ve Officers, Guidance for Regulation of Discharges to “Isolated” Waters (June 25, 2004), p. 15 of link, available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/wrapp/comments/jennifer_west.pdf ; see 33 U.S.C.A. § 1342; 33 C.F.R. § 325.2(b)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(b)(1). vii Public Resources Code § 4511 et seq.
viii Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.
ix See Public Resources Code §§ 4512.5(a) & (e).
x See Public Resources Code § 4551.
xi AB 1504 (Skinner, Chapter 534 , Statutes of 2010); See Public Resources Code § 4512(c); see also AB 1023 (Wagner, Chapter 296, Statutes of 2011); See Public Resources Cod e § 4512.5(a) & (d). xii AB 904 (Chesbro, Chapter 648, Statutes of 2013); See Public Resources Code § 4597 et seq.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 554 of 560
516
Reduction Programi with action taken in tandem with CARB’s Scoping Plan. Executive Order B-52-18 ordered the creation of a California Forest Carbon Plan (2018), and the 2021 Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan is part of its implementation. To date, there has been limited regulatory activity related to the statutory mandates at the Board of Forestry, but this will likely change with the adoption of the 2022 Scoping Plan that will directly address forest management through regionally specific management strategies to maintain healthy forest through treatment activity and preventing land conversion.
ii It is unclear how this will impact the San Diego region. Additionally, the Forest Practice Act preempts counties from regulating the activity of timber operators.iii However, the County of San Diego lacks zoned timber production zones and actively regulates land uses with timber and/or designated as open space.
B.5.4 Local Authority Over Natural Climate Solutions and Other Land Use Considerations
Cities and counties often use planning and land use control authorities to protect or regulate natural and working lands. In this regard, the full extent of this authority requires further research and development to determine what is feasible at the local level to regulate, preserve, and augment natural and working lands for GHG regulations and any removal or storage activities in the region. Additionally, local jurisdictions act with authority to lobby Congress, the California Legislatures, and negotiate with federal, tribal, and state agencies and lands managers to further these aims. Local jurisdictions may also act with existing authority to create pilots or programs in this regard. Local jurisdiction act with existing authority to fund local science to accurately identify and quantify local natural and working lands carbon stock and sequestration potential to inform local decisions and investment. Further research is needed to develop and vet these and other actions on natural and working lands.
Known local government tools that can be used to regulate and protect natural and working lands include GPs, specific plans, CAPS, LCPs, zoning, special use permits, subdivision maps, and development agreements. Policies that support easements (e.g., conservation iv — including California Forest Legacy
Program Act easementsv — and open-spacevi), as well as incentives largely based on easements to preserve land, are additional tools available to local jurisdictions to preserve and manage natural and working lands. This includes, but is not limited to:
• Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements;vii
• Transfer development credits/transfer of development rights; • Lease or lease-purchase;
• Fee simple acquisitions;
• Mitigation banking;
• Project specific development agreements;
• City-county agreements and revenue sharing regarding urban growth; • Greenbelt buffers, cluster development;
i SB 862 (Committee of Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014); See Public Resources Code § 4598 et seq.
ii CARB Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update, May 10, 2022, p. 64: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 05/2022-draft-sp.pdf.
iii Public Resources Code § 4516.5(d).
iv Civil Code §§ 815.1, 815.3, 815.2(a)-(b).
v Public Resources Code § 12200 et seq.
vi Government Code § 51070 (The Open-Space Easement Act of 1974). vii Civil Code § 815 et seq.; See County of San Diego PACE Program Guidelines (March 3, 2021).
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 555 of 560
517
• Agricultural enterprise zones;
• Agricultural Protection Planning Grant Program;i and
• Development of an agricultural land component as part of an open-space element or agricultural land element.ii
Finally, local jurisdictions can also apply for state programs like the Urban & Community Forestry Program under the Urban Forestry Actiii to support local urban forestry efforts that are included in GPs or CAPs. The Draft 2022 SB 32 Scoping Plan calls for 20% increase in urban tree investment above historical levels to further support this effort.iv
B.5.4.1 Agriculture
Local jurisdiction’s authority over agricultural land stems from police power over land use and zoning.
Agriculture emissions or GHG mitigation actions also may be part of a local jurisdiction’s CAP. For example, the Oceanside Carbon Farming Program is a CAP measure with a goal to establish up to 50 acres of demonstration carbon farms by 2025 utilizing alternative management practices that result in increased carbon sequestration. Such practices include, but are not limited to, synthetic nitrogen fertilization reductions, compost application, anaerobic digestion of waste, silvopasture, reduced tillage, cover cropping, conservation crop rotation, range planting, and improved nutrient management. v It is
unclear how and to what extent a local jurisdiction may use its police power to regulate agriculture activities that cause GHG emissions directly. Some potential opportunity are dependent on whether and how CARB regulates certain activities.
Federal authority over agriculture land use and practices is limited with certain land use requirements for leased federal land for farming or animal production but no specific regulation of GHG emissions.
In California, SB 1386 (Wolk, Chapter 545, Statutes of 2016) established protecting and managing natural and working lands as state policy to be considered by all parts of the state government, that this policy is important to achieving California’s GHG reduction goals, and that state policy includes the intent to promote cooperation of owners of natural and working lands. SB 1386 (2016) also defined farming land as working land under Public Resources Code § 9001.5(d)(1). SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) mandated that CARB achieve a 40% reduction in methane emissions below 2014 levels by 2030, including reducing emissions from livestock manure management operations and diary manure management operations the creation and implementation of a Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy.
SB 1383 (2016) sets the date of on or after January 1, 2024, as the effective date to implement regulation of these emissions with ongoing investments and incentives to achieve the reductions. SB 1383 (2016) also limits regulation of enteric fermentation to incentive-based mechanisms until CARB and the Department of Food and Agriculture determine that a cost-effective and scientifically proven method of reducing enteric emissions is available adoption of which would not damage animal health, public health, or consumer acceptance. A June 2021 Draft Analysis on the Progress Toward Achieving
i Public Resources Code § 10280 et seq.
ii See Government Code §§ 65565, 65570, 66565, 66565.1; see also Public Resources Code § 10281.5. iii Public Utilities Code § 4799.06–4799.12.
iv CARB Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update, May 10, 2022, p. 201: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 05/2022-draft-sp.pdf.
v City of Oceanside, Oceanside Climate Action Plan, 2019, p. 3-41:
https://www.ci.oceanside.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=48919 .
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 556 of 560
518
the 2030 Dairy and Livestock Sector Methane Emissions Target projected that current activities will achieve slightly over half of the annual methane emission reductions required by SB 1383 (2016) due to market, technical, and other barriers signifying the need for significant investment to almost double emission reduction projects by 2030.i It remains unclear whether CARB will enact regulations in 2024 to achieve these reductions. CARB regulation will likely preempt local authority action but the current state offers an opportunity for local regulation unless, and until, CARB acts.
AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (2016) authorized programs do not directly regulate agricultural land use, onsite agriculture GHG emission (excluding off-road emissions
ii), require carbon sequestration, or require
carbon removal on working agricultural lands. However, Executive Order B-55-18’s incorporates agricultural working lands in the draft 2022 AB 32 Scoping Plan update to address the carbon neutrality by 2045 target. Executive Order N-82-20’s language regarding biodiversity, 30% land and coastal water conservation, acceleration of natural carbon sequestration and climate resiliency on natural and working lands, and creation of the Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy — including setting a statewide target to meet the 2045 carbon neutrality goal — will further focus efforts on agricultural land. SB 27 (2021), where the legislature codified part of Executive Order N-82-20, mandates a Natural and Working Land Climate Smart Strategy to achieve California’s climate goals. It also requires CARB to set CO
2 removal targets for 2030 and beyond under its Scoping Plan for all emission sectors, including agriculture. Finally, SB 27 (2021) mandates will drive climate action on agriculture land through the creation of a carbon removal and sequestration registry to identify, list, fund projects by state agencies and private entities, and retire projects.
These efforts will further support existing agriculture preservation statutes in the coastal zone, iii the
long-term productivity of soil,iv and under the Williamson Act (California’s primary agricultural preservation statute that grants property tax reductions for preserving agricultural and open-space uses for farming and ranching).v It will also likely affect CEQA analysis on land conversion and agricultural land preservation mitigation.
Previously, the 2017 AB 32 Scoping Plan sought to address GHG emissions from agriculture from energy use, methane, and N
2Ovi with the objective of maintaining agriculture “land as carbon sinks (i.e., net zero or negative GHG emissions) and, where appropriate, minimize the net GHG and black carbon associated with management, biomass utilization, and wildfire events” vii out to 2030 as it predated the
2018 executive order for carbon neutrality. The 2022 AB 32 Draft Scoping Plan seeks to support climate
i CARB, Draft Analysis on the Progress Toward achieving the 2030 Dairy and Livestock Sector Methane Emissions Target (June 2021), p. ES-2 & 8: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/dr aft-2030-dairy-livestock-ch4- analysis.pdf.
ii See CARB Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for Emission Reductions: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/farmer-program.
iii See Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq. (Coastal Act) & § 31000 et seq. (State Coastal Conservancy); Public Resources Code §§ 31050, 31051, 30241, 30114, 30243, 30108.6, 30500(c), 30200(a), 30514, 30241.5, 30241, 30250, 30610.1, 30242, 31054, 31104.1, 31150, 31151, 31152, 31156. iv Public Resources Code § 30243.
v Government Code § 51201(c); see Government Code § 51200 et seq. vi Note: the Irrigated Land Regulatory Program requires nitrogen fertilizer management to protect water quality through nitrogen management plans, which decrease N2O use on farmland and may be used to coordinate further reductions. Additional water management and water irrigation efficiency are also contributing to N 2O reductions. vii CARB California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (November 2017), p. 81:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf .
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 557 of 560
519
smart actions around food security, reduce GHGs, increase carbon storage in soil, and reduce public health impacts by reducing synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use. Strategies from the 2022 Draft AB 32 Scoping Plan specific to agriculture included:
• Accelerate the pace and scale of healthy soils practices to 50,000 acres annually by 2025, annually conserve at least 6,000 acres of annual crops, and increase organic agriculture to 20 percent of all cultivated acres by 2045;
• Deploy additional climate smart agricultural strategies for croplands identified in the Climate Smart Strategy (e.g., improved nitrogen use efficiency, whole-orchard recycling, riparian restoration, on-farm energy generation, and others) and utilize the recommendations included in CDFA’s Farmer and Rancher-Led Climate Change Solutions
report to accelerate deployment of
healthy soils practices, organic farming, and other climate smart agriculture practices; • Establish or expand financial mechanisms that support ongoing deployment of healthy soils practices and organic agriculture;
• Implement California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR) Sustainable Pest Management Work Group recommendations
to accelerate a systemwide transition to safer, more sustainable pest management;
• Support strategies that achieve co-benefits of safer, more sustainable pest management practices and the health and preservation of ecosystems; • Conduct research on the intersection of pesticides, soil health, GHGs, and pest resiliency via a multiagency effort with DPR, California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA, and CARB; • Conduct outreach and education to develop and facilitate the increased adoption of safer, more sustainable pest management practices and tools, reduce the use of harmful pesticides, promote healthy soils, improve water and air quality, and reduce public health impacts; • In collaboration with state and local agencies, accelerate the deployment of alternatives to agricultural burning that increase long-term carbon storage from waste agricultural biomass, including storage in durable wood products, underground reservoirs, soil amendments, and other mediums;
• Work across state agencies to reduce regulatory and permitting barriers around some healthy soils practices (e.g., composting), where appropriate; and • Utilize innovative agriculture energy use and carbon monitoring and planning tools to reduce on- farm GHG emissions from energy and fertilizer application or increase carbon storage, as well as to promote on-farm energy production opportunities.
i
The April 2019 CARB NWL Implementation Plan, informed by SB 859’s (2016) Natural and Working Land Inventory’s quantitative estimate of the existing state of ecosystem carbon stored in the State's land base (excluding GHG emissions associated from direct human activity quantified in CARB’s annual statewide GHG inventory),
ii sets targets out to 2030 and pathways to scale needed implementation.
Specific to agriculture, these include increasing the acreage in soil conservation practices for cultivated land and rangelands by five times to change agricultural land from a net emitter to a sink by 2030. iii The
NWL Implementation Plan also calls for increases in compost application, agroforestry, grazing land and grassland management, and cropland management to decrease emissions and increase carbon
i CARB Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update, May 10, 2022, p. 208: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 05/2022-draft-sp.pdf.
ii See CARB California Natural and Working Land Inventory (2018), p. 7 & 15: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/nwl- inventory.
iii See January 2019 Draft California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan (Updated January 2019), p. 13: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/draft-nwl-ip-040419.pdf.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 558 of 560
520
sequestration.i
SB 859 (2016) established the Department of Food and Agriculture Healthy Soil Program (HSP) to provide incentives (including loans, grants, and research), technical assistance, and education research to farmers whose practices contribute to healthy soils, as defined, and result in net long-term on-farm GHG benefits with GHG reductions quantified using CARB methodologies. The HSP is also authorized to pilot demonstration projects to further its goals. To date, the Program received $40.1 million in California Climate Investment (CCI) (e.g., cap-and-trade proceeds) from 2016–2019, $10 million from SB 5 (de León, Chapter 852, Statutes of 2017) California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, and was accepting applications for 2021 with $50 million from the State General Fund and $25 million from the California Climate Investments for the Healthy Soils Program per SB 170 (Skinner, Chapter 240, Statutes of 2021) authorized by the Budget Act of 2021. ii
Additional funding with impacts on GHG emissions include:
• $100 million through Fiscal Year 2022–2023 for the State Water Efficiency Enhancement Program (SWEEP);
• $160 million through Fiscal Year 2022–2023 for the Healthy Soil Program (HSP); • $80 million through Fiscal Year 2022–2023 for the Dairy Digestor Research & Development Program (DDRDP) & Alternative Manure Management Program (AMMP); • $39 million through Fiscal Year 2022–2023 for the Conservation Agriculture Planning Grant Program; and
• $5 million through Fiscal Year 2021–2022 for the Water Efficiency Technical Assistance Grant.iii Two other CEC operate programs fund GHG reduction activities on agricultural land. The Food Production Investment Program provides grants through the CCI to help food processors save energy and money while reducing GHG emissions through energy efficiency and renewable energy technology. iv
The Renewable Energy for Agriculture Program (REAP)v offers grants that encourage the installation of renewable energy technology to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture operations, including solar PV systems, wind turbines, biomass-to-energy generation, or other commercially viable renewable energy technology.vi It is unclear whether there is additional funding for these programs.
i See January 2019 Draft California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan (Updated January 2019), p. 17: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020 -10/draft-nwl-ip-040419.pdf. ii See Department of Food and Agriculture, The Office of Environmental Farming and Innovation, Healthy Soil Program (last visited November 30, 2021): https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/healthysoils/ . iii See California Department of Food and Agriculture, The Office of Environmental Farming and Innovation (last visiting on November 30, 2021): https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/. iv See CEC Food Production Investment Program (last visited November 30, 2021):
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/food-production-program. v See CEC Renewable Energy For Agriculture Program (last visited on November 30, 2021):
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/renewable-energy-agriculture-program. vi The program was authorized with the passage of AB 109 (Ting, Budget Act of 2017, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2017) and SB 856 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter 30, Statutes of 2018). The program is receiving $10 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 559 of 560
521
Appendix C. Regional Decarbonization Framework –
Technical Working Group
Name Organization Recommended by
David Flores San Diego County Office of Supervisor San Diego County Supervisor District 1 James Whalen J. Whalen Associates San Diego County Supervisor District 2 Cody Petterson San Diego County Office of Supervisor San Diego County Supervisor District 3 Shalini Vajjhala San Diego Regional Policy and
Innovation Center (SDRPIC)
San Diego County Supervisor District 4
Matthew Adams Building Industry Association (BIA) San Diego County Supervisor District 5 Allison Wood San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG)
San Diego Association of Governments
Kathleen Keehan San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District (APCD)
San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District
Philip Gibbons Port of San Diego Port of San Diego
Chad Reese San Diego International Airport San Diego Regional Airport Authority Annalisa Schilla California Air Resources Board (CARB) California Environmental Protection Agency & California Air Resources
Board
Dallin Young San Diego Gas & Electricity (SDG&E) San Diego County Land Use & Environment Group
Matthew
Vasilakis
Climate Action Campaign San Diego County Land Use &
Environment Group
Satomi Zeigler San Diego & Imperial Counties Labor
Council
San Diego County Land Use &
Environment Group
Oct. 11, 2022
Item #12 Page 560 of 560
County of San Diego
County of San Diego
A Collaborative Effort to Lower the Region's Carbon Footprint City of Carlsbad, City Council Item #12
Murtaza H. Baxamusa, PhD, AICP
October 11, 2022
2 Technical Report
3 Workforce Development
Study by Inclusive
Economics
Integrated Regional Decarbonization Framework
4 Technical Report led by
UC San Diego and USD
Implementation
Playbook
Completed
August 2022
Completed
August 2022
1st Draft December 2022
2nd Draft February 2023
Final by Spring 2023
Draft Implementation
Playbook & Policy
Development
December 2022
Regional
Convenings &
Public Review
January 2023
Board
Adoption
Spring 2023
August2022
Board
Update
Brief Timeline
Public
Workshop
Completion of
Technical Report
& Workforce
Development
Reports
Special
Topic
Working
Groups
Implementation
Playbook 1st
Draft Released
Draft Sustainable
Agriculture &
Food Systems
Policy Report
Implementation
Playbook 2nd
Draft Released
PROGRAM
DETAILS
Implementation
Playbook &
Framework
Adoption
5 Implementation Playbook
6 All measures in Climate Action Plans
Best in class for
each topic
Voluntary
Menu of options Accessible
Public or private
organizations
Implementation Playbook: Level of Approach
7 Business Operations
Communities
Region
Implementation Playbook: Sample Topics
8 Buildings
•Better use of
energy in
existing
buildings
Electricity
•Educate
residents &
businesses
about 100%
renewable
energy
options
Food Systems
& Circular
Economy
•Bulk
purchase of
food
•Waste
diversion
from landfills
Land Use &
Natural
Climate
Solutions
•Green
streets
Transportation
•Retire
polluting
vehicles
9 Workforce
Development
Study
Analysis of all
local Climate
Action Plans
Technical
Report
Implementation
Playbook
Regional
Actions
Regional
GHG
Analysis
Regional
Climate
Action Plan
Next Steps
Possible
Board
Direction in
Spring 2023
Regional Actions: Examples
10 Regional program for
suitable tree planting
locations
Model building code
for electrification
Solar electricity for
low-income renters
County of San Diego
County of San Diego
Office of Sustainability and Environmental Justice: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/osej Regional Decarbonization Framework: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/RDF Email: [email protected]