Post on 12-Mar-2018
1
1
AB 32: California Global WarmingSolutions Act of 2006
Anthony EggertAir Resources Board
May 23, 2008Monterey, CA
AB32 and Climate Change: Partneringwith Local Governments to Combat
Global Warming
2
Take Home Message
• Achieving the goals of AB32 willrequire a strong partnershipbetween State, Regionalorganizations and Localgovernments!
2
3
Preamble
• Local governments have led the way onclimate policy!
4
Local Government Leaders
3
5
Preamble
• Local governments have led the way onclimate policy!
• Local government decisions havesignificant direct and indirect impact ongreenhouse gas emissions
• Impacts of climate change will have tobe addressed by local governments
6
2100 Climate Impacts
California Projected Impacts
75% loss in snow pack
1-2 foot sea level rise
70 more extreme heat days/year
80% more ‘likely ozone’ days
55% more large forest fires
Twice the drought years
Loss in dairy and ag productivity
6
4
7
What Is AB 32?
• Sets in statute 2020 GHG emissions limit at1990 level– Acknowledges that 2020 is not the endpoint
• Air Resources Board to monitor/regulateGHG sources
• In collaboration with other state agencies,ARB will develop Scoping Plan byJanuary 1, 2009.
8
Magnitude of the Challenge
1990 EmissionBaseline
~173 MMT CO2e Reduction
80% Reduction~341 MMT CO2e
5
9
CO2 Intensity Comparisons(Fossil Fuel Combustion Only)
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Intensity (tons of CO2 per 2000 US Dollar)
Tons
of C
O2
per p
erso
n
Canada Australia
S. Korea
California
Mexico
United States
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
New ZealandSwitzerland
Japan
10
Transportation GHG Emissions
Electric Power 25%
Others 9%
Cars & Trucks36%
Agriculture6%
Industrial 20%
Passenger cars and heavy-duty trucks:
1990 Baseline Emissions:138 MMTCO2E
2004 Baseline Emissions:172 MMTCO2E
2020 Preliminary Forecasted Emissions:216 MMTCO2E
OtherTransportation
2%
*ARB GHG Inventory, 2004 Baseline Data; Other transportation: trains, planes, ships
6
11
Tremendous Opportunity?
“Nearly half of what will be the builtenvironment in 2030 doesn’t even existyet, giving the current generation a vitalopportunity to reshape futuredevelopment.”
Source: Arthur C. Nelson, “Planning for a New Era,” Journal of theAmerican Planning Association, Fall 2006
12
Passenger Vehicle Travel
Passenger Vehicles136 MMTCO2E
Heavy Duty Vehicles36 MMTCO2E
ARB GHG Inventory, 2004 Baseline Data
7
13
Transportation GHG
GHGMile ,
GHGGallon VMT
VehicleTechnology Fuels
VehicleUse
AB 1493Regulation
Low-CarbonFuel Standard
Transp. &Land UseStrategies
Transp.GHG = ,
14
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
180%
190%
200%
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
Perc
ent o
f 199
0 G
row
th
VMT
GHG Growth
GHG Growth with AB 1493
GHG Gap
GHG Growth with AB 1493 and LCFS
Can we get there with technology alone?
Future targets will haveto be much more stringent or gains will be eroded !
8
15
Drivers of VMT Reduction
Integrated Strategies
Alternate ModeInfrastructure
TransitCarpool/Vanpool
BikeWalk Pricing Signals
Cost per mileCost per gallonParking costs
Congestion relief costs
TransportationConservation
EducationIncentives to drive less
TDM Programs
Land UseDensityDiversityDesign
Destinations
16
Potential VMT Impactsof Land Use Strategies
References: Cervero (2001), Holtzclaw (2002), Ewing (2002), Bartholomew (2005), SACOG (2005).
9
17
How much can smart growth save?
• Compact development can reduce per capita VMTby 20 to 50% relative to trend– Potentially greater savings with pricing strategies
• Aggregate travel studies– Degree of sprawl is strongest influence on VMT/capita,
greater than population or income• Disaggregate travel studies
– 2X regional accessibility: -20% VMT– 2X density: -5% VMT
• Regional simulation studies– 0-17% VMT savings
Source: Ewing, Winkelman, et. al. “Growing Cooler”, 2008 (ref. various sources)
18
Will people want to live there?
• Public opinion (NAR/SGA 2004 survey)– 33% prefer a suburb close to a city, 13% prefer
urban– 48% would opt for smaller houses w/shorter
commute• Forecasts
– Demand for large lots projected to decline(Nelson)
– Demand for TOD will more than double by 2030(CTOD)
Source: Ewing, Winkelman, et. al. “Growing Cooler”, 2008 (ref. various sources)
10
19
Potential Long-Term Impacts ofGrowing Smarter
15% less than the BaseCase per capita85% of Base CaseSet at 100%Per Capita CO2 and PM
Emissions from vehicles
14 fewer minutes per day67 minutes81 minutes
Daily Vehicle Minutes ofTravel (perhousehold/day)
362 fewer square milesurbanized
304 square miles666 squaremiles
Additional UrbanizedLand
36% more new jobs andhomes near transit
41% New Jobs38% New Housing
5% New Jobs2% NewHousing
Growth Near Transit
27% increase53%26%
People Living in Areaswith Good Mix of Jobsand Housing
12.3 fewer miles perhousehold per day, a25% reduction
34.947.2VMT per household perday
DifferenceAdopted Plan 2050Base Case 2050Parameter
Sacramento Region -- 2050
Source: SACOG, Regional Blueprint Program, 2005
20
Not just transport
• Municipal operations– City facilities, maintenance, waste management
• Low-impact neighborhood design• Residential and commercial building
standards• Special districts for solar power and efficiency
upgrades• Etc., etc.
11
21
We can plan, but then what?
??
22
Land Use Subgroup Climate Action Team
12
23
1. State Leadership
• State agencies should add GHGconsiderations to internal programsrelated to State-owned facilities andinfrastructure.
• State agencies should add GHGconsiderations to programs relatedto state-assisted infrastructure andland use planning, design anddevelopment.
24
• Provide regional and localgovernments technical and financialassistance to inventory GHGemissions.
• Provide tools, resources andprograms to regional and localgovernments on best practices forreducing GHG emissions.• Land Use GHG quantification and
modeling tools• Model Climate Action Plans
2. Tools and Resources
13
25
3.Reduce Barriers to GHG-Efficient Growth
• Recommend that the OPR, StrategicGrowth Council and BT&H convene amulti-stakeholder process to examinebarriers to GHG-efficient growth.
26
4. Defining the Goal
• The State should work with localgovernments and regional agencies todefine a land use-related GHGemissions target for the State and goalsfor each region of the State.– Very complex– Need to balance with State
policy priorities (housing, water,energy, economy, congestion,etc.)
14
27
5. Measuring Progress
• The State will collect inventories ofGHG emissions from regions totrack progress towards goals.
• Share lessons learned
28
Perspective on Approaches
Incentives
Requirements
Voluntary Actions
FeesThresholds
Guidance
Tax breaks Performance-basedrewards
Performancerequirements
Mandatory targets
15
29
Next Steps
• Summer: Draft Scoping Plan Releasedand Workshops
• November: Scoping Plan Considered byARB
30
A Tale of Two Families
Family A Family B
16
31
Family A
A
32
Family B
B
17
336 mi
56Total5
204103142121VMTTrip #
A
Family A
34
Family B
7Total5
343312
01VMTTrip #
B
1 mi
18
35
A Tale of Two Families
Family A Family B
36
But can we fix this?
19
37
Why not?
38
Or this?
Source: Urban Advantage
20
39
Maybe?
Source: Urban Advantage
40
Recap
21
41
Thank You!
• ARB Climate Change Web Site– http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm– Stay informed - sign up for list serve
• California Climate Change Portal– http://www.climatechange.ca.gov
42Unconventional Fossil Fuels15,000 to 40,000 GtC
Coal5,000 to 8,000 GtC
Source: Edmonds, 2005
22
43
City Inventory – an example
44
AB 32 Timeline
20202007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
GHG reduction measuresoperative
GHG reduction measures
adopted
Publish list ofearly actions
Publishscoping
plan
Mandatoryreporting &
1990Baseline
Adoptenforceableearly actionregulations
Reduce GHGemissions to1990 levels
Identification/implementation
of furtheremissionreductionstrategies
23
45
Importance of Local Government Action
In California:• Local governments have control over land
use decisions.• 75% of the State’s federal transportation
funds are sent directly to regions/counties.• Local is where the action is.
46
Land Use: A Long-Term StrategyThat Must Begin Now
• Land use strategies mostly impact newgrowth
• Benefits accumulate• Population:
– 2010-2020 (+13%)– 2010-2040 (+39%)
• Begin now to build up benefits
24
47
Outcome of ARB Haagen-SmitSymposium
Haagen-Smit Declaration &Seascape Action Plan
• Set performance-based targets• Use Blueprint framework with local
accountability• Establish enabling structure to support
local actions
48
Haagen-Smit:Enabling Structure for Local Actions
• Align existing State funding mechanisms and secure newfunding
• Recognize innovative low-impact communities andprojects
• Apply CEQA to GHG emissions
• Encourage mixed use zoning• Promote best practices
• Improve the measurement and modeling tools
• Exert State leadership
• Engage the public
25
49
2005 Transportation CO2 Levelsin California
50
2005 CO2 Levels 17% above 1990 levels (CA)(1990 levels are 14% < 2005 levels)
26
51
California CO2 Targets: 1990 in 202027% < 1990 in 2030
52
AB1493 and LCFS2030 CO2: 23% < 1990 (without VMT!)
27
53
With CEC VMT Growth forecast:2030 CO2 is 17% above 1990 (CA)
54
Estimated impact of Pavley 2:2030 CO2 is 5%below 1990 (CA)
28
55
If: - 30% VMT (- 8% VMT/capita)2030 CO2 is 24% below 1990 (CA)
56
If: -20% VMT (flat/capita), -20% LCFS2030 CO2 is 27% below 1990 (CA)