CEQA and Climate Change

Evaluating & Addressing GHG Emissions from Projects

Barbara Lee, CAPCOA

CAPCOA’s Resource Paper

Air Districts were approached by local governments for help on CEQA & GHG

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association coordinated district’s efforts

Resource guide released in January ’08 Intended to provide support for lead agencies

incorporating GHG analysis into CEQA programsNot intended to dictate policy decisionsPlan to provide addendum in 9 - 12 months with

thresholds set, new mitigations, etc.

Overview

Consideration of Fundamental IssuesWhat to do about ThresholdsAnalytical Methods & Tools Mitigation

Fundamental Issues

CEQA Requirement: Public agencies should refrain from approving

projects that have significant adverse environmental impacts if there are feasible alternatives or mitigations that can substantially avoid those impacts

Fair Argument Standard: An EIR must be prepared if it can be fairly argued

(based on substantial evidence in the record) that the project may have a significant environmental impact

More Fundamental Issues

Defensible AnalysesSufficient analysis of environmental consequences to

support informed decisionConclusions supported by substantial evidenceGood faith effort at full disclosure

Statewide ThresholdsOPR to develop GHG mitigation guidance by July ’09,

and Resource Agency to adopt by January ’10ARB could establish statewide approach under AB 32

scoping planInterim Approach

Three Paths Through CEQA

What is Significant?Implementing CEQA with No GHG ThresholdImplementing CEQA with GHG Threshold set at

ZeroImplementing CEQA with a Non-zero Threshold

CEQA with no GHG Threshold

CEQA does not require a lead agency to set a significance threshold

In the absence of a threshold, significance is determined on a case-by-case basis Agency can presume significance (rebutable) Agency can presume insignificance (rebutable) Agency can review each project with no presumption

May create uncertainty for project proponentsMay create workload and resource issues for agency

CEQA with GHG Threshold of Zero

Considers ALL emissions of GHG to be significantAll projects must have EIR or MNDAll emissions must be mitigated to zero or receive

a Statement of Overriding ConsiderationsGreater degree of certainty for project

proponentsCould place substantial workload and resource

burdens on agency and proponents

CEQA with Non-zero Threshold

CAPCOA evaluated two approaches to setting a non-zero threshold:Approach 1- Thresholds based on emission reduction

targets of Statutes and Executive OrdersApproach 2- Tiered thresholds

Other approaches can be used but were not examined in this report

Goal is to maximize environmental benefit while minimizing burden on agencies & proponents

Non-Zero Threshold Approach #1

The Statute & Executive Order Approach would require each project to meet the emission reduction targets of AB 32 and the Governor’s Executive Order.Uniform Percentage for all projectsGreater Percentage for New DevelopmentPercentages by Economic SectorPercentages by Region

Establishing “business as usual” baselineDetermining appropriate percentages

Non-zero Threshold Approach #2

The Tiered Approach would “bin” projects based on established characteristics, with increasing requirements for each bin, or tier

Tier Zero Threshold Quantitative Thresholds Qualitative Thresholds

1Net GHG reduction

= Less than Significant

Emissions below Tier 2 threshold

= Less than significant if Level 1 mitigations applied

Project meets Tier 1 criteria

= Less than significant if Level 1 mitigations applied

2Net GHG increase

mitigated to less than significant

Emissions above Tier 2 threshold

= Less than significant if Level 1 & 2 mitigations applied

Project meets Tier 2 criteria

= Less than significant if Level 1 & 2 mitigations applied

3Net GHG increase

not fully mitigated

Emissions above Tier 3 threshold

= EIR + Level 1, 2 & 3 mitigation

Project meets Tier 3 criteria

= EIR + Level 1, 2 & 3 mitigation

Stepping Through the Analysis

General PlansConsistency with AB 32, or other established

reduction plansProjects

Statutory ExemptionsGreen ListConsistency with PlanTiered Analysis

Analytical Methods & ToolsURBEMIS

Direct Emissions Indirect Emissions

CCAR ProtocolsGeneral Reporting Protocol Specific Protocols (eg., Forestry, Local Government)

Specific Sectors and Source Categories Stationary SourcesWastewater and Solid WasteConstruction

Analytic Scenarios

Existing conditionsAB 32 Baseline = 1990 emissionsBuildout of the Existing General PlanBuildout of the Updated General PlanIncrement between Buildout of the Existing

and Updated General Plans

GHG Mitigation Strategies

Forward Planning: Incorporate GHG reduction strategies into the General Plan Land Use Design- Prioritize Smarter Growth, Connectivity, Compactness,

Diversity, Transportation Facilities, Redevelopment, Jobs-Housing-Balance, and Shipping Mode Shift

Project Level Mitigation: Provide a “toolbox” of strategies to mitigate projects Project Design- Transit, Bike, & Pedestrian support, Alternative Fuel &

Electric Vehicles, Energy & Water Efficiency, Green Building, Landscaping, Low Emission Technologies, and Offsets

GHG Reduction Plan: Implement a specific plan to reduce GHG emissions Establish jurisdictional baseline, reduction targets, deadlines, and

specific mitigation strategies and measures

Mitigation Priorities & Issues

Systemic Design to Avoid EmissionsProject Design to Avoid EmissionsProject Elements that Control EmissionsConcurrent Onsite Actions to Offset EmissionsConcurrent Offsite Actions to Offset EmissionsUse Mitigation FeesUse of Banked Offsets: Real, Permanent,

Quantifiable, Enforceable, Additional