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)