CEQA and Climate Change

Evaluating & Addressing GHGEmissions from Projects

Barbara Lee, CAPCOA

CAPCOA’s Resource PaperAir Districts were approached by local

governments for help on CEQA & GHGCalifornia Air Pollution Control Officers

Association coordinated district’s effortsResource guide released in January ’08

Intended to provide support for lead agenciesincorporating GHG analysis into CEQA programs

Not intended to dictate policy decisionsPlan to provide addendum in 9 - 12 months with

thresholds set, new mitigations, etc.

available at: www.capcoa.org

Overview

Consideration of Fundamental IssuesWhat to do about ThresholdsAnalytical Methods & ToolsMitigation

Fundamental Principles

CEQA Requirement: Public agencies should refrain from approving

projects that have significant adverseenvironmental impacts if there are feasiblealternatives or mitigations that can substantiallyavoid those impacts

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

argued (based on substantial evidence in therecord) that the project may have a significantenvironmental impact

More Fundamental Principles

Defensible AnalysesSufficient analysis of environmental

consequences to support informed decisionConclusions supported by substantial

evidenceGood faith effort at full disclosure

What About Thresholds?

Statewide ThresholdsLack of guidance on significance does

NOT change the agency’s obligation underCEQA

OPR to develop GHG mitigation guidanceby July ’09, and Resource Agency to adoptby January ’10

ARB could establish statewide approachunder AB 32 scoping plan

Interim 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 toset a significance threshold

In the absence of a threshold, significanceis determined on a case-by-case basis

Issues: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 besignificantAll projects must have EIR or MNDAll emissions must be mitigated to zero or

receive a Statement of OverridingConsiderations

Greater degree of certainty for projectproponents

Could place substantial workload andresource burdens on agency andproponents

CEQA with Non-zero Threshold

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

reduction targets of Statutes and ExecutiveOrders

Approach 2- Tiered thresholdsOther approaches can be used but were

not examined in this reportGoal is to maximize environmental benefit

while minimizing burden on agencies &proponents

Non-Zero Threshold Approach #1

The Statute & Executive Order Approachwould require each project to meet theemission reduction targets of AB 32 andthe 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 #2Tiers = low, moderate, high potential for impactsTier or “bin” projects based on specified

characteristics (quantitative or qualitative)capture of a percentage of projects regulatory reporting thresholdsprojects of regional, statewide, or areawide significanceefficiency (normalize GHG emissions to different metrics)

Increased degree of review & mitigation for each tierTier 1 projects less than significant with Level 1 mitigationTier 2 projects less than significant with Level 1 & Level 2

mitigations additional process, possible noticeTier 3 projects require EIR or MND and Level 1, 2 & 3

mitigations

Approach #2: Defined Process

Establish a clear decision tree for projectreview

Add certainty with defined lists of criteriaand requirementsStatutory ExemptionsGreen ListMitigations for each tier (Level 1, 2, and 3)

Approach requires more up-frontpreparation and development

Analytical Methods & Tools URBEMIS

Direct Emissions Indirect Emissions

CCAR Protocols General Reporting Protocol Specific Protocols (e.g., Forestry, Local Government)

Specific Sectors and Source Categories Stationary Sources Wastewater and Solid Waste Construction

Longer Term: Integrated models such as IPLACE3S orCTG Energetics’ Sustainable Communities model

Report Table 10 compares 13 different emissionsestimating tools

Analytic ScenariosGeneral Plan:

Existing conditionsAB 32 Baseline = 1990 emissionsBuildout of the Existing General PlanBuildout of the Updated General Plan Increment between Buildout of the Existing and

Updated General PlansOther Plans:

Air Quality PlansRegional Transportation Plans

Specific Projects:New and expanded stationary and area sourcesRoad or levee construction

GHG Mitigation StrategiesForward 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 ShippingMode Shift

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

Alternative Fuel & Electric Vehicles, Energy & WaterEfficiency, Green Building, Landscaping, Low EmissionTechnologies, and Offsets

GHG Reduction Plan: Implement a specific plan toreduce GHG emissions Establish jurisdictional baseline, reduction targets,

deadlines, and specific mitigation strategies and measures

Compiled MitigationsSpecific examples of projects, analysis,

mitigations applied, benefits realizedProject mitigation measures summary with basic

information on:ApplicabilityEffectivenessFeasibility (cost, technology, logistics)Secondary effectsJurisdictional assignment

General Plan mitigation strategy summarySource typeAgencyGeneral description

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 of Mitigation FeesUse of Banked Offsets: Real, Permanent,

Quantifiable, Enforceable, Additional