New CEQA Guidelines on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: What s in Your EIR?

Transcription

1 Alert > Environmental and Natural Resources New CEQA Guidelines on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: What s in Your EIR? August 20, 2010 I. Introduction and Background There have been numerous recent developments with respect to guidance on the assessment of greenhouse gas impacts under CEQA. In general, these developments only moderately ameliorate uncertainties concerning how an agency can determine whether any particular project s greenhouse gas emissions are significant or, more precisely, cumulatively considerable under CEQA. 1 Debate regarding how to approach climate change in CEQA first became widespread in 2006 when Attorney General Brown began commenting on the failure of EIRs to address greenhouse gas emissions. 2 Then, in September 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB or ARB) to determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level was in 1990, and approve in a public hearing, a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by After the enactment of AB 32, extensive debate followed regarding whether the law somehow confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions needed to be analyzed under CEQA and, conversely, whether projects should be immunized from attacks grounded in the alleged failure to adequately analyze greenhouse gas emissions impacts. In 2007, the Legislature enacted SB 97, which immunized a very limited number of projects from such challenges, and otherwise required the Office of Planning and Research and the Resources Agency to develop new statewide CEQA guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions by January 1, But, prior to the adoption of these new CEQA guidelines, the Office of Planning and Research issued a Technical Advisory in June 2008, which stated: In the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a significant impact, individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA. The technical advisory (which was not at all technical) also suggested that unprecedented statewide significance thresholds might be in the making, stating: We realize that perhaps the most difficult part of the climate change analysis will be the determination of significance. Although lead agencies typically rely on local or regional definitions of significance for most environmental issues, the global nature of climate change warrants investigation of a statewide threshold of significance for GHG emissions. To this end, OPR has asked ARB technical staff to recommend a method for setting thresholds which will encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the state. 5

2 In October 2008, the California Air Resources Board issued a Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal on Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. 6 The document, which was decidedly a work in progress, proposed a sector-by-sector approach to setting GHG significance thresholds, stating that for the industrial sector, the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions from new industrial projects should be deemed significant. Staff proposed a threshold of 7,000 metric tons of CO 2 equivalent (MTCO 2 e) per year for operational emissions (excluding transportation), and performance standards for construction and transportation emissions. Staff explained that the goal of the threshold was to achieve compliance with Governor Schwarzenegger s Executive Order S 3 05 to reduce California s greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by For reasons that were never publicly explained, CARB s staff did not follow through and adopt or suggest any new statewide thresholds. Meanwhile, the Office of Planning and Research finalized its revised CEQA Guidelines without reference to CARB s draft proposal. As required by SB 97, the revised guidelines were then approved by the Resources Agency. 7 They did not set a greenhouse gas emissions significance threshold the most difficult part of the climate change analysis. Instead, while the Office of Planning and Research acknowledged the unique challenges posed by the analysis of climate change, it also stated that analysis must be consistent with existing CEQA principles. 8 Similarly, the Resource Agency s Final Statement of Reasons stated that the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines developed pursuant to SB 97 do not create new requirements; rather, they interpret and clarify existing CEQA law. 9 The result is that CEQA practitioners currently have statewide CEQA guidelines without a greenhouse gas significance threshold. In response to this gap, some air districts have recently sought to address their own thresholds, four of which are examined in this paper. II. Highlights of the New Statewide Guidelines The new statewide CEQA guidelines became effective on March 18, Section (a) of the Guidelines requires that an agency make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. This may be done either through modeling or through reliance on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards. 10 Section (a) establishes a non-exclusive list of factors that a lead agency should consider when assessing the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment : (1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting. (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project. (3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. 11

3 The Resources Agency s Final Statement of Reasons states that the first factor is necessary to avoid a comparison of the project against a scenario as defined by ARB in the Scoping Plan. Such an approach would confuse business as usual projections used in ARB s Scoping Plan with CEQA s separate requirement of analyzing project effects in comparison to the environmental baseline. 12 CARB s Scoping Plan approach uses the concept of business as usual to evaluate progress towards AB 32 s targets: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 15 percent from today s [2008] levels. 13 The Resource Agency s caution does not necessarily preclude use of a significance threshold derived from a business-as-usual approach. As will be discussed below, two of the significance thresholds recommended by regional air quality management districts are based upon CARB s business-as-usual calculations. In addition, the third factor appears to allow, among other things, consideration of the extent to which a project helps or hinders the State to meet AB 32 s targets. Again, CARB s plan for achieving those targets is based upon a business-as-usual analysis. The new Guidelines make it explicit that a lead agency may rely upon compliance with plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that provide[] specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the problem. The new Guidelines also state that [w]hen relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. 14 Previously approved land use documents such as plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions may be used in cumulative impact analysis. 15 However, the Guidelines also impose procedural mandates specific to greenhouse gas reduction plans. Under the new Guideline : A plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions should: (A) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; (B) Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; (C) Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; (D) Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; (E) Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; (F) Be adopted in a public process following environmental review. 16 Some climate change action plans that were adopted prior to the adoption of the new CEQA Guidelines do not meet all of these requirements.

4 The new Guidelines also modified the Appendix G CEQA checklist, which now includes questions about greenhouse gas impacts as well as forest resources. The Office of Planning and Research originally proposed to eliminate traffic questions regarding the Level of Service entirely, but instead revised the questions in the checklist to take into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. 17 III. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Threshold SCAQMD adopted its greenhouse gas significance thresholds on December 5, 2008, prior to the Resource Agency s issuance of the SB 97 CEQA guidelines, and shortly after CARB published its Draft Staff Proposal. The adopted threshold is 10,000 MTCO2e/yr, and only applies to stationary sources where SCAQMD is the lead agency. See SCAQMD Resolution No , Dec. 5, The threshold was adopted based upon an October 2008 staff report, which concluded that the 10,000 MTCO 2 e/yr threshold was consistent with achieving an emission capture rate of 90 percent of all new or modified stationary source projects, which in turn uses the Governor s Executive Order S-3-05 as the basis for deriving the screening level. Executive Order S-3-05 establishes a target for California of reducing greenhouse emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. 18 The staff report on which the adopted threshold was based also considered a recommended threshold for all projects, and took a tiered approach. 19 A project s greenhouse gas emissions would be considered significant if it could not comply with at least one of the following tiered tests: Tier 1: Is there an applicable exemption? Tier 2: Is the project compliant with a greenhouse gas reduction plan that is, at a minimum, consistent with the goals of AB 32? Tier 3: Is the project below an absolute threshold (10,000 MTCO 2 e/yr for industrial projects; 3,000 MTCO 2 e/yr for residential and commercial projects)? Tier 4: Is the project below a (yet to be set) performance threshold? Tier 5: Would the project achieve a screening level with off-site mitigation? SCAQMD staff has convened an ongoing GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group, although the Working Group has not met in In late 2009, the Working Group proposed a variety of thresholds for Tier 3, including a land use threshold that would be 3,500 MTCO 2 e/yr for residential projects, 1,400 MTCO 2 e/yr for commercial projects, and 3,000 MTCO 2 e/yr for mixed use projects. 21 IV. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Threshold BAAQMD adopted numeric greenhouse gas emissions thresholds on June 2, The thresholds and the accompanying guidelines were a long time in the making, in part because they were controversial with some cities and developers that contended they would be counter-productive in that they would discourage in-fill development. 22 BAAQMD sought to address these concerns through a lengthy outreach process. The thresholds were not intended to be considered retroactive. As the resolution adopting the thresholds states, it is the policy of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District that Lead Agencies in the Bay Area apply the [new greenhouse gas thresholds] for Notices of Preparation issued, and environmental analyses begun, on or after the date of adoption of this Resolution. 23 BAAQMD has created separate guidelines that

5 provide technical and methodological guidance. Staff has sought to preserve its ability to change this guidance by not having it adopted by the BAAQMD board of directors. In deriving the thresholds, the District takes the broad approach that a project s emissions should be deemed significant if they hinder compliance with the emissions reductions mandates found in AB 32 (2006). The District s derivation of numerical thresholds reflects its judgment regarding the quantities of emissions reductions from stationary sources and new land use projects that would be consistent with that goal, given the Air Resources Board s other Scoping Plan measures intended to reach AB 32 s goals. In particular, BAAQMD staff estimated that a 23.9 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions could be expected from CARB s land use driven AB 32 Scoping Measures, leaving a gap of 2.3 percent in necessary additional GHG emissions reductions to meet AB 32 goals of a 26.2 percent reduction from statewide land use-driven emissions. BAAQMD estimated that a 2.3 percent reduction in BAAQMD s projected 2020 emissions projections requires emissions reductions of 1.6 Million Metric Tons CO 2 e/yr from the land usedriven sectors, and used that number to derive a bright line threshold for individual projects. To derive a performance or efficiency based threshold, BAAQMD similarly divided the GHG emissions inventory goal by estimated 2020 population combined with employment. Thus, for projects that are not stationary sources, there are three alternative ways to evaluate significance. First, the District sets a bright line project threshold of 1,100 MTCO 2 e/yr, which the District notes is roughly equivalent to the emissions from a 60-unit residential subdivision. The District provides a list of screening level standards that can be used to quickly assess whether a project would fit within the 1,100 metric ton limit. Second, a project would not have a significant impact if it is consistent with a local government s plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, per the requirements in the new statewide CEQA guidelines discussed above, that plan must, among other things, be adopted in a public process following environmental review, include quantification of greenhouse gas emissions, and itself establish a significance threshold for greenhouse gas emissions from covered activities. 24 Finally, and perhaps most important, the District has also established two efficiency thresholds so as to not penalize large projects that incorporate innovative emissions-reducing features and/or that are located in a manner that results in relatively low vehicle miles traveled. These thresholds establish maximum quantities of emissions per service population, defined as residents and employees. 25 One threshold (6.6 MTCO 2 e/yr per service population) applies to comprehensive general plan amendments, based on the District s conclusion that general plans comprise more than just land use-related emissions (e.g., industrial). A second and lower threshold (4.6 MTCO 2 e/yr per service population) applies to all other projects. 26 The service population concept appears to be tailored to residential, mixed use and office projects. The standard does not fit other types of projects as well. By way of example, because large hotels have a high number of guests but a relatively low number of employees, and because they have no residents, their emissions per service population will appear relatively high. The guidelines also set a threshold for stationary sources of 10,000 MTCO 2 e/yr, which is the same threshold that SCAQMD set for stationary sources. However, the District also notably stated in responses to comments that it recognizes the value of the [California Energy Commission s] Avenal decision and advises that lead agencies consider such an analysis. In the Avenal decision, the California Energy Commission found that the unique nature of how power plants operate in an integrated system necessarily means that the GHG emissions from a power plant's operation should be assessed not by inaccurately treating the plant as a standalone facility operating in a vacuum, but rather in the context of the operation of the entire electricity system of which the plant is an integrated part. 27 It is possible, in other words, for a new facility to

6 result in a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. While the Avenal decision distinguishes power plants from other greenhouse gas sources, the logic of the decision could potentially apply to other sources that are connected to the grid. V. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Threshold Like BAAQMD, the SJVAPCD has also relied upon AB 32 s goals as a means for evaluating significance. However, the San Joaquin Valley approach is quite different, beginning with its rejection of the conclusion that a numeric threshold can be identified. The District s Final Staff Report supporting its thresholds states: It is in [an] environment of scientific and legal uncertainty that CEQA lead agencies are expected to derive levels of significance for use in determining whether a project s GHG emissions will have a significant impact on the environment. District staff has reviewed the relevant scientific information and concludes that the existing science is inadequate to support quantification of the extent to which project specific GHG emissions would impact global climatic features such as average air temperature, average annual rainfall, or average annual snow pack. Thus, District staff concludes that it is not feasible to scientifically establish a numerical threshold that supports a determination that GHG emissions from a specific project, of any size, would or would [not (sic)] have a significant impact on global climate change. In other words, the District was not able to determine a specific quantitative level of GHG emissions increase, above which the project would have a significant impact on the environment, and below which would have an insignificant impact. 28 Under the SJVAPCD approach, projects that comply with an approved greenhouse gas reduction plan would be determined to have a less than significant impact. For other projects, the District will implement Best Performance Standards, designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 29% from Business as Usual as that term is used in the Scoping Plan, and projects that are consistent with those standards would not be found to be significant. Business as Usual in this context means the emissions for a type of equipment or operation within an identified class and category projected for the year 2020, assuming no change in GHG emissions per unit of activity as established for the baseline period. 29 In other words, technical and regulatory conditions in would be extrapolated to 2020 based on economic and demographic projections, and significance would be established based on a 29% reduction from that level of emissions. Finally, projects not implementing Best Performance Standards would have to quantify greenhouse gas emissions, and demonstrate a 29% reduction from Business as Usual in order to avoid being considered significant. The Attorney General s office criticized the SJVAPCD s utilization of the business-as-usual methodology as authorizing gamesmanship, 30 while notably endorsing the BAAQMD approach. The most pointed criticism was that new development must be more GHG-efficient than [29% below business as usual], given that past and current sources of emissions, which are substantially less efficient than this average, will continue to exist and emit. The SJVAPCD responded by stating: We agree that existing developments may not achieve a 29% reduction, but that is not required by the AB 32 Scoping Plan. 31

7 VI. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Approach Not all the air districts have endeavored to set a numeric threshold. For example, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District has simply stated the following, without elaboration: The District recommends that thresholds of significance for GHG emissions should be related to AB 32 s GHG reduction goals. For example, a possible threshold of significance could be to determine whether a project s emissions would substantially hinder the State s ability to attain the goals identified in AB 32 (i.e., reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; approximately a 30 percent reduction from projected 2020 emissions). Another possible threshold option could include determining whether the project is consistent with the State s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit, as outlined in ARB s AB 32 Scoping Plan. 32 VII. Whither a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan? To date, 41 cities and six counties in California have adopted some form of plan to address climate change. 33 Of course, the main purpose of adopting such a plan is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. From a practical planning perspective, the benefit of adopting such a plan is that it can ensure that a broad ranging issue is dealt with through a broad ranging public process, building consensus, and also focusing attention on the variety of legislative actions that can and cannot be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 34 Although much remains to be seen with SB 375, a greenhouse gas reduction plan may also facilitate compliance with the law s planning requirements. 35 There is, however, currently no requirement under any state or local air district guideline that a city adopt a greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan. Neither does the simple adoption of a plan, in and of itself, necessarily provide any immunity from a theoretical CEQA challenge. Instead, a plan is simply one tool a city may use to implement policy and use, if desired, for subsequent environmental review. There is also no particular recipe for creating a greenhouse gas reduction plan, although the new basic building blocks under Guideline (b) start with quantifying greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., an inventory, notably including projections), (b)(1)(A) and (C) 36 ; establishing a level of significance for activities covered by the plan, (b)(1)(B); and identifying measures to reach that level, (b)(1)(D) and (E). This does not necessarily mean that a plan must establish a single emissions reductions goal for the entire city, but many cities have taken that approach. The goals that cities have adopted have varied widely. Sacramento and Palo Alto, for example, have adopted a goal of achieving 15% below 2005 emissions levels by 2020, San Francisco has adopted a goal of 20% below 1990 levels by 2012, and Sonoma County has adopted a goal of 25% percent below 1990 emissions levels by When adopting plans for addressing greenhouse emissions, cities should consider how any goal under consideration relates to any applicable air district guidance that has been published. Ultimately, cities must also recognize that the law is in flux and greenhouse gas targets may change due to legal developments. VIII. Conclusion With respect to the guidance from the air districts, the fact that each of the numeric thresholds described above relies at least partially on AB 32 has two significant implications. First, as regulations implemented pursuant to AB 32 continue to evolve, so too might significance thresholds, particularly those that reference the Scoping Plan s projections. 38 Second, it is clear that there will be future litigation over evaluation of climate change effects under CEQA. It is almost a certainty that some petitioners will argue that compliance

8 with AB 32 will not reduce greenhouse gas impacts to non-significance. 39 However, with varying degrees of explicitness, air districts have used AB 32 as a means for establishing a threshold because, in the end, science cannot provide a legal determination of significance which is notably not a scientific concept, but rather a policy determination, particularly in this context. This, in turn, leads to a more fundamental observation. Although the road map is less than clear, asking what emissions from a particular project or plan are cumulatively considerable is not the same as evaluating the effects of any given global ambient concentration of carbon dioxide. Local governments and project proponents should distinguish between the scientific consensus regarding the existence of climate change and the uncertain legal and policy issues involved in analyzing contributions to greenhouse gas impacts. Thresholds will evolve, and the current case law which on the one hand supports the view that one molecule cannot be the threshold for significance, 40 but on the other hand suggests that the ratio of the contribution to the cumulative impact is not dispositive 41 may also evolve. In the meantime, local governments can bolster the defensibility of their EIRs by ensuring, first, that thresholds are not applied in a manner at odds with their underlying assumptions, and second, that there is a record explaining, rather than just applying, the greenhouse gas significance thresholds utilized. 42 For more information on this paper, please contact the authors listed below: Cecily Talbert Barclay, Partner cecily.barclay@bingham.com, Barbara Schussman, Partner barbara.schussman@bingahm.com, Verne Ball, Associate verne.ball@bingham.com, ENDNOTES 1 See 14 CCR 15065(a)(3); 15130(a) Health & Safety Code See Pub. Res. Code Pub. Res. Code 21083, Letter or Transmittal from Director Cynthia Bryant to the California Secretary for Natural Resources, April 13, Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons, at CCR (a) CCR (a). 12 Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons, at

9 13 CARB, Scoping Plan at ES-1. More technically, CARB used the term business-as-usual in the Scoping Plan to describe future GHG emissions estimates based on technology and regulatory requirements from 2002 to 2004 (the AB 32 baseline ), with population and economic growth projections for In order to calculate business-as-usual, CARB estimated growth rates sector by sector.carb, Scoping Plan at ES-1. More technically, CARB used the term business-as-usual in the Scoping Plan to describe future GHG emissions estimates based on technology and regulatory requirements from 2002 to 2004 (the AB 32 baseline ), with population and economic growth projections for In order to calculate business-as-usual, CARB estimated growth rates sector by sector CCR 15064(h)(3) CCR 15130(d) CCR (b)(1) CCR, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 20, Appendix G. 18 The legal status of the Executive Order is controversial, particularly since the Legislature did not adopt this target with the adoption of AB 32 in SCAQMD, Draft Guidance Document Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold (October 2008). 20 See 21 See 22 Daniel Weintraub, Air Quality Guidelines Face Unexpected Critics, NY Times, Dec. 26, 2009, 23 BAAQMD, Resolution No CCR BAAQMD used statewide population data and emissions goals for its efficiency thresholds, so the efficiency thresholds could potentially be used by public agencies outside of the Bay Area. 26 Some confusion has resulted from the terms project threshold and plan threshold. BAAQMD staff has attempted to clarify that the plan threshold applies to comprehensive general plan amendments. Staff used a different emissions inventory, which includes industrial sources, for analyzing general plans. 27 In re Avenal, California Energy Commission, Dec , 28 SJVAPCD, Final Staff Report at 53, Dec. 17, The District has implemented Best Performance Standards for several types of industrial facilities, including Boilers; Steam Generators; Dryers and Dehydrators; and Oil and Gas Extraction, Storage, Transportation and Refining Operations. See 29 SJVAPCD, Final Staff Report at SJVAPCD, Final Staff Report at SMAQMD CEQA Guide, December 2009, By way of example, a planned approach to adopting modifications to Title 24, if a city deems such modifications warranted, is more defensible than ad hoc mitigation measures that impose reductions exceeding Title 24 s requirements. The procedures in the Health and Safety Code for adopting local modifications to Title 24 must be followed for these modifications to be effective. See generally Leslie v. Superior Court, 73 Cal. App. 4th 1042 (1999); ABS Institute v. City of Lancaster, 24 Cal. App. 4th 285 (1994). See, also, Health & Safety Code (prohibiting the imposition of employee trip reduction requirements). 35 SB 375 targets have just been proposed and will be adopted by CARB in September. See For a general overview of SB 375 s CEQA provisions and its interaction with the Housing Element law, see Joel Ellinwood, SB 375: California s First Step to Manage Greenhouse Gas, Real Property Journal, V. 26, No.4 (2008). 36 BAAQMD and CARB have produced guidance on implementing an inventory.

10 37 The plans establishing these goals are available online. See 38 Note also that CARB adopted target reductions for the land use sector, but did so provisionally identifying what may be achieved pending the outcome of the SB 375 target setting process. The draft targets have just been proposed and will be adopted by CARB in September. See 39 See comment letter of Center for Biological Diversity, et al. on the Draft CEQA Guidelines, Feb. 2, 2009, ( Counter to both the overwhelming weight of science and the findings of ARB and SCAQMD, the Draft Guidelines suggest that significance should be determined on the basis of whether or not a project may help or hinder attainment of AB 32 s emission reduction goals. ); See, e.g., Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency, 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1109 (2004) ("an established regulatory standard [can] not be applied in a way that would foreclose the consideration of other substantial evidence showing that there might be a significant environmental effect from a project.") (citing Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 114 (2002)). 40 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 721 (1990) 41 CBE v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 120 (2002).. 42 The fact that there are multiple, differing thresholds for greenhouse gas impacts does not mean that any of these thresholds are not supported by substantial evidence. See 14 CCR 15384(a). But, as one air district attorney has observed: Historically, the air districts' thresholds with respect to air pollution impacts have largely been taken at face value by lead agencies and courts, which have applied them essentially as a definitive measure of significance without further inquiry. But historically the thresholds published by different air districts have mostly been consistent with each other; and in any event they have applied to air quality problems that are primarily regional in nature such that it made sense to look to the thresholds published by air district in which the project was located. Now that multiple and potentially conflicting thresholds are emerging in the greenhouse gas context and as global climate change is the same state-wide and not an impact that can be differentiated between different regions it is no longer appropriate simply to apply the local air district s thresholds as stated without further analysis. On this issue, lead agencies and others are going to have to think more carefully, and more critically, about how to proceed. Alexander Sandy Crockett, et al., Another Hot Year, Environmental Law News, vol. 19, no. 1 (Spring 2010), p. 13. Copyright 2010 Bingham McCutchen LLP Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.