CEQA and Climate Change

Transcription

1 CEQA and Climate Change Evaluating & Addressing GHG Emissions from Projects Barbara Lee, CAPCOA

2 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 programs Not intended to dictate policy decisions Plan to provide addendum in 9-12 months with thresholds set, new mitigations, etc.

3 Overview Consideration of Fundamental Issues What to do about Thresholds Analytical Methods & Tools Mitigation

4 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

5 More Fundamental Issues Defensible Analyses Sufficient analysis of environmental consequences to support informed decision Conclusions supported by substantial evidence Good faith effort at full disclosure Statewide Thresholds OPR to develop GHG mitigation guidance by July 09, and Resource Agency to adopt by January 10 ARB could establish statewide approach under AB 32 scoping plan Interim Approach

6 Three Paths Through CEQA What is Significant? Implementing CEQA with No GHG Threshold Implementing CEQA with GHG Threshold set at Zero Implementing CEQA with a Non-zero Threshold

7 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 proponents May create workload and resource issues for agency

8 CEQA with GHG Threshold of Zero Considers ALL emissions of GHG to be significant All projects must have EIR or MND All emissions must be mitigated to zero or receive a Statement of Overriding Considerations Greater degree of certainty for project proponents Could place substantial workload and resource burdens on agency and proponents

9 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 Orders Approach 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

10 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 projects Greater Percentage for New Development Percentages by Economic Sector Percentages by Region Establishing business as usual baseline Determining appropriate percentages

11 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 1 Net 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 2 Net 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 3 Net 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

12 Stepping Through the Analysis General Plans Consistency with AB 32, or other established reduction plans Projects Statutory Exemptions Green List Consistency with Plan Tiered Analysis

13

14 Analytical Methods & Tools URBEMIS Direct Emissions Indirect Emissions CCAR Protocols General Reporting Protocol Specific Protocols (eg., Forestry, Local Government) Specific Sectors and Source Categories Stationary Sources Wastewater and Solid Waste Construction

15 Analytic Scenarios Existing conditions AB 32 Baseline = 1990 emissions Buildout of the Existing General Plan Buildout of the Updated General Plan Increment between Buildout of the Existing and Updated General Plans

16 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

17 Mitigation Priorities & Issues Systemic Design to Avoid Emissions Project Design to Avoid Emissions Project Elements that Control Emissions Concurrent Onsite Actions to Offset Emissions Concurrent Offsite Actions to Offset Emissions Use Mitigation Fees Use of Banked Offsets: Real, Permanent, Quantifiable, Enforceable, Additional