WELCOME Climate Change Seminar: Agencies Give Guidance December 9, 2009 Sponsored by:
Panelists David Calkins Air Quality/Transportation Advisor Sierra Nevada Air Quality Group Doug Johnson Senior Transportation Planner Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jonathan W. Redding Attorney Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP 2
Program Introduction Jonathan Redding National Climate Change Initiatives David Calkins Overview of S.B. 375 Jonathan Redding Climate & Transportation: Change is Coming Doug Johnson Overview and Critique of BAAQMD's Proposed CEQA Thresholds of Significance Jonathan Redding 3
Introduction The Forces Affecting National Climate Change Legislation Public Perception/ Confusion; Lack of Immediate Threat Republican Democratic Partisan Politics Federalism Senate Rules & Cloture Increase Nuclear Energy Facilities Record Unemployment Record Deficit Health Care Reform Wall Street Reform Coal Producing States Don t Stop Coal Use Increase Domestic & Offshore Drilling Coal Consuming States Don t Make Electricity Cost Too High 4
Introduction Not Everyone is a Californian Toto, I don t think we are in California anymore Responses since 1997 to Harris pollsters who asked: "Do you believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked, lead to global warming... or not? 5
Introduction Executive/Federal Efforts (2009) National clean car (MPG) standards Stimulus funding for energy efficiency Greening Federal facilities & fleets Mandatory GHG reporting > 25 MMT EPA finalizes its endangerment finding (12/7/09) Obama sets 17% GHG reduction target (from 2005) for Copenhagen 6
National Climate Change Initiatives David Calkins Partner Sierra Nevada Air Quality Group 7
National Climate Change Initiatives Introduction Presentation will briefly summarize climate changerelated programs at Federal level Key elements of HR 2454 and S 1733 climate change legislation proposals International momentum (or lack of) for climate change programs 8
National Climate Change Initiatives American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Signed into law by President Obama February 17, 2009: $787 billion in spending and tax relief $280 billion administered by states/locals Energy and Environment only 1% of 2009 expenditures 64% goes to health assistance In 2012, 17% for energy and environment Most significant program in 2009 is the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program, administered by D.O.E. Next slide shows proportion of ARRA funding levels (State/Local) by program area 9
National Climate Change Initiatives ARRA Overview: Composition of State and Local Recovery Act Funding - FY 2009 vs. FY 2012 Fiscal year 2009 Fiscal year 2012 1% 3% 1% 6% 8% 19% 17% 64% 18% 30% 17% 16% Energy and environment Community Developmen t Income security Transportation Education and training Health Source: GAO analysis of CBO and FFIS data 10
National Climate Change Initiatives EECBG Program Provides $2.7 billion in formula grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribes; another $455 million for competitive grants. Website: www.eecbg.energy.gov Purpose of EECBG Reduce fossil fuel emissions within jurisdictions Reduce total energy use in jurisdictions Improve energy efficiency in transportation, building, and other related sectors Steps upon grant awards Develop community energy efficiency and climate action plan within first 120 days Use remainder of funds to implement the plan s measures 11
National Climate Change Initiatives EECBG Program, continued Current program status Formula for grant levels generally based on population $1.6 billion of the $2.7 billion formula grants have been awarded $1.86 billion will eventually go to cities and counties States will be awarded $767.5 million California state agencies and cities, counties Total allocation for state is $351.6 million California Energy Commission will receive $49.6 million Allocation to cities/counties such as Oakland ($3.9 million), San Francisco ($7.7 m.), and Contra Costa County ($3.6 m.) What does all this mean to you? 12
National Climate Change Initiatives EECBG in California Status as of December 2, 2009: California currently has been allocated $283.8 million of its overall $351.6 million Actual awards to agencies/cities was $199.4 million Difference was often for cities lacking a Climate Action Plan, a pre-requisite to full allocation Selected Local areas with approved full funding: Berkeley ($1 m); Oakland ($3.9 m); San Francisco ($7.7 m); San Mateo County ($2.95 m); Alameda ($640 K); Fremont ($1.9 m); Contra Costa Co ($3.6m) Formula allocated but no funding yet: San Jose, Hayward, Santa Clara, San Rafael, and Sonoma County 13
National Climate Change Initiatives Eligible Activities Under EECBG 14
National Climate Change Initiatives Federal Climate Change Legislation & Activities H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (passed by House) S. 1733, Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009 (introduced in Sept.) U.S.E.P.A. Actions Proposed Light Duty Vehicle and CAFÉ standards for GHG emissions (9.28.2009) Final GHG Reporting System & Monitoring (affective Jan 1, 2010) 15
National Climate Change Initiatives H.R. 2454 Sponsored by Waxman and Markey, passed House 219-212 on June 26 Provisions and Structure of HR 2454 Title I Clean energy provisions Title II Energy efficiency provisions Title III Cap & Trade for GHG emissions Title IV Competitiveness issues & transition to clean energy economy 16
National Climate Change Initiatives H.R. 2454, continued Cuts from 2005 GHG emissions: 3% by 2012; 17%- 2020; 42%-2030; 83%-2050 Free allowances: 35% for utilities; 9% nat. gas distribution; 1.5% states for home heating users; 15% energy-intensive industries; 2% oil refiners; 2% carbon sequestration; 3% auto industry Most allowances will decline over time Unallocated allowances will be auctioned, proceeds to ensure bill is deficit neutral Allowance prices $13/t in 2015 & $16/t in 2020 17
National Climate Change Initiatives S. 1733 Sponsored by Kerry & Boxer, introduced September 30, passage unlikely till Spring EPA assessment shows similar impacts as HR 2454, though 2020 reduction higher (20%v.17%) Similarities between S 1733 and HR 2454 Non-binding limits on offsets Offsets from forestry and agriculture sources Unlimited banking of allowances Competitiveness for energy-intensive & trade exposed industries 18
National Climate Change Initiatives S. 1733, continued Differences between S 1733 and HR 2454 3% higher 2020 cap (originally in HR 2454) Allows landfill and coal mine methane as offset sources Greater price certainty Prospects Kerry agreed on Nov 17 to schedule floor debate after health care and financial reform Senate concerned that 2454 too generous to utilities Tracks international climate change treaties, recently announced to be delayed until 2010 19
National Climate Change Initiatives U.S.E.P.A. Actions EPA is the gorilla in the closet Vehicle Emission Standards for GHG EPA proposed GHG emission standards on September 28 2016 vehicles meet combined 250 grams of CO 2 level U.S. DOT concurrently proposed new fuel economy (CAFÉ) standards averaging 35.5 mph for 2016 EPA implements mandatory reporting of GHGs from largest emitting facilities on Jan 1, 2010. 20
National Climate Change Initiatives Status of International Climate Change Activities Kyoto Protocol, 1997 European Union Actions Copenhagen Negotiations Developments in Developing Countries What next? 21
National Climate Change Initiatives Concluding Remarks Role of Federal Government in Climate Change Federally-owned assets at risks Federal guidelines and rules affect many Federal technical and leadership support Impact of State and regional programs A.B. 32 California Cap & Trade proposal Western Climate Initiative 22
National Climate Change Initiatives But it all begins with US 23
Overview of S.B. 375 Jonathan W. Redding Attorney Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP 24
Overview of S.B. 375 Magnitude of the Challenge for California 25
Overview of S.B. 375 S.B. 375 Relationship to Other 2020 Scoping Plan Reduction Measures 3% 9% 18% 70% Pavley tailpipe emission reduction (31.7 MMT) Low carbon fuel standards (15 MMT) S.B. 375 target (5 MMT) All other reduction measures (121.3 MMT) QUESTION: Why is S.B. 375 s target so small? 26
Overview of S.B. 375 ANSWER: It takes time! Source: California Scoping Plan (December 11, 2008) 27
Overview of S.B. 375 S.B. 375 Trends Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) increases faster than population growth Zero energy housing alone will not reduce GHG, if we continue patterns of urban sprawl and long car commutes Majority of infrastructure spending is for cars 80% of infrastructure spending is for maintenance Simple goals: Get people out of their cars and reduce VMT Create sustainable/livable communities Integrate transportation funding and planning with land use decisions, jobs and housing needs 28
Overview of S.B. 375 S.B. 375 -The Solution Reduce GHG through SMART GROWTH: Dense compact growth/housing Near transit corridors/center Mixed uses nearby Near jobs Coordinate with regional housing needs (RHNA) Create Sustainable livable Communities with many Co-Benefits: Clean air and water, better lifestyle, less commute hours, less stress Reduced infrastructure costs and energy usage Reduced GHG emissions 29
Overview of S.B. 375 Overall Target Setting Process and Key Milestones 5 MMT plug (< 3%) RTAC recommends ambitious & achievable target January to June 2010 lots of consultation June 30, 2010 CARB provides draft targets to each of 18 regions (MPOs) September 30, 2010 CARB adopts final targets October 1, 2010 thru 2014-18 MPOs develop RTP with SCS (Bay Area 2013) 30
Overview of S.B. 375 The Mechanisms (in theory) Develop a bottom Up SCS with all Stakeholders MPO and other agencies allocate & transportation dollars to assist meeting goals Cities and counties amend local G.P. and zoning code to enable SMART GROWTH Developers/RDAs/3P build sustainable communities through CEQA incentives CEQA exemption for certain transit priority projects (e.g., mixed use/ housing/ retail/office at on top of BART or within 1/2 mile) Streamlined CEQA/Environmental Assessment for projects consistent with the SCS Substantial evidence test for CEQA findings and challenges 31
Overview of S.B. 375 The Challenges (i.e. the reality) Economy and limited new housing developments Local government staff shortages Lack of funds for: Increased transit development/infrastructure RDA projects Climate action plans, general plan updates & zoning CEQA process/documents Political resistance to higher densities and change to status quo Demonstration of success is hard to establish at planning stage and after implementation QUESTION: Can we achieve Smart Growth? 32
Overview of S.B. 375 ANSWER: Yes, we can But we need: Leadership (state, regional and local) Funding Better measurement tools An engaged public that believes in necessity of change 33
Climate & Transportation: Change is Coming Doug Johnson Senior Planner Metropolitan Transportation Commission 34
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Premise 1: Transportation is Critical Green House Gases Compared World Bay Area Transportation: 14% Transportation: 41% Sources: USEIA, BAAQMD 35
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Premise 2: Location Matters Growing Cooler: Compared to sprawl, compact development results in a 20 to 40 percent reduction in VMT and hence in CO 2 36
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Premise 3: Tighter Emission Standards Necessary But Not Sufficient 160 150 140 1990=100 130 120 110 100 90 Baseline VMT Baseline CO2 CO2 Pavley C02 State 2020 Goal 80 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year 37
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Premise 4: Price Matters Core Pricing: Driving is more expensive in the urban core with parking costs and bridge tolls 38
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Question 1: How do we set the targets? 39
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Path to setting targets MTC evaluates current RTP forecasts 2035 GHG-per-capita from -8% to +2% in 2035 Air Resources Board compiles statewide figures ARB to conduct scenario feasibility analysis with MPOs MPOs evaluate ARB scenarios & provide feedback ARB staff propose target & continues work with MPOs 40
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Question 2: How do we meet targets? Tons per day of CO2 (x1000) 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Trend CARB Transportation 2035 Add Pricing and Focused Growth 2035 Objective Target: Reduce CO 2 40% below 1990 levels by 2035 41
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Transportation 2035 Plan Expenditures by Function (Total revenues: $218 Billion) 42
Investing in Change Regional Express Lane Network Change in Motion Creates an 800 mile Regional High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) Network on Bay Area freeways 43
Investing in Change Resolution 3434 Change in Motion Focuses on delivering $18 billion in key transit expansion projects TOD Policy for Transit Expansion Program 44
Investing in Change FOCUS Change in Motion $2.2 billion for Transportation for Livable Communities Program $400 million for Lifeline Transportation Program $1 billion for Regional Bicycle Network 45
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Question 2: How do we do S.B. 375? 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Planning RHNA Housing Elements RTAC CARB Targets Interaction/Iteration SCS RTP CEQA Assistance Modeling Investment Plan APS 46
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Sustainable Communities Strategy A Study in Dynamic Tension SCS Must Accommodate all growth in regional housing demand Achieve CO2 reduction targets established by CARB But SCS Must Not Undermine Federal planning requirement for realistic demographic and revenue assumptions Interfere with local land use authority 47
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming A Local-Regional Partnership is Essential Local Authority Regional Authority Land Use Transportation Sustainable Communities Strategy 48
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Resources to Local Government Are Key State and regional planning grants State and regional capital grants New federal funding models (e.g. joint HUD/DOT/EPA programs) Self-help tools (e.g. value-capture such as tax increment financing) Infrastructure Budgets for Select PDAs Purpose Street and Transit Utilities Recreation and Parks Community Amenities Housing Miscellaneous TOTAL $ billions 16.0 1.9 1.2 0.5 3.8 0.9 24.3 49
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Question 4: How Do We Manage Expectations? 50
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Some Impacts Now Many Much Later Short Term Long Term Parking Policy Electric Vehicle Infrastructure SCS Mobility Management Tools Carbon taxes/road Pricing Compact & Complete Communities Transit-oriented Employment Centers 51
Climate and Transportation: Change is Coming Changes In Attitude and Behavior Are Essential and possible Annual U.S. Cigarette Consumption California's Recycling Rate 5000 60 Cigarettes/Adult (>18) 4000 3000 2000 1000 Percent Recycled or Reused 50 40 30 20 10 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year American Lung Association 0 1989 1994 1999 2004 Year California Integrated Waste Management Board 52
Overview and Critique of BAAQMD's Proposed CEQA Thresholds of Significance Jonathan Redding Attorney Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP 53
CEQA Thresholds of Significance Contra Costa Times Bay Area pollution district eyes 1 st guidelines for reducing global warming The guidelines would not promote regional smart growth, which is fundamental to achieving greenhouse gas reduction goals in land use and transportation, Dan Marks, Berkeley planning director, wrote in an Oct. 26 letter to the air district. While we applaud the district's efforts to be a leader on the issue, we believe that the draft guidelines are fundamentally flawed. While the guidelines would be advisory, cities and counties that ignored them would risk lawsuits from development opponents, who could argue that local agencies were ignoring environmental impacts. 54
CEQA Thresholds of Significance Proposed CEQA Thresholds (December 7, 2009) 55
CEQA Thresholds of Significance BAQMMD Screening Level Equivalents Based on 1,100 Metric Tons Per Year 56
CEQA Thresholds of Significance Building Industry Position Scenario Summary Marin Mixed Use Affordable Housing Near BART No Mixed Use Near BART Mixed Use Downtown Livermore Housing Density (units/acre) 42 60 30 30 24-50 Source Category Tonnes CO 2 Residential 334 4,082 2,586 2,586 9,595 Commercial 651 157 --- 299 3,336 Mobile 3,235 12,786 6,965 15,353 40,489 Water --- 146 --- --- --- Total 4,221 17,170 9,551 18,238 55,131 Service Population 453 3,485 2,518 2,597 9,909 Tonnes CO 2 e/yr/sp 9.3 4.9 3.8 7 5.6 57
CEQA Thresholds of Significance Solutions for Local Agencies, Developers & Stakeholders Work together to: Adopt climate action plan Develop your own CEQA thresholds of significance. (Consider rejection of BAAQMD and develop rationale for alternative standard) Participate in development of SCS and make sure that CEQA thresholds of significance and full discussion of what criteria constitutes an SCS consistent project 58
Contact Information David Calkins Sierra Nevada Air Quality Group DaveCalkins@comcast.net Doug Johnson Metropolitan Transportation Commission DJohnson@mtc.ca.gov Jonathan W. Redding Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP JRedding@wendel.com 59
Thank You. Questions?