CEQA and Climate Change
Evaluating & Addressing GHG
Emissions from Projects
Barbara Lee, CAPCOA
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.
Overview
Consideration of Fundamental Issues
What to do about Thresholds
Analytical Methods & Tools
Mitigation
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Non-zero Threshold Approach #2
The Tiered Approach would “bin” projects based on
established characteristics, with increasing
requirements for each bin, or tier
Tier
1
2
3
Zero Threshold
Quantitative Thresholds
Qualitative Thresholds
Net GHG reduction Emissions below Tier 2 threshold
Project meets Tier 1 criteria
= Less than
Significant
= Less than significant if Level 1
mitigations applied
= Less than significant if Level 1
mitigations applied
Net GHG increase
Emissions above Tier 2 threshold
Project meets Tier 2 criteria
mitigated to
less than significant
= Less than significant if Level 1 &
2 mitigations applied
= Less than significant if Level 1 &
2 mitigations applied
Net GHG increase
Emissions above Tier 3 threshold
Project meets Tier 3 criteria
not fully mitigated
= EIR + Level 1, 2 & 3 mitigation
= EIR + Level 1, 2 & 3 mitigation
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
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
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
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-HousingBalance, 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
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