Summary of CAPCOA Significance Threshold Options

1
Summary of CAPCOA Significance Threshold Options

• April 30, 2008
• SCAQMD
• Diamond Bar, California

2
Evaluation of CAPCOA Proposals

• AQMD staff identified Pros and Cons of each
  proposal for discussion purposes, most from
  CAPCOA White Paper
• Seeking Working Group input
• Additional Pros Cons
• Any new or modified options
• Use worksheet provided
• Should option be dropped or further evaluated

3
CAPCOA Proposals - No GHG Significance Threshold

• Pros None
• Cons - Cities counties in the same air
  district could develop a patchwork of GHG
  thresholds
• Lack of a GHG threshold does not relieve the lead
  agency from making a significance determination
  could create legal vulnerability
• Significance made on a case-by-case basis,
  resulting in inconsistent policies within or
  between agencies
• Lack of GHG threshold could make determining
  significance more resource intensive

4
CAPCOA Proposals - Zero Significance Threshold

• Pros - Greater GHG emission reductions because
  mitigation would be required of all projects with
  any GHG emission increase
• Cons - Greater administrative/resources costs
  through preparation of EIRs instead of NDs or
  NOEs
• There may not be meaningful mitigation for small
  projects
• Available mitigation may consist only of buying
  GHG offsets, which may create EJ concerns because
  of associated criteria pollutant emissions
• Offset creation may not be fully established

5
CAPCOA Proposals Non-zero Significance
Thresholds Statute/ Executive Order Approaches

• 1.1 Uniform percentage-based reduction from
  business as usual (BAU) e.g., 33 based on 2020
  target or 80 based on 2050 target
• Pros Could reduce resource impacts spent
  preparing/reviewing environmental analysis
• Achieves GHG reductions in parallel with AB 32
• Single threshold easier to apply to projects
  more easily understood by applicants lead
  agencies
• Cons Could be viewed as setting a de minimis
  level
• Fewer projects would trigger significance,
  therefore, less mitigation
• BAU defined by CARB, may be difficult to define
  for all projects

6
CAPCOA Proposals Non-zero Significance
Thresholds Statute/ Executive Order Approaches
(Cont.)

• 1.2 Uniform percentage based reduction for new
  development compared to BAU
• Pros same as 1.1
• Would produce greater percentage reductions
  compared to 1.1
• Single threshold easier to apply to projects
  more easily understood by applicants lead
  agencies
• Cons same as 1.1
• Would require substantially greater percentage
  reductions compared to 1.1, which may be
  difficult to achieve
• BAU defined by CARB, may be difficult to define
  for all projects

7
CAPCOA Proposals Non-zero Significance
Thresholds Statute/ Executive Order Approaches
(Cont.)

• 1.3 Uniform percentage-based reduction by
  economic sector
• Pros Best regulatory approach for each sector
• Takes into account costs control technology
• Avoids over or under regulation of GHGs
• Cons Requires extensive information on emission
  inventories
• Requires extensive information on control
  technologies
• Difficult to determine percent reductions per
  industry
• Because of information requirements, may be more
  viable in the long term

8
CAPCOA Proposals Non-zero Significance
Thresholds Statute/ Executive Order Approaches
(Cont.)

• 1.4 Uniform percentage-based reduction by region
• Pros Could tailor GHG reductions to region
• GHG reduction strategies could be integrated
  with regional GHG reduction plans
• Cons Would need to establish region inventory
  for the region
• Because of the need to develop a regional plan,
  an interim approach may be needed

9
CAPCOA Proposals Non-zero Significance
Thresholds Tiered Approach

• 2.1 Decision tree approach, e.g., zero 1st tier,
  2nd tier is quantitative (2.3)
• Pros Allows flexibility by establishing multiple
  thresholds to cover a wide range of projects
• 2nd tier may minimize administrative burden
  costs
• Tiers could be set at different levels depending
  on GHG emissions, size, characteristics of
  projects
• Projects exceeding Tier 2 must implement
  mitigation
• Cons Tier 1 zero threshold, same cons as
  discussed under zero threshold overhead
• Some Tier 2 applications may need to be included
  in an approved General Plan or other enforceable
  mechanism

10
(No Transcript)
11
CAPCOA Proposals Non-zero Significance
Thresholds Tiered Approach (Cont.)

• 2.2 Quantitative threshold based on market
  capture, e.g., 90 of projects (900 MT CO2eq/yr)
• Pros Would capture a much larger percentage of
  CEQA projects (i.e., significant) than currently
  the case (42 - 56)
• Excludes small projects that have a relatively
  small contribution to state GHG inventory
• Single threshold easier to apply to projects
  more easily understood by the public, applicants
  lead agencies
• Cons Greater administrative cost burden,
  especially on larger projects projects in
  developing moderate growth areas
• May not be amenable to industrial projects
  because of the diversity of these types of
  projects
• On-site mitigation opportunities may be limited

12
CAPCOA Proposals Non-zero Significance
Thresholds Tiered Approach (Cont.)

• 2.3 CARB reporting threshold 25,000 MT
  CO2eq/year (or 10,000 MT CO2eq/year - Market
  Advisory Group)
• Pros CARB estimates this would capture 90 of
  all industrial projects (i.e., significant)
• Single threshold easier to apply to projects
  more easily understood by applicants lead
  agencies
• Cons May not be amenable to industrial projects
  because of the diversity of these types of
  projects
• On-site mitigation opportunities may be limited

13
CAPCOA Proposals Non-zero Significance
Thresholds Tiered Approach (Cont.)

• 2.4 Regulated emissions inventory capture
  based on ratio of criteria pollutant significance
  threshold to inventory for that pollutant
• Pros Single threshold easier to apply to
  projects more easily understood by applicants
  lead agencies
• Cons Threshold is cumbersome to derive
• Threshold would change regularly as inventory
  emissions go up or down
• Could have widely divergent thresholds by air
  basin because agency thresholds and inventories
  vary

14
CAPCOA Proposals Non-zero Significance
Thresholds Tiered Approach (Cont.)

• 2.5 Unit-based thresholds based on market
  capture similar to 2.2, but based on sector,
  e.g., 90 of residential, industrial,
  commercial, etc.
• Pros Same as 2.2
• Cons Same as 2.2

15
CAPCOA Proposals Non-zero Significance
Thresholds Tiered Approach (Cont.)

• 2.6 Projects of statewide, regional, or areawide
  significance 15206(b)
• Pros Would provide consistency throughout
  California
• Would capture approximately ½ of future
  residential development
• Cons Would capture substantially less than ½
  future commercial development, therefore, less
  mitigation
• Percentage capture of industrial/manufacturing
  projects unknown

16
CAPCOA Proposals Non-zero Significance
Thresholds Tiered Approach (Cont.)

• 2.7 Efficiency-based thresholds GHG emissions
  per unit of efficiency
• Pros Would benchmark GHG intensity against
  target levels of efficiency
• Thresholds established to provide future
  foreseeable GHG reductions compared to BAU
• Would support AB 32 goals
• Cons Would require substantial data modeling
• May be more appropriate as a long-term threshold

17
Other Proposals

• Correlate GHG threshold with established criteria
  pollutant significance thresholds
• Pros Would capture approximately the same number
  of projects as is currently the case
• Cons Could have widely divergent thresholds by
  air basin because agency thresholds vary
• Fewer projects would trigger significance,
  therefore, less mitigation

18
Other Proposals

• Efficiency must exceed by some percent, any
  established efficiency standards
• Pros Same as 2.7
• Would capture greater number of projects than 2.7
• Cons Same as 2.7
• Would rely on established efficiency standards
  that may not be available in the short-term

19
Recommendations Received from Stakeholders

• County Sanitation Districts L.A. County
• Need to develop mitigation measures concurrently
  with significance threshold
• Reject no threshold option
• Reject zero threshold option
• Threshold should not be used to comply with AB 32
• Should harmonize thresholds with other
  jurisdictions
• Recommends against using life cycle analysis
• Mandated GHG emission reductions should not be
  required until a regional credit market is
  established

20
Recommendations Received from Stakeholders

• Center for Biological Diversity
• Recommends a zero threshold or
• Recommends a threshold that captures 90 of
  future discretionary projects (900 MT CO2eq/year)
• Concerns regarding increased preparation of EIRs
  can be addressed with implementation of a
  mitigation fee offset program