1 1 AB 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 Anthony Eggert Air Resources Board May 23, 2008 Monterey, CA AB32 and Climate Change: Partnering with Local Governments to Combat Global Warming 2 Take Home Message • Achieving the goals of AB32 will require a strong partnership between State, Regional organizations and Local governments!
28
Embed
AB 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006lgc.org/wordpress/docs/events/CEQA2008/Anothony_Eg… · · 2013-04-051 1 AB 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
1
AB 32: California Global WarmingSolutions Act of 2006
Anthony EggertAir Resources Board
May 23, 2008Monterey, CA
AB32 and Climate Change: Partneringwith Local Governments to Combat
Global Warming
2
Take Home Message
• Achieving the goals of AB32 willrequire a strong partnershipbetween State, Regionalorganizations and Localgovernments!
2
3
Preamble
• Local governments have led the way onclimate policy!
4
Local Government Leaders
3
5
Preamble
• Local governments have led the way onclimate policy!
• Local government decisions havesignificant direct and indirect impact ongreenhouse gas emissions
• Impacts of climate change will have tobe addressed by local governments
6
2100 Climate Impacts
California Projected Impacts
75% loss in snow pack
1-2 foot sea level rise
70 more extreme heat days/year
80% more ‘likely ozone’ days
55% more large forest fires
Twice the drought years
Loss in dairy and ag productivity
6
4
7
What Is AB 32?
• Sets in statute 2020 GHG emissions limit at1990 level– Acknowledges that 2020 is not the endpoint
• Air Resources Board to monitor/regulateGHG sources
• In collaboration with other state agencies,ARB will develop Scoping Plan byJanuary 1, 2009.
8
Magnitude of the Challenge
1990 EmissionBaseline
~173 MMT CO2e Reduction
80% Reduction~341 MMT CO2e
5
9
CO2 Intensity Comparisons(Fossil Fuel Combustion Only)
“Nearly half of what will be the builtenvironment in 2030 doesn’t even existyet, giving the current generation a vitalopportunity to reshape futuredevelopment.”
Source: Arthur C. Nelson, “Planning for a New Era,” Journal of theAmerican Planning Association, Fall 2006
12
Passenger Vehicle Travel
Passenger Vehicles136 MMTCO2E
Heavy Duty Vehicles36 MMTCO2E
ARB GHG Inventory, 2004 Baseline Data
7
13
Transportation GHG
GHGMile ,
GHGGallon VMT
VehicleTechnology Fuels
VehicleUse
AB 1493Regulation
Low-CarbonFuel Standard
Transp. &Land UseStrategies
Transp.GHG = ,
14
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
170%
180%
190%
200%
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
Perc
ent o
f 199
0 G
row
th
VMT
GHG Growth
GHG Growth with AB 1493
GHG Gap
GHG Growth with AB 1493 and LCFS
Can we get there with technology alone?
Future targets will haveto be much more stringent or gains will be eroded !
15% less than the BaseCase per capita85% of Base CaseSet at 100%Per Capita CO2 and PM
Emissions from vehicles
14 fewer minutes per day67 minutes81 minutes
Daily Vehicle Minutes ofTravel (perhousehold/day)
362 fewer square milesurbanized
304 square miles666 squaremiles
Additional UrbanizedLand
36% more new jobs andhomes near transit
41% New Jobs38% New Housing
5% New Jobs2% NewHousing
Growth Near Transit
27% increase53%26%
People Living in Areaswith Good Mix of Jobsand Housing
12.3 fewer miles perhousehold per day, a25% reduction
34.947.2VMT per household perday
DifferenceAdopted Plan 2050Base Case 2050Parameter
Sacramento Region -- 2050
Source: SACOG, Regional Blueprint Program, 2005
20
Not just transport
• Municipal operations– City facilities, maintenance, waste management
• Low-impact neighborhood design• Residential and commercial building
standards• Special districts for solar power and efficiency
upgrades• Etc., etc.
11
21
We can plan, but then what?
??
22
Land Use Subgroup Climate Action Team
12
23
1. State Leadership
• State agencies should add GHGconsiderations to internal programsrelated to State-owned facilities andinfrastructure.
• State agencies should add GHGconsiderations to programs relatedto state-assisted infrastructure andland use planning, design anddevelopment.
24
• Provide regional and localgovernments technical and financialassistance to inventory GHGemissions.
• Provide tools, resources andprograms to regional and localgovernments on best practices forreducing GHG emissions.• Land Use GHG quantification and
modeling tools• Model Climate Action Plans
2. Tools and Resources
13
25
3.Reduce Barriers to GHG-Efficient Growth
• Recommend that the OPR, StrategicGrowth Council and BT&H convene amulti-stakeholder process to examinebarriers to GHG-efficient growth.
26
4. Defining the Goal
• The State should work with localgovernments and regional agencies todefine a land use-related GHGemissions target for the State and goalsfor each region of the State.– Very complex– Need to balance with State