Guidelines Without Guidance

The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the division of government charged with administering the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has released draft "guidelines" instructing state agencies how to evaluate the impact of projects they approve or undertake on Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG). Anyone who was hoping for real help from OPR in how to tackle this difficult issue must be very disappointed.

In 2007, the Legislature and the Governor enacted SB 97, a statute that authorized OPR to issue these CEQA guidelines relating to GHG emissions. The rationale for adopting the law was that agencies needed some direction in how to deal with GHG and climate change in their CEQA environmental review process. After the passage of AB 32, it became clear that GHG emissions would be an important part of the environmental review of nearly every major project in California. But figuring out when a project would have a "significant" impact on the state's total GHG emissions, or on climate change in general, was no easy task. The Legislature therefore asked OPR to develop guidelines that would specifically address how GHG emissions and climate change should be addressed in CEQA documents.

OPR has apparently decided to take a milquetoast approach to meeting their mandate to provide agencies with guidance on how to address the GHG issue. The draft guidelines read like a document drafted by lawyers rather than scientists who might actually have something interesting to say about methods for estimating GHG emissions and their significance, in spite of the fact that OPR claims they consulted with a variety of experts to develop the guidelines. The draft guidelines do little more than apply existing CEQA statutes and case law to the GHG issue. Of course, that's exactly what every lead agency and court in the state would be doing even if OPR didn't undertake this task, so it doesn't appear that they're contributing much of substance.

OPR could have taken their mandate in SB 97 to devise methods of mitigating GHGs and related impacts more seriously. Public Resources Code section 21083.05 (enacted as part of SB 97) gave them a pretty broad mandate, had they chosen to use it. Instead, they took a very conservative approach that hewed closely to the language of existing statutes and regulations, and they punted the really hard, really technical question (how to determine a proper standard of significance) to CARB. Maybe OPR didn't feel up to the task.

Draft section 15064.4(a) lists criteria that a lead agency should consider when determining the significance of a projet. It expressly mentions the State's overall AB 32 objectives, which are focused on 2020 as an end date. It doesn't mention the Governor's own Executive Order S-3-05, which requires even more draconian reductions by 2050. Nor does it make any mention of the regional GHG reduction targets that CARB will be devising under SB 375, adopted last year. Those regional targets will certainly be relevant to transportation and land use planning projects (general plans, Regional Transportation Plans, etc.), even if they are not applicable to all projects subject to CEQA. It strikes me as curious that these other targets/objectives are not even mentioned. It would have been fairly easy to draft some short, pithy language to include in 15064.4 that could have really added some backbone to CARB's regional GHG targets in particular. As it stands, nearly every project or plan in the state could arguably said to have a minimal effect on the state's ability to meet its AB 32 goals in general. And of course that's exactly what every lead agency will claim.

I also think it would have been prudent of OPR to state that quantification of a project's GHG contribution, as opposed to a "qualitative" description of it, is the preferred method whenever possible. Draft section 15064.4(b) gives the agencies way too much wiggle room. It's true, as the OPR spokesperson said to you, that quantification is sometimes difficult, and CEQA generally gives lead agencies a lot of latitude in how they approach the environmental analysis. But in this case, we're talking about a very specific kind of impact that lends itself to quantification. We're not talking about a visual impact or some other fuzzy type of environmental impact.

Estimating project-related air pollution is hardly a new scientific endeavor. There are models that are quite effective in quantifying the emissions contributions of even complex projects like long-term land use plans. A knowledgable transportation modeler assures me that CARB has computer models, available to any lead agency, that can help estimate project GHG emissions related to increases in traffic. There is also ample available sector-specific data, thanks to the state's GHG inventory, that could be used by modelers. The notion that agencies might be forced to rely on "qualitative" methods of estimating project impacts just doesn't hold water, given the state of computer modeling technology and the ocean of data available to planners.

By passing legislation like AB 32 and SB 97, the Legislature and the Governor put California on the leading edge of the struggle to come to terms with climate change in the United States. But ultimately, the implementation of the lofty goals of these statutes falls to state agencies like OPR and CARB. The success or failure of California's GHG regulation efforts depends on the political courage of the staff and political appointees who will work out the details of how the State will get a grip on its GHG problem. The GHG-related CEQA Guidlines proposed by OPR are not an indication that the agency has the courage to realize the State's lofty ambitions.

Court Stops Highway 50 Expansion

Judge Frawley today released his order in the NAST/ECOS lawsuit challenging the adequacy of Caltrans' environmental review of the proposed Highway 50 expansion. The short story is that we won. Here's a quote from the soon-to-be-distributed press release:

Judge Timothy M. Frawley of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, issued a ruling halting the progress of CalTrans’ plan to widen Highway 50 between Sunrise and Watt Avenues. Neighbors Advocating Sustainable Transportation (NAST) and the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) filed the suit because CalTrans’ analysis of the project’s air pollution and climate change impacts was inadequate, and the project did not consider options that did not involve widening the freeway. The ruling was issued on July 15th. The lawsuit was originally filed in June of 2007.

Among other findings, Judge Frawley found that CalTrans failed to:

Complete an analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and disclose the air quality impacts associated with the traffic increase.

Consider a reasonable range of potential alternatives, including the feasibility of a transit only alternative as way of meeting the project objectives.

Adequately address the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project.

The entire text of the judge's order is available here. I'll post the press release as soon as it is ready.


Thanks to everyone who provided logistical, financial, and moral support over the past year. This victory is a triumph for the transparent and thorough public process that CEQA demands. We look forward to a more thorough and honest debate about the value of more freeway lanes in the Sacramento region. Given what's happened to gas prices in the past year, that debate should be very interesting!


Update: Here is the press release.

Meta-blogging

I make a conscious effort not to put together too many posts that unreflectively link to other sites. In my humble opinion, any blog worth its salt must provide some original content, thought, or synthesis. Simply pointing people to other writers’ posts is journalistic parasitism, and it doesn’t usually make for good reading.

Nevertheless, I think it’s worth sending out some recognition to other sites that are of interest because of their perspective on transportation and/or the natural resource policies in the Sacramento region. Here are a few that I’ve found interesting.

The blog Walkable Neighborhoods just finished a monthlong photographic examination of the walkability of urban areas in the United States. Each day, Eric Fredericks posted photos and/or commentary highlighting pedestrian-friendly urban design around the country. Some of the choices were, to say the least, unexpected. (Sacramento’s K Street mall? Sure, it’s walkable. But give me a reason to want to walk there!) And the project might be faulted for its heavy reliance on university towns and incorporated enclaves of wealth, both of which are able to address growth and traffic issues in ways that can’t easily be exported to cities where the teeming masses work and play. Nevertheless, the project is provocative, and some of the material is both enlightening and inspiring.

Locally, Sacramento is blessed with a complementary set of blogs focused on Sacramento Regional Transit, the public transportation agency that is the object of both affection and frustration for many of us. RT Driver provides an employee’s perspective on both daily life in the Sacramento transit system and on policy issues affecting operations. RT Rider covers many of the same issues from the perspective of a passenger. Both blogs have had fascinating and passionate entries on the proposed cuts to transit service as a result of the Governor’s and Legislature’s cowardly budget proposals. Check those entries out here and here. (And make plans to appear at the RT Public Hearing at 6 PM on Aug. 13!)

Finally, SacBee editor Stuart Leavenworth is slowly establishing a blog covering global warming issues. He calls it the Hot House. I’m at best ambivalent about the Sacramento Bee’s journalistic and editorial coverage of transportation and air quality issues in the region. Still, a global warming blog is a great idea, and I’m hoping that providing a forum focused on the issue has impacts on the rest of their editorial policy. Leavenworth recently has had a couple of provocative posts about the Attorney General’s strategy of forcing local planning agencies to include greenhouse gas emissions in their CEQA analysis. Read those posts here and here.

NAST Starts Hwy 50 Lawsuit Fund

Neighbors Advocating Sustainable Transportation (NAST) has begun collecting funds for a CEQA lawsuit to challenge the environmental impact report done by Caltrans for its Highway 50 expansion project. While the group continues to discuss how to best use its resources to forcefully advocate for sustainable, neighborhood-friendly transportation, they have decided that they need to raise money now because of the short statute of limitations on CEQA cases.

I've posted the email message seeking support for the legal fund here, on the NAST website.

More Road Construction

Three transportation agencies are circulating the initial (Tier 1) DEIR for a proposal to build a new four- or six lane road connecting State Route 70/99 in Sutter County with State Route 65 in Placer County, near Lincoln. Just for laughs, they've given the project an amusingly pseudo-conservationist monicker: "Placer Parkway Corridor Preservation."

The agencies-- the Federal Highway Administration, Caltrans, and the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority-- estimate that building such a road would involve converting between 676 and 990 acres of farmland, and the agencies dryly report that all the alternatives considered "could present similar potential inconsistencies with General Plan policies involving preservation of agriculturally designated areas."

The Executive Summary to the DEIR also notes that loss of agricultural land, growth inducement from the construction of the new road, and conflicts with Placer County's proposed Natural Communities Conservation Plan are all "areas of controversy."

The DEIR estimates that the construction of the new road could increase total Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) by anywhere from 441,000 to 505,000 by 2040, when compared to the "no build" scenario in 2040. The Executive Summary also mentions that the new route would produce significant impacts on Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx).

Those with long memories may recall that Angelo Tsakopoulos has proposed to build a new Placer County college town along the "parkway."

The deadline for submitting written comments is August 20, 2007.

Caltrans Approves Highway 50 expansion

On June 25, Caltrans filed its Notice of Determination indicating that it had completed environmental review of the proposed Highway 50 expansion and approved the project. This is the so-called "bus/carpool lane" project that would increase the freeway's carrying capacity by 20 to 25 per cent. By approving the project, Caltrans started the 30-day clock for legal challenges to the project's environmental impact report (EIR).

Two days later, Caltrans got around to notifying the public who had commented on the project that the Final EIR had been released. By delaying public notification, they foreshortened the effective window of opportunity for citizens to file suit. Gotta love our intrepid public servants' deep commitment to transparent public process...

Global Warming & the Attack on CEQA

Global warming has become something of a cause celebre in the U.S. recently, and California has been a leader among states in passing legislation that attempts to address the issue in the wake of the federal government's years of neglect of the issue under the Bush administration. AB 32 codified the state's commitment to reducing greenhouse gases by phasing in an emissions cap that will drop the state's production of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

But AB 32 is not the only state mandate that requires project proponents to examine their impact on global warming. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of almost any project approved by a state or local agency, also requires analysis of greenhouse gas impacts. Recently, both the California Attorney General and the nonprofit organization Center for Biological Diversity have been aggressively holding local agencies' feet to the fire regarding the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions.

Now comes the pushback from the building industry. A coalition representing a broad swath of business and construction interests has petitioned Arnold Schwarzenegger for relief from the duty to analyze greenhouse gas impacts as part of CEQA review. Ironically, they cite AB 32 as support for the proposition that they don't need to take any steps to identify or mitigate global warming impacts before the implementation of AB 32 measures. You can read their letter to the governor here.

The Planning and Conservation League has submitted a response, and they are also encouraging others to call or write the Governor and the Democratic leadership in the legislature. Read more from PCL here.

ECOS Comments on DEIR for I-80 Expansion

Better late than never... Here is an electronic copy of the comments that ECOS submitted on the Draft Environmental Impact Report released by CalTrans for its I-80 Expansion project (a so-called bus/carpool lane project).

The DEIR is available on the CalTrans website here.