San Joaquin Valley AQMD posits its own GHG reduction program

In prior posts it has been noted that the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Management District (SJVAQMD) has been moving forward with its own GHG reduction program, and that one of its board members (who also sits on the board of the parent agency, the Air Resources Board) has expressed concern that the local program is preempted by AB 32, the GHG reduction law. Be that as it may, both the SJVAQMD and the South Coast AQMD are in the process of developing their own GHG reduction plans. The SJVAQMD's approach was recently set forth in a scoping document. One element involves CEQA, and appears to be in direct conflict with State law. As noted in a prior post, a threshold methodology is being developed at the State level for triggering the requirement to include a GHG analysis in an environmental impact statement on a project. In contrast, the approach of the SJVAQMD is to require that any project that has the potential to increase GHG emissions identify and quantify the amount, assess the significance of these GHG emissions on the environment, and mitigate any significant increase. The carbon exchange program envisioned by the SJVAQMD may not be in conflict with State law. It would allow for the banking of emission reduction credits, but only to the extent the reductions are in excess of that required by AB 32 or any other applicable law. These credits would be available for use by developers and others who need reductions for CEQA mitigation purposes, as described above, or for their own voluntary use. [The South Coast AQMD is developing a similar program.] As part of the existing emission inventory process, the SJVAQMD envisions businesses reporting their GHG emissions to the extent they exceed 25 thousand tons annually of CO2 equivalents. This requirement, other than the reporting element, appears similar to that likely to be put in place as part of the AB 32 process. The District staff is seeking to develop a system that will minimize the need for double reporting (e.g., making one report to the State and one to the local District). Another element is voluntary GHG mitigation agreements. Under this program a project proponent would voluntarily contract with the District to fund projects mitigating the project's GHG emissions. The mechanism used would be a District fund; project proponents would pay into the fund, and the District would use the money to invest in GHG reduction projects. The project proponent could then use the credit received to meet its CEQA mitigation requirements. Although, as noted, parts of the District's program would appear to be in direct conflict with State law, other components may not be, unless State law is seen to preempt the field, which is always a possibility given the breadth and depth of the AB 32 program and process. More information on the SJVAQMD program can be found at http://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/postings/2008/11-18-08/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20CAPP%20Scoping%20Report%202008Nov12.pdf.