Comment Log Display

These comments from our overall letter speak to our general
concerns on the Scoping Plan:

1.	It appears that the 111th Congress will pass some type of
climate change program modeled perhaps after the proposals of
Senators Boxer-Lieberman-Warner and/or Representative Edward
Markey.  We strongly believe that CARB must take affirmative steps
in Washington and insert itself into the legislative process to
assure that our early actions here in California will be protected
or that our program here will be deemed equivalent.  It would be a
significant disadvantage to California if the starting point of a
federal program were drawn such that California business would
have to re-reduce their GHG emissions.  One area (of many) that
CARB should focus on in Washington is to make sure that any bill
that does work its way through Congress has sufficient free
allocations assigned to early action programs contained in State
programs.

2.	The California GHG regulatory program should be considered a
transitional program and should be designed to fit into an
eventual federal GHG program that can reasonably be expected to
have allocations, auctions, credits and offsets.

3.	Many stationary sources in California are already at BACT or
BARCT levels and little room remains to do better.  In SCAQMD’s
2007 AQMP, for example, Multiple Component Sources Control Measure
MCS-01 will move most combustion sources in the South Coast Air
Basin from BARCT to BACT during the 2010-2023 timeframe.  Hence
there will be very little opportunity for further in-plant
emissions reductions given that BACT is the best that can be done.
 Most stationary sources therefore, very early into the Scoping
Plan regulatory cycle, will be forced to rely heavily on offsets
to meet declining caps under a cap-and-trade (C&T) program.  The
use of offsets will be critical to survive the early stages of a
C&T environment.  These offsets must not be arbitrarily limited
either numerically or geographically.

4.	The yet-to-be released Environmental Impacts appendix should be
expanded to serve as the CEQA document for GHGs for the entire
program as laid out by the Scoping Plan. It is not productive for
local governments, for instance, to re-hash arguments in favor of
a project that is implementing a measure contained in the Scoping
Plan when CARB, better than anyone else, understands the big
picture and how the specific action fits into the scheme of
things. CARB should weigh in on behalf of the local government in
defending actions with all state agencies that are consistent with
the Scoping Plan as part of the obligations imposed by the
legislature as a result of AB 32. If an outright Categorical
Exemption cannot be negotiated by CARB, then any actions
consistent with the Scoping Plan and requiring environmental
documentation could rely upon the documentation prepared for the
Scoping Plan to satisfy at least the GHG portion or aspect of the
associated project EIR. CARB should prevail upon OPR and the RA
that compliance with the Scoping Plan covers a project’s GHG
issues, if any, under CEQA.

5.	Local governments will need ARB assistance implementing many of
the Scoping Plan proposals, as many of them will be controversial
and unpopular with constituents.  The public may not fully
understand or appreciate the nexus between the proposed projects
and its GHG benefits.  Frequently there is community opposition to
such projects as waste-to-energy or high density, mixed-use infill
projects, for example.  CARB needs to allocate resources to
partner with the local governments that are making good faith
attempts to implement the goals and objectives of the Scoping
Plan.

6.	ARB should consider an escape clause if things under the
Scoping Plan simply become too expensive or cumbersome for
Californians.  The escape clause should be triggered by obvious
indicators, such as the price of consumer goods.  If the hurdles
become too formidable, California needs to have the opportunity to
re-visit the program to avoid voter backlash.

7.	The Scoping Plan should contain a discussion of what will
happen to California’s program in the event of federal
pre-emption.

8.	Facility audits for the purpose of identifying criteria air
pollutants and toxic air pollutants (C-103) is simply not
appropriate in a GHG-targeted effort.

9.	Estimates of co-benefits associated with a specific control
measure are elusive.  This is further complicated in that several
air districts have already claimed as theirs any co-pollutants
reduced as a result of state climate change strategies (see
SCAQMD’s 2007 AQMP Control Measure MOB-07 where co-benefits of
fuel efficiency improvements and renewable energy sources accrue
to the benefit of the SCAQMD). Co-benefit calculations in the
footnotes in the cost estimates at the bottom of each control
measure in the cases above is very likely zero.

10.	Implementation should start slowly, akin to putting one’s big
toe into a tub of hot water before jumping in, so as not to cause
irreversible effects by a rush to action.  No justification has
been offered for the need to “quickly transition” (Page 18) from a
system where the state provides some free allowances to a system
where the majority of the allowances are auctioned in the trading
market.  This is especially true if an auction system is
implemented.  At the outset of a program this large and with such
potential financial impacts, only a small amount of allocations
should be auctioned initially and then gradually increased until
the regulators and the regulated entities become acclimated, and
the market matures.

11.	ARB should referee the CAT state agencies as they implement
their GHG plans to ensure that the Scoping Plan’s over-arching
goals are accomplished and that agency carbon shadows are
minimized.  There is a real possibility that other state agencies
in their zeal to charge ahead with GHG reduction programs may
actually be exacerbating the conditions the Scoping Plan is
attempting to control.  Only time will tell in some of these
situations.  A good example would be in water resources, for
example, if the SWRCB mandated a fixed percentage of water
recycling to occur at each an every wastewater treatment plant in
California.  This mandate might not be appropriate at certain
facilities where for a variety of reasons the GHG emissions
associated with the recycling technology outweigh the emissions
benefits of the produced water.

12.	Reciprocating engine installation and operation in California
as a result of various AQMPs and distributed generation
legislation and regulations have all but removed this prime mover
as a viable motive force in the South Coast.  We urge the ARB not
to insist upon across the board electrification as this will
seriously impact California’s ability to respond to emergencies
such as earthquakes.  Portable equipment will be needed to dig us
out and stationary equipment will be needed in the event central
utility plants and/or transmission lines are knocked out.

13.	Superposing C & T atop command and control rules for the same
source categories could increase the overall program cost. Command
and control strategies should be used as backstops, to be phased in
only if C & T doesn’t achieve the required targets within a
specific period of time.

14.	Permitting actions for projects that are consistent with the
Scoping Plan should receive some form of streamlined processing or
at the minimum, expedited processing, so that the project can get
under construction as soon as possible.

15.	Aside from a brief mention on pages 54 and 57 of the document
that they will be considered in the final Scoping Plan, the draft
Scoping Plan is essentially silent on small business impacts.  The
offering of incentives by utilities will not be a universal panacea
as the businesses in question are so varied in nature.  We think
the most effective way to protect small businesses in California,
the most potent job creating engine in the state, is to structure
some type of free allocation program or provide funds from the
sale of allocations for small business grants to purchase
technology to comply the spirit of the Plan.

16.	Introduction, Part A, Section 2, Pages 2-3: The text
describing AB 32 should include HSC §§ 38560.5(e) and 38562(b)(9)
directing the ARB to take into account the relative contribution
of each source or source category.  The text should also mention
HSC §§ 38560.5(b) and 38562(c) directing the ARB to establish a
market-based mechanism to effect the emissions reductions.

17.	Introduction, Part A, Section 2, Page 3: The ARB should do
more than issue a policy statement encouraging voluntary early
actions.  Thus far, there are scant assurances that these actions
will be protected under the Scoping Plan.  Providing emission
reduction estimates of these actions could be a useful first step
to promoting early reduction measures once people see their
potential.

18.	Introduction, Part A, Section 3, Page 4: The text mentions
that the Climate Action Team Members submitted more than 100
greenhouse gas reduction measures in March 2008.  Please make this
available as an appendix.


19.	Preliminary Recommendations, Section C, Boiler and Engine
Efficiency, Page 40:  The ARB should recognize, as the SCAQMD has
in their Rule 1146, that there is often an inverse relationship
between boiler efficiency and more stringent criteria pollutant
emissions standards.  ARB should recognize that a state-wide call
for increased efficiency could bump up against criteria pollutant
limitations in non-attainment areas; areas that probably contain
the majority of the state’s stationary sources. On Page 4-22 of
the June 2008 Draft Environmental Assessment for Rule 1146
(boilers above 5 MMBTUH) the SCAQMD recognizes that the
installation of ultra-low NOx burners decreases boiler efficiency,
thereby increasing fuel use which in turn increases CO2 emissions.

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-08-11 13:53:47