California Proposes “Ambitious & Achievable” SB 375 GHG Reduction Targets for Regions

Today the California Air Resources Board (ARB) released a report on the “Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets Pursuant to Senate Bill 375.”

The report, required under SB 375 (Steinberg, 2008), proposes targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 and 2035 associated with passenger vehicle travel in the state’s eighteen Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), including the four largest: Southern California, San Diego, the Bay Area, and the Sacramento region. The Air Resources Board will consider adopting these targets in September.

Today’s press release from ARB stated that:

“These proposed targets are ambitious, achievable and very good news for Californians” and “Regions that meet the targets will receive incentives in the form of easier access to federal funding, and streamlined environmental review for development projects.”

Policy in Motion founder Lauren Michele provides a summary of the proposed targets here.

For the four largest MPOs, the report outlines proposed targets of per capita greenhouse gas reductions of 7 to 8 percent by 2020, and between 13 and 16 percent in 2035 compared to 2005 levels.

A separate approach was developed for the eight planning organizations that comprise the San Joaquin Valley, establishing placeholder targets of a 5 percent reduction in per capita emissions in 2020, and a 10 percent reduction in 2035.For California’s four largest MPOs, the report outlines proposed targets of per capita greenhouse gas reductions of 7 to 8 percent by 2020, and between 13 and 16 percent in 2035 compared to 2005 levels.

Targets for the remaining six Metropolitan Planning Organizations – the Monterey, Butte, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Shasta, and Lake Tahoe regions – reflect each region’s current plans for 2020 and 2035.

Comments (1)

  1. I’m curious what ARB meant in the press statement “regions that meet the targets will receive incentives in the form of easier access to federal funding, and streamlined environmental review for development projects.” My analysis is that the current levels of financial or regulatory incentives at the state or federal level are not as “ambitious and achievable” as the proposed GHG reduction targets for regions.

    Read More Here: http://movingslower.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/ms-thesis-abstract_laurenmichelehilliard2.pdf

Leave a Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>