It's official - the Regional Targets Advisory Committee final report (2.14 MB pdf) is now available.  The report outlines both a process for assigning regional GHG reduction targets, and recommendations to ensure SB 375 is successfully implemented. 

The Air Resources Board will consider the RTAC's recommendations at its November 19th meeting.  We don't yet know exactly what actions the Board will take at that hearing, but given the tight timeline for the target-setting process, it is likely that the Board will take some decisive action so that the process can get underway. 

Overall, we are quite happy with most of the report. Keep reading for our analysis of what's good and what's bad, or download the full report here (2.14 MB pdf).

What's Good:
*A transparent and participatory target-setting process.  The report outlines a seven-step process for setting targets that involves a lot of back-and-forth between the regions and the ARB.  ClimatePlan successfully pushed to ensure that this process will be transparent at every step along the way, and  that it will provide opportunities for public participation at key junctures.

* Robust discussion of what ambitious, achievable targets should look like.

* Ensuring co-benefits are modeled, quantified and considered:  There is a section dedicated to co-benefits including economic benefits, public health improvements, and natural resource protection. Co-benefits are also discussed in other key sections of the report, including the model improvements process and public outreach.

* The importance of social equity, transit funding and affordable housing: The report stresses the importance of funding for transit and affordable housing, and of identifying the linkages between equitable communities and GHG emissions.

* Advocacy for a strong federal transportation bill: A section of the report is dedicated to the importance of having complementary programs and funding policies at the federal level.

* Limited the scope of the BMP approach:  The report maintains that while best management practices, or 'BMPs' should be used by ALL regions as a planning and educational tool, only the smallest regions (such as Butte and Shasta) should be allowed to use a 'BMP-only' approach to demonstrate compliance with their region's GHG target, and only in the first round of SCS creation (until 2014 or so). 

What's Bad:
* BMPs for Large Regions? The RTAC was split on whether large regions (particularly Southern California) should be able to use the BMP-only approach.  We think this is a terrible idea, because it would exclude the use of travel models, which are the best and most accurate tools we have to quantify the GHG emissions from land use and transportation.  The controversy over this idea was the most divisive issue among RTAC members, and at various times the committee voted against or in favor of it, depending upon which RTAC members were present at the meeting.  In the end, the RTAC report neither endorses or rejects this approach, and simply encourages CARB to carefully consider all the pros and cons before making a decision.

Site Hosted by the Local Government Commission | Based on a design by studio7designs