Major Massachusetts Developments Must Estimate GHG Emissions and Offer Mitigation Plan

In late April 2007, a new policy was put in place in Massachusetts that requires certain developers to "quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by proposed projects and identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such emissions" The policy applies to developments requiring an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that need an air quality permit, receive state funding or generate a significant number of new vehicle trips.

The new policy requires developers to estimate the increases in six pollutants cited by the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The policy directive outlines a number of ways that developers could go about mitigating emissions. Some examples: green building standards, use of clean and alternative fuels, on-site renewable energy for heat and power, and shuttle or bus services (using alternative fuels).

The policy kicks in if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for the project and any of the following are true:

1. The Commonwealth or a state agency is the proponent;
2. The Commonwealth or a state agency is providing financial assistance;
3. The project is privately funded, but requires an air quality permit from the Department of
Environmental Protection;
4. The project is privately funded, but will generate 3,000 or more new vehicle trips per day for
office projects; 6,000 or more vehicle trips per day for mixed use projects that are 25 percent
office space; or 10,000 vehicle trips per day for other projects.

Democratic Energy notes that the policy is required if the project receives financial assistance from the Commonwealth or from a state agency. This is particularly interesting and shows that the Commonwealth is conscious that state financial support should not result in increased GHG emissions in the state.

Case in point: The environmental impact reports filed for the three proposed big box stores in Hadley, Massachusetts indicate that the Wal-Mart Supercenter will generate 9,434 trips per day at peak; the Home Depot project will generate 12,858 trips at peak; and the Lowe's project will generate 8,676 trips during peak traffic. The Home Depot project is the only one that would have qualified under the vehicle trips criteria of the new law.

If the developer does not provide a sufficient mitigation plan, the State could elect to stop the development. Most importantly, this law gives community members another way to gauge the negative impacts that a large development could have on their community.

The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office has convened an advisory committee of agency officials, private air quality consultants, and other stakeholders to develop a standardized protocol for the EIR emissions analysis. The analysis will include both "direct" GHG emissions (e.g., stack and fugitive emissions from the proposed operation) and "indirect" emissions (e.g., emissions from vehicles driven by employees and generating plants supplying electricity to the proposed operation). The advisory committee is expected to complete action on the protocol so that it can be available for public notice by July 1,2007.

More

London: Making Motorists Pay for Their Emissions

London Mayor Ken Livingstone wants to further reduce the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by making motorists take financial responsibility for their own emissions. The first approach set to begin in February 2008 is the establishment of a Low Emissions Zone. The second approach still under debate would modify the current congestion fee by establishing an Emissions Influenced Charging Structure.

The Low Emissions Zone (covering particulates, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and NOx emissions), beginning in February 2008, would require drivers of buses, large trucks, and vans to adhere to certain emissions standards or pay a daily fee of approximately $200-$400. The hope is the fee will induce motorists to make the necessary changes to their vehicles, rather than pay the daily fee.

Mayor Livingstone’s other measure, which is still in the approval stages, is an Emissions Influenced Charging Structure. Basically, the more GHG a vehicle emits, the higher the cost would be to enter London. This is an addendum to the Congestion Pricing Scheme implemented in 2003, which required cars to pay a $15 fee to enter London regardless of their emissions profile. In 2006, congestion charging raised 254 million pounds or approximately $500 million. The new proposal grants a 100% discount to low-emitting vehicles (120g/km CO2 or less) and a $48 fee to vehicles that emit more than 225g/km CO2. Other vehicles will continue to pay the already-established $15 fee.

It is projected that implementation of both of these policies will continue to lower London’s GHG emissions already achieved by the congestion pricing scheme. Since inception, the 2003 measure is credited with lowering transportation related CO2 by 20%, in addition to alleviating congestion and raising average traffic speed. Singapore, Stockholm, and Norway have implemented similar measures and have also experienced reductions in emissions, traffic, traffic accidents, along with increased use in public transportation.

The congestion pricing scheme is making its way across the Atlantic. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is hoping to institute a similar measure to what London has done. He has proposed to implement an $8 fee for cars and $21 fee for trucks to drive into Manhattan below 86th Street on weekdays between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. The revenue generated from this policy would be used to finance mass transit projects.

With U.S. cities and states increasingly focused on setting GHG emissions targets, congestion pricing and low emissions zones are sure to be in the policy mix in major metro areas.

More

Legislation Authorizes Washington's Public Utilities to Buy Carbon Offsets

On May 7th, Washington's Governor signed a new law that effectively reverses a January 2007 Washington Supreme Court decision. The State Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Seattle municipal utility could not purchase carbon offsets with ratepayer money. This case originated from ratepayers that were protesting Seattle City Light's purchases of carbon offsets to counter the utility's greenhouse gas emissions.

This legislation, said to be the first of its kind, "authorizes [public utility districts] to engage in environmental mitigation efforts," specifically allowing public utilities districts (PUDs) to spend funds acquired from ratepayers on reducing their environmental impact. This gives PUDs the discretion to purchase the services of an "independent, qualified organization with proven experience in emission mitigation activities." More importantly, this includes the "purchase, trade, or banking of greenhouse gases offsets or credits."

Last year, Seattle City Light (SCL) became the first utility to claim that they had reached carbon neutrality. To meet the target of zero net greenhouse gas emissions, SCL purchased 350,000 tons of carbon offsets (covers more than one year's worth of needed offsets). These included both local and national sources of carbon offsets. The list included:

• Biodiesel substitution, used to power several local vehicle fleets
• Fuel switching, Princess Cruise Ships switching from diesel engines to electricity by plugging in while docked in Seattle's port
• Cement substitutes, using landfill-bound substitutes fly ash and steel slag
• Fluorchemical capture, Du Pont has a method for eliminating this gas when creating the refrigerant Freon

The biodiesel, fuel switching and cement substitutes were acquired locally accounting for 50,000 metric tons of offsets. The remaining 300,000 metric tons of offsets were from a Kentucky-based Du Pont plant.

Last year, a lawsuit (Okeson v. City of Seattle) was filed that eventually reached the Washington Supreme Court. Plaintiffs argued that SCL could not use ratepayer money to purchase carbon offsets. The Court agreed, finding that mitigating GHG emissions to combat global warming is a public benefit that should be borne by taxpayers, not ratepayers. The newly enacted legislation provides the legal framework that will now allow the carbon offset purchases to be legal.

Democratic Energy supports offsets that are done within the respective community or state's jurisdiction. Local carbon offsets, especially energy conservation and renewable energy, can provide ancillary economic benefits that should stay with the local community. We view long distance offsets being essentially the same as sending your money away to pay for other forms of imported energy supplies. The legislation would have been stronger had it contained a provision that the offsets had to be purchased within the state of Washington.

More