PC hearing begun on April 24 was continued to May 1. The May 1 hearing was almost exclusively
devoted to greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions or GHG from the steam generators that are required by our
project.
At present, SBCo does NOT have in place any rules regarding GHG. Furthermore, our project, by
definition, is subject to AB32.
AB32, the formal title of which is The California Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed during the
Schwarzenegger administration and it made California the undisputed world leader in the effort to
reduce man-made carbon emissions.
AB32, passed in 2006, did the following:

It quantified what had been California’s CO2 emission levels in 1990
 It projected what California’s CO2 emission levels would be in 2020, taking into account projected
growth of California’s economy including sectors such as oil and gas development and production. This
growth projection was termed “Business as Usual” or “BAU”.

It mandated a reduction of projected 2020 CO2 levels to 1990 levels
At the time AB32 was passed, it was projected that CO2 emissions would have to be reduced 29%
below BAU by the year 2020 in order for CO2 emissions in 2020 to be the same as they had been in
1990.
AB32 recognized that things would change between the time the law was passed in 2006 and 2020 and,
as a result of those changes, the amount of CO2 emission reductions might need to be greater (or lesser)
than 29% to ensure that 2020 emission levels will not exceed 1990 output. Therefore, the law requires
a re-look every five years to insure that California is on track to meet the goal that AB32
established. The first re-look was conducted in 2011.
Between the year 2006 and 2011, two things happened. One, the economic downturn that began in
2007 caused a reduction in the projected rate of growth in California. And, two, the actual measured
level of CO2 emissions in the state turned out to be significantly lower than what had been
projected. In the last four years for which data are available, CO2 levels in California have fallen almost
20%. This mirrors national numbers; however, there are differences between California specifically and
the US generally.
In 2011, CO2 levels in the US fell to 20 year lows. The precipitous drop in US emissions resulted from
market forces. Specifically, natural gas replaced coal as the fuel source at a massive number of
electricity generation facilities. This happened because natural gas has become so abundant in the US –
a few short years ago, we had a 20 year supply in reserve and now we have a 100 year supply. The new
abundance has resulted from technological innovation.
Admittedly, the decline in California CO2 emissions has not occurred for the same reasons as given
above. We know this because California had very few, if any, coal-fired facilities. However, something
must account for the declining CO2 levels. And the most logical answer is technological innovation,
albeit of a different kind that led to the large increase in natural gas supplies. It is most logical because
California has not reduced its daily consumption of oil, most of which is consumed in the transportation
sector (planes, trains, automobiles, trucks, boats and tractors). It is even possible that AB32 should be
credited with driving the innovation.
Regardless whether we can pinpoint with precision the cause for the lower CO2 levels or not, they,
coupled with less robust growth projections, caused a change in the amount of reduction below BAU
that must occur by 2020 to equal 1990 CO2 emission levels. At the time AB32 was passed, the required
reduction was 29%. The reduction now required by AB32 is 16% below BAU.
All of that to say this: SBCo Planning and Development, working closely with the SBCAPCD as well as
third party experts studied our project’s GHG emissions ad nauseum in the period between November
2009 and September 2012, the date the draft Environmental Impact Report for our project was
published. All during that time, P&D met regularly with the environmental community, principally
Environmental Defense Center (EDC), in order to collect their thoughts and opinions so that those views
could be properly analyzed and considered.
EDC advocated in favor of a “bright line” threshold below which all GHG would have to be
mitigated. Specifically, they wanted to use a threshold that had been adopted in the Bay Area and/or
the South Coast Area. The industrial mix in those areas make any comparison with this area a clear case
of apples-to-oranges. After all was said and done, P&D, with the support of APCD, determined that the
standards and mitigation methods specified in AB32 was appropriate for our project.
P&D determined that it had an appropriate, objective and fully codified standard in AB32 (one to which
our project is subject, by the express provisions of AB32). However, this is still SBCo. So, instead of
imposing a mitigation standard of BAU less 16% as AB32 would specify, they insisted upon the original
AB32 standard of BAU less 29%. In other words, they insisted upon mitigation almost 2x greater than
state law requires.
In addition, County Staff insisted upon a little bit extra. We agreed to contribute $500,000 over 10
years to help with energy efficiency energy upgrades for those that might not be able to afford to go
through the process of upgrading otherwise. All the all, P&D drove a hard bargain that ensured
maintenance of the county’s reputation as an environmental leader.
We applaud the County Staff for working so hard to craft something that could be measured against an
objective standard (AB32) while, at the same time, could also require something extra in an attempt to
recognize the concerns of the more ideologically pure in the community who seem to consider it heresy
for legal standards and economic realities to be considered along with environmental concerns.
So, after 3 ½ years of analysis by APCD and qualified outside experts, not to mention County Staff, what
happened? EDC came to the hearing and regurgitated yet again the same arguments they had been
making unsuccessfully to the experts for 3+ years. But this time, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd District Planning
Commissions responded in a manner akin dogs hearing Pavlov’s bell. They pulled from thin air a CO2
mitigation standard for which there was absolutely no evidence to support, BAU less 50%. It was a
textbook case of regulatory fiat and arbitrary rulemaking.
Interestingly, the same three Commissioners voted to approve our project otherwise, as presented. The
4th and 5th District Commissioners voted against the motion because they did not think re-circulation
was necessary. They were also opposed to the changed mitigation standard. Presumably, after recirculation has been completed, the same three commissioners will vote to certify the EIR, at which
time, we are told the EDC will appeal the decision to the Supervisors in an attempt to create further
delay and uncertainty.
Forgive me for this long diatribe. But we do not have a problem with anyone except three Supervisors
who have appointed Planning Commissioners who recently acted as if they take their orders from the
EDC. They chose to do what EDC wanted rather than follow the evidence, the precedents, the experts,
or the equities of the matter. They also ignored overwhelming public support for the project.