HomeMy WebLinkAboutH - GHG Analysis
Beech Logistics Center
GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
CITY OF FONTANA
PREPARED BY:
Haseeb Qureshi
hqureshi@urbanxroads.com
Alyssa Barnett
abarnett@urbanxroads.com
NOVEMBER 16, 2022
14726-02 GHG Report
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... I
APPENDICES II
LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................................ II
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. II
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................ III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 9
ES.1 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................... 9
ES.2 Project Requirements ................................................................................................................... 9
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 12
1.1 Site Location ................................................................................................................................ 12
1.2 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 12
2 CLIMATE CHANGE SETTING ...................................................................................................... 16
2.1 Introduction to Global Climate Change (GCC) ............................................................................ 16
2.2 Global Climate Change Defined .................................................................................................. 16
2.3 GHGs ........................................................................................................................................... 16
2.4 Global Warming Potential ........................................................................................................... 23
2.5 GHG Emissions Inventories ......................................................................................................... 23
2.6 Effects of Climate Change in California ....................................................................................... 24
2.7 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................................... 26
3 PROJECT GHG IMPACT ............................................................................................................. 49
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 49
3.2 Standards of Significance ............................................................................................................ 49
3.3 Models Employed To Analyze GHGs ........................................................................................... 50
3.4 Life-Cycle Analysis Not Required ................................................................................................ 51
3.5 Construction Emissions ............................................................................................................... 51
3.6 Operational Emissions ................................................................................................................ 53
3.7 GHG Emissions Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................ 56
4 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 64
5 CERTIFICATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 69
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
ii
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CALEEMOD PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
APPENDIX 3.2: CALEEMOD PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................................... 13
EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN .................................................................................................................... 14
EXHIBIT 2-A: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED GLOBAL WARMING IMPACT, 2070-2099 (AS COMPARED WITH
1961-1990) ................................................................................................................. 22
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS ................................................................. 9
TABLE 2-1: GHGS .............................................................................................................................. 17
TABLE 2-2: GWP AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIME OF SELECT GHGS ....................................................... 23
TABLE 2-3: TOP GHG PRODUCING COUNTRIES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION ...................................... 24
TABLE 3-1: CONSTRUCTION DURATION ............................................................................................. 52
TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................... 52
TABLE 3-3: AMORTIZED ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS ........................................................... 53
TABLE 3-4: PASSENGER CAR FLEET MIX ............................................................................................. 54
TABLE 3-5: TRUCK FLEET MIX ............................................................................................................ 55
TABLE 3-6: PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS ................................................................................................ 56
TABLE 3-7: 2017 SCOPING PLAN CONSISTENCY SUMMARY ................................................................ 57
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
% Percent
°C Degrees Celsius
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
(1) Reference
2017 Scoping Plan Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update
AB Assembly Bill
AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
AB 1493 Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
Annex I Industrialized Nations
APA Administrative Procedure Act
AQIA Beech Logistics Center Air Quality Impact
Analysis
BAU Business as Usual
C2F6 Hexafluoroethane
C2H6 Ethane
C2H2F4 Tetrafluroethane
C2H4F2 Ethylidene Fluoride
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CALGAPS California LBNL GHG Analysis of Policies Spreadsheet
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalSTA California State Transportation Agency
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
CARB California Air Resource Board
CBSC California Building Standards Commission
CEC California Energy Commission
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guidelines 2019 CEQA Statute and Guidelines
CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture
CF4 Tetrafluoromethane
CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
CFC-113 Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
iv
CH4 Methane
City City of Fontana
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CNRA 2009 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
Convention United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change
COP Conference of the Parties
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CTC California Transportation Commission
DOF Department of Finance
DWR Department of Water Resources
EMFAC Emission Factor Model
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EV Electric Vehicle
FED Functional Equivalent Document
GCC Global Climate Change
Gg Gigagram
GHGA Greenhouse Gas Analysis
GO-Biz Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development
gpd Gallons Per Day
gpm Gallons Per Minute
GWP Global Warming Potential
H2O Water
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
HDT Heavy-Duty Trucks
HFC-23 Fluoroform
HFC-134a 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane
HFC-152a 1,1-difluoroethane
HHDT Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks
hp Horsepower
IBANK California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRP Integrated Resource Planning
ISO Independent System Operator
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kWh Kilowatt Hours
lbs Pounds
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
v
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LCA Life-Cycle Analysis
LCD Liquid Crystal Display
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard or Executive Order S-01-07
LDA Light-Duty Auto
LDT1/LDT2 Light-Duty Trucks
LEV III Low-Emission Vehicle
LHDT1/LHDT2 Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks
LULUCF Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
MCA Municipal Code Amendment
MCY Motorcycles
MD Medium Duty
MDT Medium-Duty Trucks
MDV Medium-Duty Vehicles
MHDT Medium-Heavy-Duty Tucks
MMR Mandatory Reporting Rule
MMTCO2e Million Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
mpg Miles Per Gallon
MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations
MMTCO2e/yr Million Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Per Year
MT/yr Metric Tons Per Year
MTCO2e Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MTCO2e/yr Metric Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Per Year
MW Megawatts
MWh Megawatts Per Hour
MWELO California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water
Efficient
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NDC Nationally Determined Contributions
NF3 Nitrogen Trifluoride
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
Non-Annex I Developing Nations
OAL Office of Administrative Law
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PFC Perfluorocarbons
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
vi
ppb Parts Per Billion
ppm Parts Per Million
ppt Parts Per Trillion
Project Beech Logistics Center
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule
SB Senate Bill
SB 32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
SB 375 Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable
Communities Strategies
SB 1078 Renewable Portfolio Standards
SB 1368 Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance
Standards
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
Scoping Plan California Air Resources Board Climate Change Scoping Plan
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
sf Square Feet
SF6 Sulfur Hexaflouride
SGC Strategic Growth Council
SHGC Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
SLPS Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy
SP Service Population
SWCRB State Water Resources Control Board
TDM Transportation Demand Measures
Title 20 Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24 California Building Code
U.N. United Nations
U.S. United States
UNFCCC United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change
URBEMIS Urban Emissions
UTR Utility Tractors
VFP Vehicle Fueling Positions
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WCI Western Climate Initiative
WRI World Resources Institute
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
vii
ZE/NZE Zero and Near-Zero Emissions
ZEV Zero-Emissions Vehicles
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
viii
This page intentionally left blank
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The results of this Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis (GHGA) are summarized below
based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report consistent with Appendix G of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) (1). Table ES-1 shows
the findings of significance for potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts under CEQA.
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
GHG Impact #1: Would the Project generate
GHG emissions either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
4.7 Less Than Significant n/a
GHG Impact #2: Would the Project conflict
with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs?
4.7 Less Than Significant n/a
ES.2 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
The Project would be required to comply with regulations imposed by the State of California and
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) aimed at the reduction of air
pollutant emissions. Those that are directly and indirectly applicable to the Project and that
would assist in the reduction of GHG emissions include:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32) (2).
• Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (Senate Bill [SB]
375) (3).
• Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles (4).
• California Building Code (Title 24 California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Establishes energy
efficiency requirements for new construction (5).
• Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20 CCR). Establishes energy efficiency requirements
for appliances (6).
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10
percent (%) less by 2020 (7).
• Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy
generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions (8).
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
10
• Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) Required electric corporations to increase the amount of
energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20% by 2010 and 33% by 2020. SB
350 mandated a 50% RPS by 2030. SB 100 increased the RPS requirements to 60% by 2030 with
new interim targets of 44% by 2024 and 52% by 2027 (9).
• California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (SB 32). Requires the state to reduce statewide
GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in
Executive Order B-30-15 (10).
• SCAQMD Rule 2305. The SCAQMD adopted Rule 2305, the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule, on
May 7, 2021. Owners and operators associated with warehouses 100,000 square feet (sf) or larger
are required to directly reduce nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter emissions, or to
otherwise facilitate emission and exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities.
Promulgated regulations that would affect the Project’s emissions are accounted for in the
Project’s GHG calculations provided in this report. In particular, AB 1493, LCFS, and RPS, and
therefore are accounted for in the Project’s emission calculations.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
11
This page intentionally left blank
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
12
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the GHGA prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., for the
proposed Beech Logistics Center (Project). The purpose of this GHGA is to evaluate Project-
related construction and operational emissions and determine the level of GHG impacts as a
result of constructing and operating the Project.
1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed project is located north of Foothill Boulevard and west of Beech Avenue in the City
of Fontana as shown on Exhibit 1-A.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is to consist of a single 168,759-sf warehouse building. For the purposes of
this analysis, the Project has been evaluated assuming 42,190-sf of general light industrial use
(25% of building square footage) and 126,569-sf of warehouse use (75% of building square
footage). The Project is anticipated to be constructed in one phase by the year 2024. The
preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 1-B. This analysis is intended
to describe GHG impacts associated with the expected typical operational activities at the Project
site.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
13
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
14
EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
15
This page intentionally left blank
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
16
2 CLIMATE CHANGE SETTING
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (GCC)
GCC is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to
temperature, precipitation, and storms. The majority of scientists believe that the climate shift
taking place since the Industrial Revolution is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in
the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of GHGs
in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
and fluorinated gases. The majority of scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change
is the result of GHGs resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.
An individual project like the Project evaluated in this GHGA cannot generate enough GHG
emissions to affect a discernible change in global climate. However, the Project may participate
in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with the cumulative
increase of all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together constitute potential influences
on GCC. Because these changes may have serious environmental consequences, Section 4.0 will
evaluate the potential for the Project to have a significant effect upon the environment as a result
of its potential contribution to the greenhouse effect.
2.2 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE DEFINED
GCC refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to
temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by
naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2, N2O, CH4, hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These particular gases are
important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from
10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth’s atmosphere,
but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming the earth’s atmosphere. GCC can occur
naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages.
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into
the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic activity. Without the natural GHG effect, the
earth’s average temperature would be approximately 61 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than it is
currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth’s atmosphere is considered
to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth’s temperature.
2.3 GHGS
2.3.1 GHGS AND HEALTH EFFECTS
GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, creating a GHG effect that results in global warming and
climate change. Many gases demonstrate these properties and as discussed in Table 2-1. For the
purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O were evaluated (see Table 4-1 later in
this report) because these gases are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects.
Although there are other substances such as fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
17
fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources are not well-defined and do not contain
accepted emissions factors or methodology to accurately calculate these gases.
TABLE 2-1: GHGS
GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
Water Water is the most abundant,
important, and variable GHG in
the atmosphere. Water vapor is
not considered a pollutant; in
the atmosphere it maintains a
climate necessary for life.
Changes in its concentration are
primarily considered to be a
result of climate feedbacks
related to the warming of the
atmosphere rather than a direct
result of industrialization.
Climate feedback is an indirect,
or secondary, change, either
positive or negative, that occurs
within the climate system in
response to a forcing
mechanism. The feedback loop
in which water is involved is
critically important to projecting
future climate change.
As the temperature of the
atmosphere rises, more water is
evaporated from ground storage
(rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil).
Because the air is warmer, the
relative humidity can be higher
(in essence, the air is able to
‘hold’ more water when it is
warmer), leading to more water
vapor in the atmosphere. As a
GHG, the higher concentration of
water vapor is then able to
absorb more thermal indirect
energy radiated from the Earth,
thus further warming the
atmosphere. The warmer
atmosphere can then hold more
water vapor and so on and so
on. This is referred to as a
“positive feedback loop.” The
extent to which this positive
feedback loop would continue is
unknown as there are also
dynamics that hold the positive
The main source of
water vapor is
evaporation from
the oceans
(approximately
85%). Other sources
include evaporation
from other water
bodies, sublimation
(change from solid to
gas) from sea ice and
snow, and
transpiration from
plant leaves.
There are no known direct
health effects related to
water vapor at this time. It
should be noted however
that when some pollutants
react with water vapor, the
reaction forms a transport
mechanism for some of
these pollutants to enter the
human body through water
vapor.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
18
GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
feedback loop in check. As an
example, when water vapor
increases in the atmosphere,
more of it would eventually
condense into clouds, which are
more able to reflect incoming
solar radiation (thus allowing
less energy to reach the earth’s
surface and heat it up) (11).
CO2 CO2 is an odorless and colorless
GHG. Since the industrial
revolution began in the mid-
1700s, the sort of human activity
that increases GHG emissions
has increased dramatically in
scale and distribution. Data from
the past 50 years suggests a
corollary increase in levels and
concentrations. As an example,
prior to the industrial revolution,
CO2 concentrations were fairly
stable at 280 parts per million
(ppm). Today, they are around
370 ppm, an increase of more
than 30%. Left unchecked, the
concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere is projected to
increase to a minimum of 540
ppm by 2100 as a direct result of
anthropogenic sources (12).
CO2 is emitted from
natural and
manmade sources.
Natural sources
include: the
decomposition of
dead organic matter;
respiration of
bacteria, plants,
animals, and fungus;
evaporation from
oceans; and volcanic
outgassing.
Anthropogenic
sources include: the
burning of coal, oil,
natural gas, and
wood. CO2 is
naturally removed
from the air by
photosynthesis,
dissolution into
ocean water,
transfer to soils and
ice caps, and
chemical weathering
of carbonate rocks
(13).
Outdoor levels of CO2 are not
high enough to result in
negative health effects.
According to the National
Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH)
high concentrations of CO2
can result in health effects
such as: headaches,
dizziness, restlessness,
difficulty breathing,
sweating, increased heart
rate, increased cardiac
output, increased blood
pressure, coma, asphyxia,
and/or convulsions. It should
be noted that current
concentrations of CO2 in the
earth’s atmosphere are
estimated to be
approximately 370 ppm, the
actual reference exposure
level (level at which adverse
health effects typically
occur) is at exposure levels
of 5,000 ppm averaged over
10 hours in a 40-hour
workweek and short-term
reference exposure levels of
30,000 ppm averaged over a
15-minute period (14).
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
19
GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
CH4 CH4 is an extremely effective
absorber of radiation, although
its atmospheric concentration is
less than CO2 and its lifetime in
the atmosphere is brief (10-12
years), compared to other GHGs.
CH4 in the
atmosphere is
generated by many
different sources,
such as fossil fuel
production,
transport and use,
from the decay of
organic matter in
wetlands, and as a
byproduct of
digestion by
ruminant animals
such as cows.
Determining which
specific sources are
responsible for
variations in annual
increases of CH4 is
complex, but
scientists estimate
that fossil fuel
production and use
contributes roughly
30% of the total CH4
emissions. These
industrial sources of
CH4 are relatively
simple to pinpoint
and control using
current technology
(15).
CH4 is extremely reactive
with oxidizers, halogens, and
other halogen-containing
compounds. Exposure to
elevated levels of CH4 can
cause asphyxiation, loss of
consciousness, headache
and dizziness, nausea and
vomiting, weakness, loss of
coordination, and an
increased breathing rate.
N2O N2O, also known as laughing gas,
is a colorless GHG.
Concentrations of N2O also
began to rise at the beginning of
the industrial revolution. In
1998, the global concentration
was 314 parts per billion (ppb).
N2O is produced by
microbial processes
in soil and water,
including those
reactions which
occur in fertilizer
containing nitrogen.
In addition to
agricultural sources,
some industrial
processes (fossil
fuel-fired power
plants, nylon
production, nitric
acid production, and
vehicle emissions)
N2O can cause dizziness,
euphoria, and sometimes
slight hallucinations. In small
doses, it is considered
harmless. However, in some
cases, heavy and extended
use can cause Olney’s
Lesions (brain damage) (16).
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
20
GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
also contribute to its
atmospheric load. It
is used as an aerosol
spray propellant, i.e.,
in whipped cream
bottles. It is also
used in potato chip
bags to keep chips
fresh. It is used in
rocket engines and
in race cars. N2O can
be transported into
the stratosphere, be
deposited on the
earth’s surface, and
be converted to
other compounds by
chemical reaction
(16).
Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed
synthetically by replacing all
hydrogen atoms in CH4 or ethane
(C2H6) with chlorine and/or
fluorine atoms. CFCs are
nontoxic, nonflammable,
insoluble and chemically
unreactive in the troposphere
(the level of air at the earth’s
surface).
CFCs have no natural
source. They are
found in aerosol
sprays, blowing
agents for foams and
packing materials, as
solvents, and as
refrigerants. (17).
In confined indoor locations,
working with CFC-113 or
other CFCs is thought to
result in death by cardiac
arrhythmia (heart frequency
too high or too low) or
asphyxiation.
HFCs HFCs are synthetic, man-made
chemicals that are used as a
substitute for CFCs. Out of all the
GHGs, they are one of three
groups with the highest global
warming potential (GWP). The
HFCs with the largest measured
atmospheric abundances are (in
order), Fluoroform (HFC-23),
1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-
134a), and 1,1-difluoroethane
(HFC-152a). Prior to 1990, the
only significant emissions were
of HFC-23. HCF-134a emissions
are increasing due to its use as a
refrigerant.
HFCs are manmade
for applications such
as automobile air
conditioners and
refrigerants.
No health effects are known
to result from exposure to
HFCs.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
21
GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
PFCs PFCs have stable molecular
structures and do not break
down through chemical
processes in the lower
atmosphere. High-energy
ultraviolet rays, which occur
about 60 kilometers above
earth’s surface, are able to
destroy the compounds. Because
of this, PFCs have exceptionally
long lifetimes, between 10,000
and 50,000 years. Two common
PFCs are tetrafluoromethane
(CF4) and hexafluoroethane
(C2F6). The EPA estimates that
concentrations of CF4 in the
atmosphere are over 70 parts
per trillion (ppt).
The two main
sources of PFCs are
primary aluminum
production and
semiconductor
manufacture.
No health effects are known
to result from exposure to
PFCs.
SF6 SF6 is an inorganic, odorless,
colorless, nontoxic,
nonflammable gas. It also has
the highest GWP of any gas
evaluated (23,900) (18). The EPA
indicates that concentrations in
the 1990s were about 4 ppt.
SF6 is used for
insulation in electric
power transmission
and distribution
equipment, in the
magnesium industry,
in semiconductor
manufacturing, and
as a tracer gas for
leak detection.
In high concentrations in
confined areas, the gas
presents the hazard of
suffocation because it
displaces the oxygen needed
for breathing.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
22
GHGs Description Sources Health Effects
Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 is a colorless gas with a
distinctly moldy odor. The World
Resources Institute (WRI)
indicates that NF3 has a 100-year
GWP of 17,200 (19).
NF3 is used in
industrial processes
and is produced in
the manufacturing of
semiconductors,
Liquid Crystal Display
(LCD) panels, types
of solar panels, and
chemical lasers.
Long-term or repeated
exposure may affect the liver
and kidneys and may cause
fluorosis (20).
The potential health effects related directly to the emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O as they relate
to development projects such as the Project are still being debated in the scientific community.
Their cumulative effects to GCC have the potential to cause adverse effects to human health.
Increases in Earth’s ambient temperatures would result in more intense heat waves, causing
more heat-related deaths. Scientists also purport those higher ambient temperatures would
increase disease survival rates and result in more widespread disease. Climate change would
likely cause shifts in weather patterns, potentially resulting in devastating droughts and food
shortages in some areas (21). Exhibit 2-A presents the potential impacts of global warming (22).
EXHIBIT 2-A: SUMMARY OF PROJECTED GLOBAL WARMING IMPACT, 2070-2099 (AS COMPARED WITH 1961-1990)
Source: Barbara H. Allen-Diaz. “Climate change affects us all.” University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2009.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
23
2.4 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
GHGs have varying GWP values. GWP of a GHG indicates the amount of warming a gas cause over
a given period of time and represents the potential of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. CO2
is utilized as the reference gas for GWP, and thus has a GWP of 1. CO2 equivalent (CO2e) is a term
used for describing the difference GHGs in a common unit. CO2e signifies the amount of CO2
which would have the equivalent GWP.
The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized at Table 2-2. As shown in
the table below, GWP for the 2nd Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC)’s scientific and socio-economic assessment on climate change, range from 1 for
CO2 to 23,900 for SF6 and GWP for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report range from 1 for CO2 to
23,500 for SF6 (23).
TABLE 2-2: GWP AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIME OF SELECT GHGS
Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
GWP (100-year time horizon)
2nd Assessment Report 5th Assessment Report
CO2 See* 1 1
CH4 12 .4 21 28
N2O 121 310 265
HFC-23 222 11,700 12,400
HFC-134a 13.4 1,300 1,300
HFC-152a 1.5 140 138
SF6 3,200 23,900 23,500
*As per Appendix 8.A. of IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, no single lifetime can be given.
Source: Table 2.14 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007
2.5 GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORIES
2.5.1 GLOBAL
Worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions are tracked by the IPCC for industrialized nations
(referred to as Annex I) and developing nations (referred to as Non-Annex I). Human GHG
emissions data for Annex I nations are available through 2018. Based on the latest available data,
the sum of these emissions totaled approximately 28,768,440 gigagram (Gg) CO2e1 (24) (25) as
summarized on Table 2-3.
1 The global emissions are the sum of Annex I and non-Annex I countries, without counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).
For countries without 2018 data, the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) data for the most recent year
were used U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Annex I Parties – GHG total without LULUCF,” The most recent GHG emissions
for China and India are from 2014 and 2010, respectively.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
24
2.5.2 UNITED STATES
As noted in Table 2-3, the United States, as a single country, was the number two producer of
GHG emissions in 2018.
TABLE 2-3: TOP GHG PRODUCING COUNTRIES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION 2
Emitting Countries GHG Emissions (Gg CO2e)
China 12,300,200
United States 6,676,650
European Union (28-member countries) 4,232,274
Russian Federation 2,220,123
India 2,100,850
Japan 1,238,343
Total 28,768,440
2.5.3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
California has significantly slowed the rate of growth of GHG emissions due to the
implementation of energy efficiency programs as well as adoption of strict emission controls but
is still a substantial contributor to the United States (U.S.) emissions inventory total (26). The
California Air Resource Board (CARB) compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based
upon the 2021 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-
2019 GHG emissions period, California emitted an average 418.2 million metric tons of CO2e per
year (MMTCO2e/yr) or 418,200 Gg CO2e (6.26% of the total United States GHG emissions) (27).
2.6 EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA
2.6.1 PUBLIC HEALTH
Higher temperatures may increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive
to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation could
increase from 25 to 35% under the lower warming range to 75 to 85% under the medium
warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some
scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be
further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel
long distances, depending on wind conditions. Based on Our Changing Climate Assessing the
Risks to California by the California Climate Change Center, large wildfires could become up to
55% more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced (28).
In addition, under the higher warming range scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per
year with temperatures above 90F in Los Angeles and 95F in Sacramento by 2100. This is a
2 Used http://unfccc.int data for Annex I countries. Consulted the CAIT Climate Data Explorer in https://www.climatewatchdata.org site to
reference Non-Annex I countries of China and India.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
25
significant increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if
temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures could
increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and
respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.
2.6.2 WATER RESOURCES
A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts captures and transports water throughout
the state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system
relies on Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months.
Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely
reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.
If temperatures continue to increase, more precipitation could fall as rain instead of snow, and
the snow that does fall could melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as
much as 70 to 90%. Under the lower warming range scenario, snowpack losses could be only half
as large as those possible if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much
snowpack could be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for
which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of
snowpack could pose challenges to water managers and hamper hydropower generation. It could
also adversely affect winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the ski season at lower
elevations could be reduced by as much as a month. If temperatures reach the higher warming
range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing and
snowboarding.
The State’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater could
degrade California’s estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused
by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern
edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta – a major fresh water supply.
2.6.3 AGRICULTURE
Increased temperatures could cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the
quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. First, California farmers could possibly
lose as much as 25% of the water supply needed. Although higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant
production and increase plant water-use efficiency, California’s farmers could face greater water
demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise. Crop growth and
development could change, as could the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks.
Rising temperatures could aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to
disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.
Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a
threshold. However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops,
so rising temperatures could worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s
agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits, and nuts.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
26
In addition, continued GCC could shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter
competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion could occur in many species while
range contractions may be less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations
already established. Should range contractions occur, new or different weed species could fill the
emerging gaps. Continued GCC could alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen
pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.
2.6.4 FORESTS AND LANDSCAPES
GCC has the potential to intensify the current threat to forests and landscapes by increasing the
risk of wildfire and altering the distribution and character of natural vegetation. If temperatures
rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as
much as 55%, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower
warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including
precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks would
not be uniform throughout the state. In contrast, wildfires in northern California could increase
by up to 90% due to decreased precipitation.
Moreover, continued GCC has the potential to alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity
within the state. For example, alpine and subalpine ecosystems could decline by as much as 60
to 80% by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the
state’s forests has the potential to decrease as a result of GCC.
2.6.5 RISING SEA LEVELS
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures could
increasingly threaten the state’s coastal regions. Under the higher warming range scenario, sea
level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate
low-lying coastal areas with saltwater, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland
water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. Under the lower warming range
scenario, sea level could rise 12-14 inches.
2.7 REGULATORY SETTING
2.7.1 INTERNATIONAL
Climate change is a global issue involving GHG emissions from all around the world; therefore,
countries such as the ones discussed below have made an effort to reduce GHGs.
IPCC
In 1988, the United Nations (U.N.) and the World Meteorological Organization established the IPCC
to assess the scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the
scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for
adaptation and mitigation.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
27
UNITED NATION’S FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC)
On March 21, 1994, the U.S. joined a number of countries around the world in signing the
Convention. Under the UNFCCC, governments gather and share information on GHG emissions,
national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and
adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to
developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate
change.
INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE TREATIES
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the UNFCCC. The major feature of the
Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European
community for reducing GHG emissions at an average of 5% against 1990 levels over the five-
year period 2008–2012. The Convention (as discussed above) encouraged industrialized
countries to stabilize emissions; however, the Protocol commits them to do so. Developed
countries have contributed more emissions over the last 150 years; therefore, the Protocol places
a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated
responsibilities.”
In 2001, President George W. Bush indicated that he would not submit the treaty to the U.S.
Senate for ratification, which effectively ended American involvement in the Kyoto Protocol. In
December 2009, international leaders met in Copenhagen to address the future of international
climate change commitments post-Kyoto. No binding agreement was reached in Copenhagen;
however, the UN Climate Change Committee identified the long-term goal of limiting the
maximum global average temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (°C) above pre-
industrial levels, subject to a review in 2015. The Committee held additional meetings in Durban,
South Africa in November 2011; Doha, Qatar in November 2012; and Warsaw, Poland in
November 2013. The meetings gradually gained consensus among participants on individual
climate change issues.
On September 23, 2014, more than 100 Heads of State and Government and leaders from the
private sector and civil society met at the Climate Summit in New York hosted by the U.N. At the
Summit, heads of government, business and civil society announced actions in areas that would
have the greatest impact on reducing emissions, including climate finance, energy, transport,
industry, agriculture, cities, forests, and building resilience.
Parties to the UNFCCC reached a landmark agreement on December 12, 2015, in Paris, charting
a fundamentally new course in the two-decade-old global climate effort. Culminating a four-year
negotiating round, the new treaty ends the strict differentiation between developed and
developing countries that characterized earlier efforts, replacing it with a common framework
that commits all countries to put forward their best efforts and to strengthen them in the years
ahead. This includes, for the first time, requirements that all parties report regularly on their
emissions and implementation efforts and undergo international review.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
28
The agreement and a companion decision by parties were the key outcomes of the conference,
known as the 21st session of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) 21. Together, the Paris
Agreement and the accompanying COP decision:
• Reaffirm the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2°C, while urging
efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees;
• Establish binding commitments by all parties to make “nationally determined
contributions” (NDCs), and to pursue domestic measures aimed at achieving them;
• Commit all countries to report regularly on their emissions and “progress made in
implementing and achieving” their NDCs, and to undergo international review;
• Commit all countries to submit new NDCs every five years, with the clear expectation that
they would “represent a progression” beyond previous ones;
• Reaffirm the binding obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC to support the
efforts of developing countries, while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions
by developing countries too;
• Extend the current goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in support by 2020 through 2025,
with a new, higher goal to be set for the period after 2025;
• Extend a mechanism to address “loss and damage” resulting from climate change, which
explicitly would not “involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation;”
• Require parties engaging in international emissions trading to avoid “double counting;” and
• Call for a new mechanism, similar to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto
Protocol, enabling emission reductions in one country to be counted toward another
country’s NDC (C2ES 2015a) (29).
Following President Biden’s day one executive order, the United States officially rejoined the
landmark Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021, positioning the country to once again be part
of the global climate solution. Meanwhile, city, state, business, and civic leaders across the
country and around the world have been ramping up efforts to drive the clean energy advances
needed to meet the goals of the agreement and put the brakes on dangerous climate change.
2.7.2 NATIONAL
Prior to the last decade, there have been no concrete federal regulations of GHGs or major
planning for climate change adaptation. The following are actions regarding the federal
government, GHGs, and fuel efficiency.
GHG ENDANGERMENT
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 549 U.S. 497 (2007), decided on April 2,
2007, the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) found that four GHGs, including CO2,
are air pollutants subject to regulation under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The
Supreme Court held that the EPA Administrator must determine whether emissions of GHGs from
new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
29
decision. On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding
GHGs under section 202(a) of the CAA:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected
concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHGs— CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—in the
atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
• Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these
well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to
the GHG pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.
These findings do not impose requirements on industry or other entities. However, this was a
prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles, as discussed in the section
“Clean Vehicles” below. After a lengthy legal challenge, the Supreme Court declined to review an
Appeals Court ruling that upheld the EPA Administrator’s findings (30).
CLEAN VEHICLES
Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increase the fuel
economy of cars and light duty trucks. The law has become more stringent over time. On May
19, 2009, President Obama put in motion a new national policy to increase fuel economy for all
new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. On April 1, 2010, the EPA, and the Department of
Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a joint final
rule establishing a national program that would reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel
economy for new cars and trucks sold in the U.S.
The first phase of the national program applies to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-
duty (MD) passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They require these
vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile,
equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if the automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level
solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards would cut CO2 emissions
by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the
vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012–2016). The EPA and the NHTSA issued final
rules on a second-phase joint rulemaking establishing national standards for light-duty vehicles
for model years 2017 through 2025 in August 2012. The new standards for model years 2017
through 2025 apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and MD passenger vehicles. The final
standards are projected to result in an average industry fleetwide level of 163 grams/mile of CO2
in model year 2025, which is equivalent to 54.5 mpg if achieved exclusively through fuel economy
improvements.
The EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation issued final rules for the first national
standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks (HDT) and
buses on September 15, 2011, effective November 14, 2011. For combination tractors, the
agencies are proposing engine and vehicle standards that begin in the 2014 model year and
achieve up to a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by the 2018 model year.
For HDT and vans, the agencies are proposing separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which
phase in starting in the 2014 model year and achieve up to a 10% reduction for gasoline vehicles
and a 15% reduction for diesel vehicles by the 2018 model year (12 and 17% respectively if
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
30
accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle
standards would achieve up to a 10% reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from the
2014 to 2018 model years.
On April 2, 2018, the EPA signed the Mid-term Evaluation Final Determination, which declared
that the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards are not appropriate and should be revised (31). This Final
Determination serves to initiate a notice to further consider appropriate standards for MY 2022-
2025 light-duty vehicles. On August 2, 2018, the NHTSA in conjunction with the EPA, released a
notice of proposed rulemaking, the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model
Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule). The SAFE Vehicles Rule
was proposed to amend existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and tailpipe CO2
standards for passenger cars and light trucks and to establish new standards covering model
years 2021 through 2026. As of March 31, 2020, the NHTSA and EPA finalized the SAFE Vehicle
Rule which increased stringency of CAFE and CO2 emissions standards by 1.5% each year through
model year 2026 (32). On December 21, 2021, after reviewing all the public comments submitted
on NHTSA’s April 2021 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NHTSA finalizes the CAFE Preemption
rulemaking to withdraw its portions of the so-called SAFE I Rule. The final rule concludes that the
SAFE I Rule overstepped the agency’s legal authority and established overly broad prohibitions
that did not account for a variety of important state and local interests. The final rule ensures
that the SAFE I Rule will no longer form an improper barrier to states exploring creative solutions
to address their local communities’ environmental and public health challenges (33).
On March 31, 2022, NHTSA finalized CAFE standards for MY 2024-2026. The standards for
passenger cars and light trucks for MYs 2024-2025 were increased at a rate of 8% per year and
then increased at a rate of 10% per year for MY 2026 vehicles. NHTSA currently projects that the
revised standards would require an industry fleet-wide average of roughly 49 mpg in MY 2026
and would reduce average fuel outlays over the lifetimes of affected vehicles that provide
consumers hundreds of dollars in net savings. These standards are directly responsive to the
agency’s statutory mandate to improve energy conservation and reduce the nation’s energy
dependence on foreign sources (34).
MANDATORY REPORTING OF GHGS
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, passed in December 2007, requires the
establishment of mandatory GHG reporting requirements. On September 22, 2009, the EPA
issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of GHGs Rule, which became effective January 1, 2010. The
rule requires reporting of GHG emissions from large sources and suppliers in the U.S. and is
intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions. Under
the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and
facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) or more of GHG emissions are required
to submit annual reports to the EPA.
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
The EPA issued a final rule on May 13, 2010, that establishes thresholds for GHGs that define
when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
31
Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule
“tailors” the requirements of these CAA permitting programs to limit which facilities would be
required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permits. In the preamble to
the revisions to the Federal Code of Regulations, the EPA states:
“This rulemaking is necessary because without it the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V requirements would apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the
100 or 250 tons per year levels provided under the CAA, greatly increasing the
number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming
the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impairing the functioning of
the programs. EPA is relieving these resource burdens by phasing in the
applicability of these programs to GHG sources, starting with the largest GHG
emitters. This rule establishes two initial steps of the phase-in. The rule also
commits the agency to take certain actions on future steps addressing smaller
sources but excludes certain smaller sources from Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V permitting for GHG emissions until at least April 30,
2016.”
The EPA estimates that facilities responsible for nearly 70% of the national GHG emissions from
stationary sources would be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the
nation’s largest GHG emitters—power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR GHG EMISSIONS FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES: ELECTRIC UTILITY GENERATING
UNITS
As required by a settlement agreement, the EPA proposed new performance standards for
emissions of CO2 for new, affected, fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units on March 27,
2012. New sources greater than 25 megawatts (MW) would be required to meet an output-
based standard of 1,000 pounds (lbs) of CO2 per MW-hour (MWh), based on the performance of
widely used natural gas combined cycle technology. It should be noted that on February 9, 2016,
the Supreme Court issued a stay of this regulation pending litigation. Additionally, the current
EPA Administrator has also signed a measure to repeal the Clean Power Plan, including the CO2
standards. The Clean Power Plan was officially repealed on June 19, 2019, when the EPA issued
the final Affordable Clean Energy rule (ACE). Under ACE, new state-specific emission guidelines
were established that provided existing coal-fired electric utility generating units with achievable
standards.
On January 19, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA’s ACE Rule for GHG
emissions from power plants rested on an erroneous interpretation of the CAA that barred EPA
from considering measures beyond those that apply at and to an individual source. The court
therefore vacated and remanded the ACE Rule and adopted a replacement rule which regulates
CO2 emissions from existing power plants, potentially again considering generation shifting and
other measures to more aggressively target power sector emissions.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
32
CAP-AND-TRADE
Cap-and-trade refers to a policy tool where emissions are limited to a certain amount and can be
traded or provides flexibility on how the emitter can comply. Successful examples in the U.S.
include the Acid Rain Program and the N2O Budget Trading Program and Clean Air Interstate Rule
in the northeast. There is no federal GHG cap-and-trade program currently; however, some states
have joined to create initiatives to provide a mechanism for cap-and-trade.
The Regional GHG Initiative is an effort to reduce GHGs among the states of Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and
Vermont. Each state caps CO2 emissions from power plants, auctions CO2 emission allowances,
and invests the proceeds in strategic energy programs that further reduce emissions, save
consumers money, create jobs, and build a clean energy economy. The Initiative began in 2008
and in 2020 has retained all participating states.
The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) partner jurisdictions have developed a comprehensive
initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. The partners were
originally California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. However, Manitoba and
Ontario are not currently participating. California linked with Quebec’s cap-and-trade system
January 1, 2014, and joint offset auctions took place in 2015. While the WCI has yet to publish
whether it has successfully reached the 2020 emissions goal initiative set in 2007, SB 32 requires
that California, a major partner in the WCI, adopt the goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions
to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030.
SMARTWAY PROGRAM
The SmartWay Program is a public‐private initiative between the EPA, large and small trucking
companies, rail carriers, logistics companies, commercial manufacturers, retailers, and other
federal and state agencies. Its purpose is to improve fuel efficiency and the environmental
performance (reduction of both GHG emissions and air pollution) of the goods movement supply
chains. SmartWay is comprised of four components (35):
1. SmartWay Transport Partnership: A partnership in which freight carriers and shippers commit to
benchmark operations, track fuel consumption, and improve performance annually.
2. SmartWay Technology Program: A testing, verification, and designation program to help freight
companies identify equipment, technologies, and strategies that save fuel and lower emissions.
3. SmartWay Vehicles: A program that ranks light‐duty cars and small trucks and identifies superior
environmental performers with the SmartWay logo.
4. SmartWay International Interests: Guidance and resources for countries seeking to develop
freight sustainability programs modeled after SmartWay.
SmartWay effectively refers to requirements geared towards reducing fuel consumption. Most
large trucking fleets driving newer vehicles are compliant with SmartWay design requirements.
Moreover, over time, all HDTs would have to comply with the CARB GHG Regulation that is
designed with the SmartWay Program in mind, to reduce GHG emissions by making them more
fuel‐efficient. For instance, in 2015, 53 foot or longer dry vans or refrigerated trailers equipped
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
33
with a combination of SmartWay-verified low-rolling resistance tires and SmartWay-verified
aerodynamic devices would obtain a total of 10% or more fuel savings over traditional trailers.
Through the SmartWay Technology Program, the EPA has evaluated the fuel saving benefits of
various devices through grants, cooperative agreements, emissions, and fuel economy testing,
demonstration projects and technical literature review. As a result, the EPA has determined the
following types of technologies provide fuel saving and/or emission reducing benefits when used
properly in their designed applications, and has verified certain products:
• Idle reduction technologies – less idling of the engine when it is not needed would reduce
fuel consumption.
• Aerodynamic technologies minimize drag and improve airflow over the entire tractor‐trailer
vehicle. Aerodynamic technologies include gap fairings that reduce turbulence between the
tractor and trailer, side skirts that minimize wind under the trailer, and rear fairings that
reduce turbulence and pressure drop at the rear of the trailer.
• Low rolling resistance tires can roll longer without slowing down, thereby reducing the
amount of fuel used. Rolling resistance (or rolling friction or rolling drag) is the force
resisting the motion when a tire rolls on a surface. The wheel would eventually slow down
because of this resistance.
• Retrofit technologies include things such as diesel particulate filters, emissions upgrades (to
a higher tier), etc., which would reduce emissions.
• Federal excise tax exemptions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13990
On January 20, 2021, Federal agencies were directed to immediately review, and take action to
address, Federal regulations promulgated and other actions taken during the last 4 years that
conflict with national objectives to improve public health and the environment; ensure access to
clean air and water; limit exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; hold polluters
accountable, including those who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income
communities; reduce GHG emissions; bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change; restore
and expand our national treasures and monuments; and prioritize both environmental justice
and employment.
2.7.3 CALIFORNIA
2.7.3.1 LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS TO REDUCE GHGS
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive
program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation such as the landmark AB 32
was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions. Other legislation such as Title 24 and Title 20
energy standards were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water
conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the
legislation.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
34
SB 1368
California SB 1368 adds Sections 8340 and 8341 to the Public Utilities Code (effective January 1,
2007) with the intent “to prevent long-term investments in power plants with GHG emissions in
excess of those produced by a combined-cycle natural gas power plant” with the aim of “reducing
emissions of GHGs from the state’s electricity consumption, not just the state’s electricity
production.” SB 1368 provides a mechanism for reducing the GHG emissions of electricity
providers, both in-state and out-of-state, thereby assisting CARB in meeting its mandate under
AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
AB 32
The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, which required that GHGs emitted in California
be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (this goal has been met3). GHGs as defined under AB
32 include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, NF3,
has also been added to the list of GHGs. CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and
regulating sources of GHGs. Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted regulations to achieve the
maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 states the
following:
“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health,
natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse
impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a
reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack,
a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses
and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and
an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human
health-related problems.”
SB 375
On September 30, 2008, SB 375 was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. According to SB 375, the
transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits over 40% of the total
GHG emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy,
California would not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: (1) requires
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to include sustainable community strategies in their
regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and
housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.
SB 375 requires MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) within the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) that guides growth while taking into account the transportation,
housing, environmental, and economic needs of the region. SB 375 uses CEQA streamlining as an
incentive to encourage residential projects, which help achieve AB 32 goals to reduce GHG
3 Based upon the 2019 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-2017 GHG emissions period, California
emitted an average 424.1 MMTCO2e (29). This is less than the 2020 emissions target of 431 MMTCO2e.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
35
emissions. Although SB 375 does not prevent CARB from adopting additional regulations, such
actions are not anticipated in the foreseeable future.
Concerning CEQA, SB 375, as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21159.28, states that
CEQA findings for certain projects are not required to reference, describe, or discuss (1) growth
inducing impacts, or (2) any project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck
trips generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network, if the
project:
1. Is in an area with an approved sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning
strategy that CARB accepts as achieving the GHG emission reduction targets.
2. Is consistent with that strategy (in designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies).
3. Incorporates the MMs required by an applicable prior environmental document.
AB 1493 - Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley bill was incorporated into Amendments
to the Low-Emission Vehicle Program (LEV III) or the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program. The
ACC program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single
coordinated package of requirements for MY 2017 through 2025. The regulation will reduce
GHGs from new cars by 34% from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will clean up gasoline and
diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full
battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid EV and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The package
will also ensure adequate fueling infrastructure is available for the increasing numbers of
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California. On March 9,
EPA reinstated California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to implement its own GHG emission
standards for cars and light trucks, which other states can also adopt and enforce. With this
authority restored, EPA will continue partnering with states to advance the next generation of
clean vehicle technologies.
CLEAN ENERGY AND POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT OF 2015 (SB 350)
In October 2015, the legislature approved, and Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 350, which
reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change.
Key provisions include an increase in the RPS, higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings,
initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for EV charging
stations. Provisions for a 50% reduction in the use of petroleum statewide were removed from
the Bill because of opposition and concern that it would prevent the Bill’s passage. Specifically,
SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33% to
50% by 2030, with interim targets of 40% by 2024, and 25% by 2027.
• Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target would be achieved
through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the California Energy Commission
(CEC), and local publicly owned utilities.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
36
• Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrify
transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which would facilitate
the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.
SB 32
On September 8, 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and its companion bill, AB 197. SB 32
requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a
reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds
upon the AB 32 goal and provides an intermediate goal to achieving S-3-05, which sets a
statewide GHG reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 197 creates a legislative
committee to oversee regulators to ensure that CARB not only responds to the Governor, but
also the Legislature (10).
CARB SCOPING PLAN UPDATE
In November 2017, CARB released the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan), which
identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. The 2017 Scoping Plan reflects the 2030
target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB
32. Key programs that the proposed Second Update builds upon include the Cap-and-Trade
Regulation, the LCFS, and much cleaner cars, trucks, and freight movement, utilizing cleaner,
renewable energy, and strategies to reduce CH4 emissions from agricultural and other wastes.
The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030,
which corresponds to a 40% decrease in 1990 levels by 2030 (36).
California’s climate strategy would require contributions from all sectors of the economy,
including the land base, and would include enhanced focus on zero and near-zero emission
(ZE/NZE) vehicle technologies; continued investment in renewables, including solar roofs, wind,
and other distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation
and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate
pollutants (CH4, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land
use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities and conservation of agricultural
and other lands. Requirements for direct GHG reductions at refineries would further support air
quality co-benefits in neighborhoods, including in disadvantaged communities historically
located adjacent to these large stationary sources, as well as efforts with California’s local air
pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts) to tighten emission limits on
a broad spectrum of industrial sources. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework
include:
• Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include
increasing zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) buses and trucks.
• LCFS, with an increased stringency (18% by 2030).
• Implementing SB 350, which expands the RPS to 50% RPS and doubles energy efficiency
savings by 2030.
• California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes
near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
37
• Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS), which focuses on
reducing CH4 and HCF emissions by 40% and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50%
by year 2030.
• Continued implementation of SB 375.
• Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps.
• 20% reduction in GHG emissions from refineries by 2030.
• Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base
as a net carbon sink.
Note, however, that the 2017 Scoping Plan acknowledges that:
“[a]chieving net zero increases in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to
GHG impacts, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project, however, and
the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net zero does not imply
the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant
environmental impact of climate change under CEQA.”
In addition to the statewide strategies listed above, the 2017 Scoping Plan also identifies local
governments as essential partners in achieving the State’s long-term GHG reduction goals and
identifies local actions to reduce GHG emissions. As part of the recommended actions, CARB
recommends that local governments achieve a community-wide goal to achieve emissions of no
more than 6 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) or less per capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e or less per
capita by 2050. For CEQA projects, CARB states that lead agencies may develop evidence-based
bright-line numeric thresholds—consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and the State’s long-term
GHG goals—and projects with emissions over that amount may be required to incorporate on-
site design features and MMs that avoid or minimize project emissions to the degree feasible; or
a performance-based metric using a CAP or other plan to reduce GHG emissions is appropriate.
According to research conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and
supported by CARB, California, under its existing and proposed GHG reduction policies, could
achieve the 2030 goals under SB 32. The research utilized a new, validated model known as the
California LBNL GHG Analysis of Policies Spreadsheet (CALGAPS), which simulates GHG and
criteria pollutant emissions in California from 2010 to 2050 in accordance to existing and future
GHG-reducing policies. The CALGAPS model showed that by 2030, emissions could range from
211 to 428 MTCO2e per year (MTCO2e/yr), indicating that “even if all modeled policies are not
implemented, reductions could be sufficient to reduce emissions 40% below the 1990 level [of
SB 32].” CALGAPS analyzed emissions through 2050 even though it did not generally account for
policies that might be put in place after 2030. Although the research indicated that the emissions
would not meet the State’s 80% reduction goal by 2050, various combinations of policies could
allow California’s cumulative emissions to remain very low through 2050 (37) (38).
CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM
The 2017 Scoping Plan identifies a Cap-and-Trade Program as one of the key strategies for
California to reduce GHG emissions. According to CARB, a cap-and-trade program would help put
California on the path to meet its goal of achieving a 40% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
38
levels by 2030. Under cap-and-trade, an overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors is
established, and facilities subject to the cap would be able to trade permits to emit GHGs within
the overall limit.
CARB adopted a California Cap-and-Trade Program pursuant to its authority under AB 32. The
Cap-and-Trade Program is designed to reduce GHG emissions from regulated entities by more
than 16% between 2013 and 2020, and by an additional 40% by 2030. The statewide cap for GHG
emissions from the capped sectors (e.g., electricity generation, petroleum refining, and cement
production) commenced in 2013 and would decline over time, achieving GHG emission
reductions throughout the program’s duration.
Covered entities that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e/yr must comply with the Cap-and-Trade
Program. Triggering of the 25,000 MTCO2e/yr “inclusion threshold” is measured against a subset
of emissions reported and verified under the California Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting
of GHG Emissions (Mandatory Reporting Rule or “MRR”).
Under the Cap-and-Trade Program, CARB issues allowances equal to the total amount of
allowable emissions over a given compliance period and distributes these to regulated entities.
Covered entities are allocated free allowances in whole or part (if eligible), and may buy
allowances at auction, purchase allowances from others, or purchase offset credits. Each covered
entity with a compliance obligation is required to surrender “compliance instruments” for each
MTCO2e of GHG they emit. There also are requirements to surrender compliance instruments
covering 30% of the prior year’s compliance obligation by November of each year (39).
The Cap-and-Trade Program provides a firm cap, which provides the highest certainty of
achieving the 2030 target. An inherent feature of the Cap-and-Trade program is that it does not
guarantee GHG emissions reductions in any discrete location or by any particular source. Rather,
GHG emissions reductions are only guaranteed on an accumulative basis. As summarized by
CARB in the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan:
“The Cap-and-Trade Regulation gives companies the flexibility to trade allowances
with others or take steps to cost-effectively reduce emissions at their own facilities.
Companies that emit more have to turn in more allowances or other compliance
instruments. Companies that can cut their GHG emissions have to turn in fewer
allowances. But as the cap declines, aggregate emissions must be reduced. In other
words, a covered entity theoretically could increase its GHG emissions every year
and still comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program if there is a reduction in GHG
emissions from other covered entities. Such a focus on aggregate GHG emissions
is considered appropriate because climate change is a global phenomenon, and
the effects of GHG emissions are considered cumulative.” (40)
The Cap-and-Trade Program covers approximately 80% of California’s GHG emissions (36). The
Cap-and-Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumed in
California, whether generated in-state or imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with
CEQA projects’ electricity usage are covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program. The Cap-and-Trade
Program also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
39
fuel providers) to address emissions from such fuels and from combustion of other fossil fuels
not directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first compliance period. The Cap-and-Trade
Program covers the GHG emissions associated with the combustion of transportation fuels in
California, whether refined in-state or imported.
2.7.3.2 EXECUTIVE ORDERS RELATED TO GHG EMISSIONS
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs through the use of
Executive Orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the state and guide the actions
of state agencies.
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive
Order S-3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels.
The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that
would stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this
is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private
sector.
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-01-07 (LCFS)
Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-01-07 on January 18, 2007. The order
mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s
transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020. CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.
After a series of legal changes, in order to address the Court ruling, CARB was required to bring a
new LCFS regulation to the Board for consideration in February 2015. The proposed LCFS
regulation was required to contain revisions to the 2010 LCFS as well as new provisions designed
to foster investments in the production of the low-carbon intensity fuels, offer additional
flexibility to regulated parties, update critical technical information, simplify and streamline
program operations, and enhance enforcement. On November 16, 2015, the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) approved the Final Rulemaking Package. The new LCFS regulation
became effective on January 1, 2016.
In 2018, CARB approved amendments to the regulation, which included strengthening the carbon
intensity benchmarks through 2030 in compliance with the SB 32 GHG emissions reduction target
for 2030. The amendments included crediting opportunities to promote zero emission vehicle
adoption, alternative jet fuel, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced technologies to
achieve deep decarbonization in the transportation sector (41).
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-13-08
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
40
Executive Order S-13-08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is
expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures,
thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its
population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the Order, the 2009
California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CNRA 2009) was adopted, which is the “…first statewide,
multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the
United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying, and
exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.
EXECUTIVE ORDER B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown issued an executive order to establish a California GHG
reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s executive order aligned
California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the
U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris late 2015. The Order sets a new interim statewide GHG
emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 in order
to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050
and directs CARB to update the 2017 Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of
MMTCO2e. The Order also requires the state’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three
years, and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions.
As with Executive Order S-3-05, this Order is not legally enforceable as to local governments and
the private sector. Legislation that would update AB 32 to make post 2020 targets and
requirements a mandate is in process in the State Legislature.
EXECUTIVE ORDER B-55-18 AND SB 100
SB 100 and Executive Order B-55-18 were signed by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018.
Under the existing RPS, 25% of retail sales of electricity are required to be from renewable
sources by December 31, 2016, 33% by December 31, 2020, 40% by December 31, 2024, 45% by
December 31, 2027, and 50% by December 31, 2030. SB 100 raises California’s RPS requirement
to 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60% target by
December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric
utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy
resources so that the total kilowatt hours (kWh) of those products sold to their retail end-use
customers achieve 44% of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and
60% by December 31, 2030. In addition to targets under AB 32 and SB 32, Executive Order B-55-
18 establishes a carbon neutrality goal for the state of California by 2045; and sets a goal to
maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The Executive Order directs the California Natural
Resources Agency (CNRA), California EPA (CalEPA), the California Department of Food and
Agriculture (CDFA), and CARB to include sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands
Climate Change Implementation Plan consistent with the carbon neutrality goal.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
41
2.7.3.3 CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS AND BUILDING CODES
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and
remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat
even with rapid population growth.
TITLE 20 CCR SECTIONS 1601 ET SEQ. – APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS
The Appliance Efficiency Regulations regulate the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance
Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-
federally regulated appliances. 23 categories of appliances are included in the scope of these
regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered
for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the state
and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles (RV) or other mobile
equipment (CEC 2012).
TITLE 24 CCR PART 6 – CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
The California Energy Code was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate
to reduce California’s energy consumption.
The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of
new energy efficient technologies and methods.
TITLE 24 CCR PART 11 – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code was first
adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.
The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of
new energy efficient technologies and methods. CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green
Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all
residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on August 1, 2009, and is
administered by the California Building Standards Commission.
CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the
2022 California Green Building Code Standards that will be effective on January 1, 2023. The
CEC anticipates that the 2022 energy code will provide $1.5 billion in consumer benefits and
reduce GHG emissions by 10 million metric tons (42). The Project would be required to comply
with the applicable standards in place at the time plan check submittals are made. These require,
among other items (43):
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
42
NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES
• Short-term bicycle parking. If the new project or an additional alteration is anticipated to
generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the
visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5% of new visitor motorized vehicle
parking spaces being added, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack
(5.106.4.1.1).
• Long-term bicycle parking. For new buildings with tenant spaces that have 10 or more
tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5% of the tenant-occupant vehicular
parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility (5.106.4.1.2).
• Designated parking for clean air vehicles. In new projects or additions to alterations that
add 10 or more vehicular parking spaces, provide designated parking for any combination of
low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2 (5.106.5.2).
• EV charging stations. New construction shall facilitate the future installation of EV supply
equipment. The compliance requires empty raceways for future conduit and documentation that
the electrical system has adequate capacity for the future load. The number of spaces to be
provided for is contained in Table 5.106. 5.3.3 (5.106.5.3). Additionally, Table 5.106.5.4.1
specifies requirements for the installation of raceway conduit and panel power requirements for
medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicle supply equipment for warehouses, grocery stores, and
retail stores.
• Outdoor light pollution reduction. Outdoor lighting systems shall be designed to meet the
backlight, uplight and glare ratings per Table 5.106.8 (5.106.8).
• Construction waste management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65% of
the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section
5.408.1.1. 5.405.1.2, or 5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste
management ordinance, whichever is more stringent (5.408.1).
• Excavated soil and land clearing debris. 100% of trees, stumps, rocks and associated
vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reuse or recycled. For a
phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed
(5.408.3).
• Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are
identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of non-hazardous materials for
recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic
waste, and metals or meet a lawfully enacted local recycling ordinance, if more restrictive
(5.410.1).
• Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and
urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with the following:
o Water Closets. The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed
1.28 gallons per flush (5.303.3.1)
o Urinals. The effective flush volume of wall-mounted urinals shall not exceed
0.125 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.1). The effective flush volume of floor- mounted or
other urinals shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.2).
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
43
o Showerheads. Single showerheads shall have a minimum flow rate of not more than 1.8
gallons per minute and 80 psi (5.303.3.3.1). When a shower is served by more than one
showerhead, the combine flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower outlets
controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 1.8 gallons per minute at 80 psi (5.303.3.3.2).
o Faucets and fountains. Nonresidential lavatory faucets shall have a maximum flow
rate of not more than 0.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi (5.303.3.4.1). Kitchen faucets shall
have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute of 60 psi
(5.303.3.4.2). Wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8
gallons per minute (5.303.3.4.3). Metering faucets shall not deliver more than 0.20
gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.4). Metering faucets for wash fountains shall have a
maximum flow rate not more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.5).
• Outdoor potable water uses in landscaped areas. Nonresidential developments shall comply
with a local water efficient landscape ordinance or the current California Department of
Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), whichever is more
stringent (5.304.1).
• Water meters. Separate submeters or metering devices shall be installed for new
buildings or additions in excess of 50,000 sf or for excess consumption where any tenant
within a new building or within an addition that is project to consume more than 1,000
gallons per day (GPD) (5.303.1.1 and 5.303.1.2).
• Outdoor water uses in rehabilitated landscape projects equal or greater than 2,500 sf.
Rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than
2,500 sf requiring a building or landscape permit (5.304.3).
• Commissioning. For new buildings 10,000 sf and over, building commissioning shall be included
in the design and construction processes of the building project to verify that the building systems
and components meet the owner’s or owner representative’s project requirements (5.410.2).
CARB REFRIGERANT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CARB adopted a regulation in 2009 to reduce refrigerant GHG emissions from stationary sources
through refrigerant leak detection and monitoring, leak repair, system retirement and
retrofitting, reporting and recordkeeping, and proper refrigerant cylinder use, sale, and disposal.
The regulation is set forth in sections 95380 to 95398 of Title 17, CCR. The rules implementing
the regulation establish a limit on statewide GHG emissions from stationary facilities with
refrigeration systems with more than 50 pounds of a high GWP refrigerant. The refrigerant
management program is designed to (1) reduce emissions of high-GWP GHG refrigerants from
leaky stationary, non-residential refrigeration equipment; (2) reduce emissions from the
installation and servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances using high-GWP
refrigerants; and (3) verify GHG emission reductions.
TRACTOR‐TRAILER GHG REGULATION
The tractors and trailers subject to this regulation must either use EPA SmartWay certified
tractors and trailers or retrofit their existing fleet with SmartWay verified technologies. The
regulation applies primarily to owners of 53‐foot or longer box‐type trailers, including both dry‐
van and refrigerated‐van trailers, and owners of the HD tractors that pull them on California
highways. These owners are responsible for replacing or retrofitting their affected vehicles with
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
44
compliant aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance tires. Sleeper cab tractors MY
2011 and later must be SmartWay certified. All other tractors must use SmartWay verified low
rolling resistance tires. There are also requirements for trailers to have low rolling resistance tires
and aerodynamic devices.
PHASE I AND 2 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE GHG STANDARDS
In September 2011, CARB has adopted a regulation for GHG emissions from HDTs and engines
sold in California. It establishes GHG emission limits on truck and engine manufacturers
and harmonizes with the EPA rule for new trucks and engines nationally. Existing HD vehicle
regulations in California include engine criteria emission standards, tractor-trailer GHG
requirements to implement SmartWay strategies (i.e., the Heavy-Duty Tractor-Trailer GHG
Regulation), and in-use fleet retrofit requirements such as the Truck and Bus Regulation. The
EPA rule has compliance requirements for new compression and spark ignition engines, as well
as trucks from Class 2b through Class 8. Compliance requirements began with MY 2014 with
stringency levels increasing through MY 2018. The rule organizes truck compliance into three
groupings, which include a) HD pickups and vans; b) vocational vehicles; and c) combination
tractors. The EPA rule does not regulate trailers.
CARB staff has worked jointly with the EPA and the NHTSA on the next phase of federal GHG
emission standards for medium-duty trucks (MDT) and HDT vehicles, called federal Phase 2. The
federal Phase 2 standards were built on the improvements in engine and vehicle efficiency
required by the Phase 1 emission standards and represent a significant opportunity to achieve
further GHG reductions for 2018 and later MY HDT vehicles, including trailers. The EPA and
NHTSA have proposed to roll back GHG and fuel economy standards for cars and light-duty trucks,
which suggests a similar rollback of Phase 2 standards for MDT and HDT vehicles may be pursued.
SB 97 AND THE CEQA GUIDELINES UPDATE
Passed in August 2007, SB 97 added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code. The code
states “(a) On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) shall prepare,
develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or
the effects of GHG emissions as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects
associated with transportation or energy consumption. (b) On or before January 1, 2010, the
Resources Agency shall certify and adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the OPR
pursuant to subdivision (a).”
In 2012, Public Resources Code Section 21083.05 was amended to state:
“The Office of Planning and Research and the Natural Resources Agency shall
periodically update the guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions
or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions as required by this division, including,
but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption,
to incorporate new information or criteria established by the State Air Resources
Board pursuant to Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health
and Safety Code.”
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
45
On December 28, 2018, the Natural Resources Agency announced the OAL approved the
amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for implementing CEQA. The CEQA Amendments provide
guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions
in CEQA documents. The CEQA Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framework by amending
existing CEQA Guidelines to reference climate change.
Section 15064.4 was added the CEQA Guidelines and states that in determining the significance
of a project’s GHG emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably
foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change.
A project’s incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears
relatively insignificant compared to statewide, national, or global emissions. The agency’s
analysis should consider a timeframe that is appropriate for the project. The agency’s analysis
also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.
Additionally, a lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions resulting
from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers
most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s
incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its selection of a
model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations
of the particular model or methodology selected for use (44).
2.7.4 REGIONAL
The project is within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD.
SCAQMD
SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB. The
SCAQMD addresses the impacts to climate change of projects subject to SCAQMD permit as a
lead agency if they are the only agency having discretionary approval for the project and acts as
a responsible agency when a land use agency must also approve discretionary permits for the
project. The SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality. This
expertise carries over to GHG emissions, so the agency helps local land use agencies through the
development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to address GHG emissions.
In 2008, SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use
projects that could be used by local lead agencies in the SCAB. The Working Group developed
several different options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim
CEQA GHG Significance Threshold, which could be applied by lead agencies. The working group
has not provided additional guidance since release of the interim guidance in 2008. The SCAQMD
Board has not approved the thresholds; however, the Guidance Document provides substantial
evidence supporting the approaches to significance of GHG emissions that can be considered by
the lead agency in adopting its own threshold. The current interim thresholds consist of the
following tiered approach:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable
exemption under CEQA.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
46
• Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan.
If a project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have
significant GHG emissions.
• Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be
consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are
averaged over 30 years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s
emissions are below one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than
significant:
o Residential and commercial land use: 3,000 MTCO2e/yr
o Industrial land use: 10,000 MTCO2e/yr
o Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e/yr; commercial: 1,400
MTCO2e/yr; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e/yr
• Tier 4 has the following options:
o Option 1: Reduce Business-as-Usual (BAU) emissions by a certain percentage; this
percentage is currently undefined.
o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures
o Option 3: 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and
employees: 4.8 MTCO2e per SP per year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e per SP per
year for plans;
o Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e per SP per year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e per
SP per year for plans
• Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.
The SCAQMD’s interim thresholds used the Executive Order S-3-05-year 2050 goal as the basis
for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to
worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate.
SCAQMD only has authority over GHG emissions from development projects that include air
quality permits. At this time, it is unknown if the project would include stationary sources of
emissions subject to SCAQMD permits. Notwithstanding, if the Project requires a stationary
permit, it would be subject to the applicable SCAQMD regulations.
SCAQMD Regulation XXVII, adopted in 2009 includes the following rules:
• Rule 2700 defines terms and post global warming potentials.
• Rule 2701, SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange, establishes a voluntary program to
encourage, quantify, and certify voluntary, high quality certified GHG emission reductions
in the SCAQMD.
• Rule 2702, GHG Reduction Program created a program to produce GHG emission reductions
within the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD would fund projects through contracts in response to
requests for proposals or purchase reductions from other parties.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
47
2.7.5 LOCAL
CITY OF FONTANA INDUSTRIAL COMMERCE CENTERS SUSTAINABILITY ORDINANCE
On January 25, 2022, the City of Fontana approved a municipal code amendment to include new
standards for industrial commerce projects that goes beyond current state and regional air
quality regulations. The City strengthened the ordinance on March 22, 2022, through Municipal
Code Amendment (MCA) No. 21-001R1, which passed on April 12, 2022. The ordinance requires
the following standards to be implemented for commerce center facilities within the City:
• Posting of signage to restrict idling to no more than 3 minutes;
• Facility operators are required to establish and enforce a truck routing plan and provide
signs and pavement markings to clearly identify internal circulation patterns;
• Install signage that clearly identifies the contact information for a facility representative as
well as the SCAQMD;
• On-site motorized operational equipment shall be zero emission;
• Building roofs shall be solar-ready;
• At least 10% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be EV ready
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
48
This page intentionally left blank
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
49
3 PROJECT GHG IMPACT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Project has been evaluated to determine if it would result in a significant GHG impact. The
significance of these potential impacts is described in the following sections.
3.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project-related GHG impacts are
taken from the Initial Study Checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR of
Regulations §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant
impact related to GHG if it would (1):
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs?
3.2.1 DISCUSSION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
The City has determined the development size that would be too small to be able to provide GHG
emission reductions. To do this, the City determined the GHG emissions allowed by a project such
that 90% of the emissions on average from all projects would exceed that level and be “captured”
and exceed this level and require further mitigation.
A 90% emission capture rate means that 90% of total emissions from all projects would be subject
to a CEQA analysis, including a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or an
environmental impact report, which includes analyzing feasible alternatives and imposing
feasible mitigation measures.
A GHG significance threshold based on a 90% emission capture rate may be more appropriate to
address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change because most
projects will be required to implement GHG reduction measures. Further, a 90% emission capture
rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary
source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and
economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects
that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG
emissions.
In determining this level of emissions, data available from SCAQMD was utilized. SCAQMD used
a database of projects kept by the Governor’s OPR. That database contained 798 projects, 60 of
which were extremely large General Plan Updates, Master Plans, or Specific Plan Projects. The 60
very large projects were removed from the database in order not to skew the emissions value,
leaving a net of 738 projects. In addition, 27 projects were found to be outliers that would skew
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
50
the emission value too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th
percentile capture rate.
The SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial,
residential, and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects included
warehouses and other light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil
refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.). Emissions
from each of these projects were calculated by SCAQMD to provide a consistent method of
emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects within the sample
population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that the 90th
percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e/yr. The SCAQMD set their significance
threshold at the low-end value of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons of
emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e/yr) to define small projects that are considered less than
significant and do not need to provide further analysis.
Lastly, we understand that the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold for residential/commercial uses was
proposed a decade ago and was never adopted. However, the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold was
developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as
provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance
Threshold (2008) document and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest in 2010). This
threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis, so it is not tied to only the 2020
target year and is thus not outdated. This threshold is also based on the 90% capture rate
methodology, which means that 90% of total emissions from all new or modified projects would
be subject to some type of CEQA analysis, which was the approach taken by SCAQMD to establish
the stationary/industrial source threshold, as well as by the California Air Resources Board (for
interim threshold for stationary source projects) and one of the options suggested by the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (quantitative threshold based on market
capture). Further, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses
performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction.
3.3 MODELS EMPLOYED TO ANALYZE GHGS
3.3.1 CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS ESTIMATOR MODEL (CALEEMOD)
In May 2022 the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction
with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of CalEEMod
Version 2022.1. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operational-
source criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify
applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (45). Accordingly,
the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine GHG emissions.
Output from the model runs for construction and operational activity are provided in Appendices
3.1 through 3.2. CalEEMod includes GHG emissions from the following source categories:
construction, area, energy, mobile, waste, water.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
51
3.4 LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS NOT REQUIRED
A full life‐cycle analysis (LCA) for construction and operational activity is not included in this
analysis due to the lack of consensus guidance on LCA methodology at this time (46). Life‐cycle
analysis (i.e., assessing economy‐wide GHG emissions from the processes in manufacturing and
transporting all raw materials used in the Project development, infrastructure, and on-going
operations) depends on emission factors or econometric factors that are not well established for
all processes. At this time, a LCA would be extremely speculative and thus has not been prepared.
Additionally, the SCAQMD recommends analyzing direct and indirect project GHG emissions
generated within California and not life-cycle emissions because the life-cycle effects from a
project could occur outside of California, might not be very well understood, or documented, and
would be challenging to mitigate (47). Additionally, the science to calculate life cycle emissions is
not yet established or well defined; therefore, SCAQMD has not recommended, and is not
requiring, life-cycle emissions analysis.
3.5 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Project construction actvities would generate CO2 and CH4 emissions The Beech Logistics Center
Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) report contains detailed information regarding Project
construction activities (48). As discussed in the AQIA, Construction related emissions are
expected from the following construction activities:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
3.5.1 CONSTRUCTION DURATION
For purposes of analysis, construction of Project is expected to commence in April 2023 and
would last through April 2024. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis, shown in Table
3-1, represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the
respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis
year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent4. The duration of
construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the
expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines (49).
4 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2022.1, Section 4.3 “Off-Road Equipment” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for
the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and
new regulatory requirements.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
52
TABLE 3-1: CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Days
Site Preparation 04/01/2023 04/10/2023 6
Grading 04/11/2023 05/10/2023 22
Building Construction 05/11/2023 01/31/2024 190
Paving 01/21/2024 04/20/2024 65
Architectural Coating 02/01/2024 04/30/2024 64
3.5.2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
A summary of construction equipment assumptions by phase is provided at Table 3-2. In
accordance the City of Fontana City of Fontana Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability
Ordinance, this analysis assumed the use of CARB Tier 4 Interim equipment during Project
construction.
TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Construction Activity Equipment Amount Hours Per Day
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 5 8
Crawler Tractors 6 8
Grading
Excavators 1 8
Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Building Construction
Cranes 2 8
Forklifts 4 8
Generator Sets 2 8
Crawler Tractors 4 8
Welders 2 8
Paving
Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8
3.5.3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
For construction phase Project emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the
Project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the Project, the SCAQMD recommends
calculating the total GHG emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year Project
life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions (50). As such,
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
53
construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the annual
operational phase GHG emissions. The amortized construction emissions are presented in Table
3-3.
TABLE 3-3: AMORTIZED ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Year Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e5
2024 578.22 0.01 0.02 0.25 585.10
2025 124.53 0.00 0.00 0.05 125.41
Total GHG Emissions 702.75 0.01 0.02 0.30 710.51
Amortized Construction Emissions 23.43 3.33E-04 6.67E-04 0.01 23.68
Source: CalEEMod annual construction-source emissions are presented in Appendix 3.1.
A CalEEMod reports the most common GHGs emitted which include CO2, CH4, and N2O. These GHGs are then converted into the CO2e by
multiplying the individual GHG by the GWP.
3.6 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O
from the following primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions
• Energy Source Emissions
• Mobile Source Emissions
• On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions
• Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution
• Solid Waste
3.6.1 AREA SOURCE EMISSIONS
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and
evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers,
shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the
landscaping of the Project. It should be noted that as October 9, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom
signed AB 1346. The bill aims to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered equipment under 25 gross
horsepower (known as small off-road engines [SOREs]) by 2024. For purposes of analysis, the
emissions associated with landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on
assumptions provided in CalEEMod.
5 CalEEMod reports the most common GHGs emitted which include CO2, CH4, and N2O. These GHGs are then converted into the CO2e by
multiplying the individual GHG by the GWP.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
54
3.6.2 ENERGY SOURCE EMISSIONS
COMBUSTION EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL GAS AND ELECTRICITY
GHGs are emitted from buildings as a result of activities for which electricity and natural gas are
typically used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs
directly into the atmosphere; these emissions are considered direct emissions associated with a
building; the building energy use emissions do not include street lighting6. GHGs are also emitted
during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; these emissions are considered to be indirect
emissions. Natural gas and electricity usage associated with the Project were calculated by
CalEEMod using default parameters.
3.6.3 MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
The Project related GHG emissions derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project,
including employee trips to and from the site and truck trips associated with the proposed uses.
Trip characteristics available from the Beech Logistics Center (MCN22-059) Traffic Analysis were
utilized in this analysis (51).
APPROACH FOR ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT
In order to determine emissions from passenger car vehicles, CalEEMod defaults for trip length
and trip purpose were utilized (52). Default vehicle trip lengths for primary trips will be populated
using data from the local metropolitan planning organizations/Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies (MPO/RTPA). Trip type percentages and trip lengths provided by MPO/RTPAs truncate
data at their demonstrative borders.
For the proposed industrial uses, it is important to note that although the Beech Logistics Center
(MCN22-059) Traffic Analysis does not breakdown passenger cars by type, this analysis assumes
that passenger cars include Light-Duty-Auto vehicles (LDA), Light-Duty-Trucks (LDT17 & LDT28),
Medium-Duty-Vehicles (MDV), and Motorcycles (MCY) vehicle types. In order to account for
emissions generated by passenger cars, the fleet mix in Table 3-4 was utilized.
TABLE 3-4: PASSENGER CAR FLEET MIX
Land Use
% Vehicle Type
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV MCY
General Light Industrial
56.23% 4.67% 22.39% 14.70% 2.01% Warehouse
Note: The Project-specific passenger car fleet mix used in this analysis is based on a proportional split utilizing the default CalEEMod
percentages assigned to LDA, LDT1, LDT2, and MDV vehicle types.
6 The CalEEMod emissions inventory model does not include indirect emission related to street lighting. Indirect emissions related to street
lighting are expected to be negligible and cannot be accurately quantified at this time as there is insufficient information as to the number and
type of street lighting that would occur.
7 Vehicles under the LDT1 category have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 6,000 lbs. and equivalent test weight (ETW) of less
than or equal to 3,750 lbs.
8 Vehicles under the LDT2 category have a GVWR of less than 6,000 lbs. and ETW between 3,751 lbs. and 5,750 lbs.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
55
To determine emissions from trucks for the proposed industrial uses, the analysis incorporated
SCAQMD recommended truck trip length 15.3 miles for 2-axle (LHDT1, LHDT2) trucks, 14.2 miles
3-axle (MHDT) trucks and 40 miles for 4+-axle (HHDT) trucks and weighting the average trip
lengths using traffic trip percentages taken from the Beech Logistics Center (MCN22-059) Traffic
Analysis. The trip length function for the proposed uses use have been adjusted to 31.52 miles
and 30.21 miles for general light industrial and warehouse uses, respectively, and assumes of
100% primary trips. This trip length assumption is higher than the CalEEMod defaults for trucks.
In order to be consistent with the Beech Logistics Center (MCN22-059) Traffic Analysis, trucks are
broken down by truck type. The truck fleet mix is estimated by rationing the trip rates for each
truck type based on information provided in the Beech Logistics Center (MCN22-059) Traffic
Analysis. Heavy trucks are broken down by truck type (or axle type) and are categorized as either
Light-Heavy-Duty Trucks (LHDT19 & LHDT2 10)/2-axle, Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks (MHDT)/3-
axle, and Heavy-Heavy-Duty Trucks (HHDT)/4+-axle. To account for emissions generated by
trucks, the following fleet mix was utilized in this analysis.
TABLE 3-5: TRUCK FLEET MIX
Land Use % Vehicle Type
LHDT1 LHDT2 MHDT HHDT
General Light Industrial 13.12% 3.54% 16.67% 66.67%
Warehouse 14.13% 3.81% 20.51% 61.54%
Note: Project-specific truck fleet mix is based on the number of trips generated by each truck type (LHDT1, LHDT2, MHDT, and HHDT) relative
to the total number of truck trips.
3.6.4 ON-SITE CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS
It is common for industrial buildings to require the operation of exterior cargo handling
equipment in the building’s truck court areas. In accordance with the City of Fontana’s Ordinance
No. 1891, on-site motorized operational equipment shall be ZE (zero emission). As such, this
analysis assumes that all on-site cargo handling equipment would be electrically powered.
3.6.5 WATER SUPPLY, TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION
Indirect GHG emissions result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat, and
distribute water and wastewater. The amount of electricity required to convey, treat, and
distribute water depends on the volume of water as well as the sources of the water. Unless
otherwise noted, CalEEMod default parameters were used.
3.6.6 SOLID WASTE
Industrial land uses would result in the generation and disposal of solid waste. A percentage of
this waste would be diverted from landfills by a variety of means, such as reducing the amount
of waste generated, recycling, and/or composting. The remainder of the waste not diverted
would be disposed of at a landfill. GHG emissions from landfills are associated with the anaerobic
9 Vehicles under the LHDT1 category have a GVWR of 8,501 to 10,000 lbs.
10 Vehicles under the LHDT2 category have a GVWR of 10,001 to 14,000 lbs.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
56
breakdown of material. GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste associated
with the proposed Project were calculated by CalEEMod using default parameters.
3.6.7 EMISSIONS SUMMARY
The estimated Project-related GHG emissions are summarized on Table 3-6. Detailed operation
model outputs for the Project are presented in Appendix 3.2. As shown in Table 3-6, construction
and operation of the Project would generate a 1,664.72 MTCO2e/yr.
TABLE 3-6: PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 23.43 3.33E-04 6.67E-04 0.01 23.68
Mobile Source 1,041.00 0.07 0.11 1.53 1,077.00
Area Source 3.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.52
Energy Source 387.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 388.00
Water Usage 54.90 1.28 0.03 0.00 95.90
Waste 15.27 1.53 0.00 0.00 53.40
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.22 23.22
Total CO2e (All Sources) 1,664.72
Source: CalEEMod output, See Appendix 3.2 for detailed model outputs.
3.7 GHG EMISSIONS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.7.1 GHG IMPACT 1
Would the Project generate GHG emissions either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
The Project would have the potential to generate a 1,664.72 MTCO2e/yr. As such, the Projects
would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr if it were applied.
The Project would not have the potential to generate direct or indirect GHG emissions that
would result in a significant impact on the environment.
3.7.2 GHG IMPACT 2
Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
As previously stated, pursuant to 15604.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely on
qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts
from GHG emissions (44). As such, the Project’s consistency with AB 32 and SB 32 are discussed
below. It should be noted that the Project’s consistency with the SB 32 (2017 Scoping Plan) also
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
57
satisfies consistency with AB 32 since the 2017 Scoping Plan is based on the overall targets
established by AB 32. Consistency with the 2008 Scoping Plan is not necessary, since the target
year for the 2008 Scoping Plan was 2020, and the Project’s buildout year is 2024. As such the
2008 Scoping Plan does not apply and consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan is relevant.
SB 32/2017 SCOPING PLAN CONSISTENCY
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set
by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. Table 3-7 summarizes the Project’s consistency
with the 2017 Scoping Plan. As summarized, the Project will not conflict with any of the
provisions of the Scoping Plan and in fact supports seven of the action categories.
TABLE 3-7: 2017 SCOPING PLAN CONSISTENCY SUMMARY11
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Implement SB 350 by 2030
Increase the Renewables Portfolio
Standard to 50% of retail sales by 2030 and
ensure grid reliability.
CPUC,
CEC,
CARB
Consistent. The Project would use energy
from Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE
has committed to diversify its portfolio of
energy sources by increasing energy from
wind and solar sources. The Project
would not interfere with or obstruct SCE
energy source diversification efforts.
Establish annual targets for statewide
energy efficiency savings and demand
reduction that will achieve a cumulative
doubling of statewide energy efficiency
savings in electricity and natural gas end
uses by 2030.
Consistent. The proposed Project would
be designed and constructed to
implement the energy efficiency
measures, where applicable by including
several measures designed to reduce
energy consumption. The proposed
Project would include energy efficient
lighting and fixtures that meet the
applicable Title 24 Standards throughout
the Project Site and would be a modern
development with energy efficient boilers,
heaters, and air conditioning systems.
Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity
sector through the implementation of the
above measures and other actions as
modeled in Integrated Resource Planning
(IRP) to meet GHG emissions reductions
planning targets in the IRP process. Load-
serving entities and publicly- owned
utilities meet GHG emissions reductions
planning targets through a combination of
measures as described in IRPs.
Consistent. The proposed Project would
be designed and constructed to
implement the energy efficiency
measures, where applicable by including
several measures designed to reduce
energy consumption. The proposed
Project would include energy efficient
lighting and fixtures that meet the
applicable Title 24 Standards throughout
the Project Site and would be a modern
development with energy efficient boilers,
heaters, and air conditioning systems.
Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels)
11 Measures can be found at the following link: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
58
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-
in hybrid light-duty EVs by 2025.
CARB,
California State
Transportation
Agency (CalSTA),
Strategic Growth
Council (SGC),
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans),
CEC,
OPR,
Local Agencies
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Project would not obstruct
or interfere with CARB zero emission and
plug-in hybrid light-duty EV 2025 targets.
As this is a CARB enforced standard,
vehicles that access the Project are
required to comply with the standards
and will therefore comply with the
strategy.
At least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-
in hybrid light-duty EVs by 2030.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Project would not obstruct
or interfere with CARB zero emission and
plug-in hybrid light-duty EV 2030 targets.
As this is a CARB enforced standard,
vehicles that access the Project are
required to comply with the standards
and will therefore comply with the
strategy.
Further increase GHG stringency on all
light-duty vehicles beyond existing
Advanced Clean cars regulations.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Project would not obstruct
or interfere with CARB efforts to further
increase GHG stringency on all light-duty
vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean
cars regulations. As this is a CARB
enforced standard, vehicles that access
the Project are required to comply with
the standards and will therefore comply
with the strategy.
Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The Project would not obstruct
or interfere with CARB efforts to
implement Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG
Phase 2. As this is a CARB enforced
standard, vehicles that access the Project
are required to comply with the standards
and will therefore comply with the
strategy.
Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a
suite of to-be-determined innovative clean
transit options. Assumed 20% of new urban
buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be
zero emission buses with the penetration
of zero-emission technology ramped up to
100% of new sales in 2030. Also, new
natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and
diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the
optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard.
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to transition to a suite of to-be-
determined innovative clean transit
options.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
59
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that
would result in the use of low NOX or
cleaner engines and the deployment of
increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks
primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery
trucks in California. This measure assumes
ZEVs comprise 2.5% of new Class 3–7 truck
sales in local fleets starting in 2020,
increasing to 10% in 2025 and remaining
flat through 2030.
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to use low NOX or cleaner engines or the
deployment of increasing numbers of
zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7
last mile delivery trucks in California.
Further reduce VMT through continued
implementation of SB 375 and regional
Sustainable Communities Strategies;
forthcoming statewide implementation of
SB 743; and potential additional VMT
reduction strategies not specified in the
Mobile Source Strategy but included in the
document “Potential VMT Reduction
Strategies for Discussion.”
Consistent. This Project would not
obstruct or interfere with implementation
of SB 375 and would therefore not conflict
with this measure.
Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable
Communities Strategy (2035 targets).
CARB
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to increase stringency of SB 375
Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Harmonize project performance with
emissions reductions and increase
competitiveness of transit and active
transportation modes (e.g. via guideline
documents, funding programs, project
selection, etc.).
CalSTA,
SGC,
OPR,
CARB,
Governor’s Office of
Business and
Economic
Development (GO-
Biz),
California
Infrastructure and
Economic
Development Bank
(IBank),
Department of
Finance (DOF),
California
Transportation
Commission (CTC),
Caltrans
Consistent. The Project would not obstruct
or interfere with agency efforts to
harmonize transportation facility project
performance with emissions reductions
and increase competitiveness of transit
and active transportation modes.
Develop pricing policies to support low-
GHG transportation (e.g. low-emission
CalSTA,
Caltrans,
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
60
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
vehicle zones for heavy duty, road user,
parking pricing, transit discounts).
CTC,
OPR,
SGC,
CARB
to develop pricing policies to support low-
GHG transportation.
Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan
Improve freight system efficiency.
CalSTA,
CalEPA,
CNRA,
CARB,
Caltrans,
CEC,
GO-Biz
Consistent. This measure would apply to
all trucks accessing the Project site, this
may include existing trucks or new trucks
that are part of the statewide goods
movement sector. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to Improve freight system efficiency.
Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and
equipment capable of zero emission
operation and maximize both zero and
near-zero emission freight vehicles and
equipment powered by renewable energy
by 2030.
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles
and equipment capable of zero emission
operation and maximize both zero and
near-zero emission freight vehicles and
equipment powered by renewable energy
by 2030.
Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a
Carbon Intensity reduction of 18%.
CARB
Consistent. When adopted, this measure
would apply to all fuel purchased and
used by the Project in the state. The
Project would not obstruct or interfere
with agency efforts to adopt a Low Carbon
Fuel Standard with a Carbon Intensity
reduction of 18%.
Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS) by 2030
40% reduction in methane and
hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013
levels.
CARB,
CalRecycle,
CDFA,
California State
Water Resource
Control Board
(SWRCB),
Local Air Districts
Consistent. The Project would be required
to comply with any applicable measures
that may be adopted for the purposes of
reducing SLPS emissions. The Project
would not obstruct or interfere agency
efforts to reduce SLPS emissions since it
would be required to comply with any
applicable regulatory measures.
50% reduction in black carbon emissions
below 2013 levels.
Develop regulations and programs to
support organic waste landfill reduction
goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.
CARB,
CalRecycle,
CDFA,
SWRCB,
Local Air Districts
Consistent. The Project would implement
waste reduction and recycling measures
consistent with State and City of Fontana
requirements. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
support organic waste landfill reduction
goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
61
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program with declining annual caps. CARB
Consistent. The Project would be required
to comply with any applicable Cap-and-
Trade Program provisions. The Project
would not obstruct or interfere agency
efforts to implement the post-2020 Cap-
and-Trade Program.
By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure California’s land base
as a net carbon sink
Protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other
incentives.
CNRA,
Departments
Within
CDFA,
CalEPA,
CARB
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other
incentives. The Project site is not targeted
for conservation in any local or State
conservation plan.
Increase the long-term resilience of carbon
storage in the land base and enhance
sequestration capacity
Consistent. The Project site is currently
vacant and does not comprise an area
that would effectively provide for carbon
sequestration. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
increase the long-term resilience of
carbon storage in the land base and
enhance sequestration capacity.
Utilize wood and agricultural products to
increase the amount of carbon stored in
the natural and built environments
Consistent. The Project design does not
preclude the incorporation of wood or
wood products. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
encourage use of wood and agricultural
products to increase the amount of
carbon stored in the natural and built
environments.
Establish scenario projections to serve as
the foundation for the Implementation
Plan
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
establish scenario projections to serve as
the foundation for the Implementation
Plan.
Establish a carbon accounting framework
for natural and working lands as described
in SB 859
CARB
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere with agency efforts
to establish a carbon accounting
framework for natural and working lands
as described in SB 859.
Implement Forest Carbon Plan
CNRA,
California
Department of
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
implement the Forest Carbon Plan.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
62
Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Forestry and Fire
Protection
(CAL FIRE),
CalEPA and
Departments Within
Identify and expand funding and financing
mechanisms to support GHG reductions
across all sectors.
State Agencies &
Local Agencies
Consistent. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to
identify and expand funding and financing
mechanisms to support GHG reductions
across all sectors.
As shown above, the Project would not conflict with any of the 2017 Scoping Plan elements as
any regulations adopted would apply directly or indirectly to the Project. Further, recent studies
show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce
its GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (53).
The Project would not have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
63
This page intentionally left blank
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
64
4 REFERENCES
1. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020.
2. Air Resources Board. Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. [Online] 2006.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/ab-32-global-warming-solutions-act-2006.
3. —. Sustainable Communities. [Online] 2008. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-
communities-climate-protection-program/about.
4. —. Clean Car Standards - Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. [Online] September 24, 2009.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.
5. Building Standards Commission. California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of
Regulations). [Online] http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx.
6. California Energy Commission. California Code of Regulations, TITLE 20, Division 2. [Online]
September 3, 2013. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
07/Title%2020%20Updated%20July%2023%2C%202021.pdf.
7. Air Resources Board. Title 17 - California Code of Regulation. [Online] 2010.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/basics-notes.pdf.
8. California Energy Commission. SB 1368 Emission Performance Standards. [Online] September 29,
2006. http://www.energy.ca.gov/emission_standards/.
9. —. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). [Online] 2002. http://www.energy.ca.gov/portfolio/.
10. California Legislative Information. Senate Bill No. 32. [Online] September 8, 2016.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32.
11. National Environmental Education Foundation. The Principal Greenhouse Gases and Their Sources.
National Environmental Education Foundation. [Online] https://www.neefusa.org/weather-and-
climate/climate-change/principal-greenhouse-gases-and-their-sources#WaterVapor.
12. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report. International Panel on Climate Change. 4, 2007.
13. The Carbon Cycle and Climate Change. Bennington, Bret J. 1, s.l. : Brooks/Cole. ISBN 1 3: 978-0-495-
73855-8.
14. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Carbon Dioxide. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. [Online] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0103.html.
15. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Increase in atmospheric methane set another
record during 2021. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [Online]
https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/increase-in-atmospheric-methane-set-another-record-during-
2021#:~:text=NOAA's%20preliminary%20analysis%20showed%20the,during%202020%20was%2015
.3%20ppb..
16. World Resources Institute. Climate Analysis Indicator Tool (CAIT). [Online] http://cait.wri.org.
17. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CFCs and their substitutes in stratospheric
ozone depletion. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [Online]
https://gml.noaa.gov/hats/about/cfc.html.
18. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Regulation for Reducting Sulfur Hexafluoride
Emissions from Gas Insulated Switchgear. Environmental Protection Agency. [Online] May 7, 2014.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
65
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/mehl-arb-presentation-2014-
wkshp.pdf.
19. World Resources Institute. Nitrogen Trifluoride Now Required in GHG Protocol Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory. [Online] May 22, 2013. https://www.wri.org/blog/2013/05/nitrogen-
trifluoride-now-required-ghg-protocol-greenhouse-gas-emissions-inventories.
20. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nitrogen Trifluoride. PubChem Compound
Database. [Online] https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/24553 .
21. American Lung Association. Climate Change. [Online] http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-
air/outdoor/climate-change/.
22. Barbara H. Allen-Diaz. Climate change affects us all. University of California Agriculture and Natural
Resources. [Online] April 1, 2009. http://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.v063n02p51.
23. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis -
Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. [Online] September 2013.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf.
24. United Nations. GHG Profiles - Annex I. [Online] http://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_annex1.
25. —. GHG Profiles - Non-Annex I. [Online] http://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_non_annex1.
26. World Resources Institute. Climate Analysis Indicator Tool (CAIT). [Online] http://cait.wri.org.
27. Air Resources Board. 2019 GHG Inventory. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2000-2017
Edition. [Online] [Cited: September 19, 2019.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
28. California Energy Commission. Our Changing Climate Assessing the Risks to California. 2006.
29. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). Outcomes of the U.N. Climate Change Conference.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). [Online] 2015.
http://www.c2es.org/international/negotiations/cop21-paris/summary.
30. Agency, United States Environmental Protection. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings
for Greenhouse Gases under the Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. [Online] 2020. https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-cause-
or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a.
31. Federal Register. Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year
2022-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles. [Online] 2018.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/13/2018-07364/mid-term-evaluation-of-
greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-for-model-year-2022-2025-light-duty.
32. Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety. SAFE: The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient 'SAFE'
Vehicle Rule. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. [Online] 2020.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe.
33. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. [Online]
https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy.
34. Department of Transportation. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024-
2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. [Online] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-
04/Final-Rule-Preamble_CAFE-MY-2024-2026.pdf.
35. United States Environmental Protection Agency. SmartWay. [Online] 2017.
https://www.epa.gov/smartway/learn-about-smartway.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
66
36. California Air Resources Board. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan . [Online] 2017.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017_es.pdf.
37. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. California's Policies Can Significantly Cut Greenhouse Gas
Emissions through 2030. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Online] January 22, 2015.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/01/22/californias-policies-can-significantly-cut-greenhouse-gas-
emissions-2030/.
38. Science Direct. Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. [Online] 2015.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514006892.
39. California Air Resources Board. Legal Disclaimer & User's Notice. [Online] April 2019.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/ct_reg_unofficial.pdf.
40. —. Climate Change Scoping Plan. [Online] 2014.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climat
e_change_scoping_plan.pdf.
41. —. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. [Online] December 2019. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm.
42. California Energy Commission. Energy Commission Adopts Updated Building Standards to Improve
Efficiency, Reduce Emissions from Homes and Businesses. [Online] August 11, 2021.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-08/energy-commission-adopts-updated-building-standards-
improve-efficiency-reduce-0.
43. California Department of General Services. 2022 CALGreen Code. CALGreen. [Online]
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1.
44. Association of Environmental Professionals. 2018 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2018.
45. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod). [Online] www.caleemod.com.
46. California Natural Resources Agency. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action,
Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Pursuant to SB97. [Online] December 2009.
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf.
47. South Coast Air Quality Managment District. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance. [Online] 2008.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-
significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-2/ghg-meeting-2-minutes.pdf.
48. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Beech Logistics Center Air Quality Impact Analysis. 2022.
49. State of California. 2019 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2019.
50. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold
Stakeholder Working Group #13. [Powerpoint] Diamond Bar : s.n., 2009.
51. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Beech Logistics Center (MCN22-059) Traffic Analysis. 2022.
52. —. Nevada Street Warehouse Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation. 2022.
53. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. California's Policies Can Significantly Cut Greenhouse Gas
Emissions through 2030. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. [Online] 2015.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/01/22/californias-policies-can-significantly-cut-greenhouse-gas-
emissions-2030/.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
67
54. Air Resources Board. 2020 GHG Inventory. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2000-2019
Edition. [Online]
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf.
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
68
This page intentionally left blank
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
69
5 CERTIFICATIONS
The contents of this GHG study report represent an accurate depiction of the GHG impacts
associated with the proposed Beech Logistics Center Project. The information contained in this
GHG report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any
questions, please contact me directly at hqureshi@urbanxroads.com.
Haseeb Qureshi
Principal
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
hqureshi@urbanxroads.com
EDUCATION
Master of Science in Environmental Studies
California State University, Fullerton • May 2010
Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Analysis and Design
University of California, Irvine • June, 2006
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
AEP – Association of Environmental Planners
AWMA – Air and Waste Management Association
ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Planned Communities and Urban Infill – Urban Land Institute • June 2011
Indoor Air Quality and Industrial Hygiene – EMSL Analytical • April 2008
Principles of Ambient Air Monitoring – California Air Resources Board • August 2007
AB2588 Regulatory Standards – Trinity Consultants • November 2006
Air Dispersion Modeling – Lakes Environmental • June 2006
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
This page intentionally left blank
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
APPENDIX 3.1:
CALEEMOD PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
1 / 31
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
3.3. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
3.9. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
3.11. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
2 / 31
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
3 / 31
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
4 / 31
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
5 / 31
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated)
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)2.80
Precipitation (days)6.40
Location 34.108970164547955, -117.47238518529332
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Fontana
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5304
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
General Light
Industry
42.2 1000sqft 1.20 42,190 10,200 0.00 ——
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
127 1000sqft 3.61 126,569 30,599 0.00 ——
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
6 / 31
Parking Lot 183 Space 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 ——
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
107 1000sqft 2.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 ——
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.27 13.8 25.4 50.9 0.08 0.18 9.72 9.89 0.17 4.56 4.72 —9,427 9,427 0.56 0.61 8.65 9,465
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.37 13.8 24.9 43.4 0.06 0.27 1.33 1.60 0.26 0.32 0.58 —8,008 8,008 0.36 0.20 0.18 8,078
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.58 2.48 9.52 17.2 0.03 0.09 0.88 0.98 0.09 0.28 0.37 —3,492 3,492 0.18 0.12 1.55 3,535
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.11 0.45 1.74 3.13 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.18 0.02 0.05 0.07 —578 578 0.03 0.02 0.26 585
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
7 / 31
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
2023 1.27 1.25 25.4 50.9 0.08 0.18 9.72 9.89 0.17 4.56 4.72 —9,427 9,427 0.56 0.61 8.65 9,465
2024 0.42 13.8 8.77 14.3 0.02 0.13 0.38 0.51 0.12 0.09 0.21 —2,107 2,107 0.09 0.03 1.67 2,119
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
2023 1.08 0.98 17.7 32.2 0.05 0.18 1.13 1.31 0.17 0.27 0.45 —6,325 6,325 0.30 0.19 0.17 6,388
2024 1.37 13.8 24.9 43.4 0.06 0.27 1.33 1.60 0.26 0.32 0.58 —8,008 8,008 0.36 0.20 0.18 8,078
Average
Daily
——————————————————
2023 0.58 0.51 9.52 17.2 0.03 0.09 0.88 0.98 0.09 0.28 0.37 —3,492 3,492 0.18 0.12 1.55 3,535
2024 0.14 2.48 2.63 4.40 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.06 —752 752 0.03 0.02 0.29 758
Annual ——————————————————
2023 0.11 0.09 1.74 3.13 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.18 0.02 0.05 0.07 —578 578 0.03 0.02 0.26 585
2024 0.03 0.45 0.48 0.80 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 —124 124 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 125
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
1.09 1.09 25.2 48.3 0.08 0.17 —0.17 0.17 —0.17 —8,984 8,984 0.36 0.07 —9,014
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
8 / 31
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————9.35 9.35 —4.47 4.47 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.02 0.41 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —148 148 0.01 < 0.005 —148
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.15 0.15 —0.07 0.07 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —24.4 24.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —24.5
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.03 0.03 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.17 0.15 0.15 2.59 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 —411 411 0.02 0.01 1.76 418
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —31.7 31.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 33.2
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
9 / 31
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —6.28 6.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.37
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —1.04 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.05
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Grading (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.42 0.42 11.0 19.0 0.03 0.09 —0.09 0.09 —0.09 —3,134 3,134 0.13 0.03 —3,144
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————2.26 2.26 —0.94 0.94 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
10 / 31
——————————————————Average
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 0.66 1.15 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —189 189 0.01 < 0.005 —190
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.14 0.14 —0.06 0.06 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —31.3 31.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —31.4
Dust
From
Material
Movement
——————0.02 0.02 —0.01 0.01 ———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —220 220 0.01 0.01 0.94 224
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —95.1 95.1 0.01 0.01 0.26 99.7
Hauling 0.49 0.07 4.51 2.51 0.02 0.04 0.26 0.31 0.04 0.09 0.13 —3,573 3,573 0.41 0.57 7.44 3,760
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —12.3 12.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.5
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.73 5.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.00
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
11 / 31
Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.29 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —215 215 0.02 0.03 0.19 226
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —2.04 2.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.07
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.95 0.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.99
Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —35.7 35.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 37.5
3.5. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.59 0.59 16.3 26.8 0.05 0.17 —0.17 0.16 —0.16 —4,609 4,609 0.19 0.04 —4,625
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.59 0.59 16.3 26.8 0.05 0.17 —0.17 0.16 —0.16 —4,609 4,609 0.19 0.04 —4,625
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.27 0.27 7.51 12.3 0.02 0.08 —0.08 0.08 —0.08 —2,119 2,119 0.09 0.02 —2,127
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
12 / 31
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.05 1.37 2.25 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —351 351 0.01 < 0.005 —352
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.43 0.39 0.38 6.57 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 —1,043 1,043 0.04 0.04 4.47 1,059
Vendor 0.09 0.02 0.90 0.49 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.03 —761 761 0.06 0.11 2.10 798
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.40 0.37 0.44 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 —956 956 0.05 0.04 0.12 967
Vendor 0.08 0.02 0.94 0.49 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.03 —761 761 0.06 0.11 0.05 796
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.18 0.17 0.20 2.40 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 —446 446 0.02 0.02 0.89 452
Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.43 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —350 350 0.03 0.05 0.42 366
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —73.8 73.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 74.8
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —57.9 57.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 60.7
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
13 / 31
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.59 0.59 16.3 26.8 0.05 0.17 —0.17 0.16 —0.16 —4,608 4,608 0.19 0.04 —4,624
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.04 0.99 1.63 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —280 280 0.01 < 0.005 —281
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.18 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —46.3 46.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —46.4
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.39 0.35 0.41 4.54 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 —937 937 0.04 0.04 0.11 949
Vendor 0.08 0.02 0.90 0.47 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.03 —753 753 0.06 0.11 0.05 788
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
14 / 31
——————————————————Average
Daily
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —57.6 57.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 58.5
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —45.7 45.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 47.8
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —9.54 9.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.68
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.56 7.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.92
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.23 0.23 7.21 10.6 0.01 0.09 —0.09 0.08 —0.08 —1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 —1,517
Paving —0.15 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.23 0.23 7.21 10.6 0.01 0.09 —0.09 0.08 —0.08 —1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 —1,517
Paving —0.15 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
15 / 31
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.04 1.28 1.89 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.01 —0.01 —269 269 0.01 < 0.005 —270
Paving —0.03 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.01 0.23 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —44.6 44.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —44.7
Paving —< 0.005 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —216 216 0.01 0.01 0.86 219
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —198 198 0.01 0.01 0.02 200
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.18 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —35.7 35.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 36.3
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
16 / 31
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —5.92 5.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Onsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 1.43 1.28 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —178 178 0.01 < 0.005 —179
Architect
ural
Coatings
—13.3 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
0.03 0.03 1.43 1.28 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —178 178 0.01 < 0.005 —179
Architect
ural
Coatings
—13.3 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
17 / 31
31.3—< 0.005< 0.00531.231.2—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0050.230.25< 0.005< 0.005Off-Road
Equipment
Architect
ural
Coatings
—2.32 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —5.17 5.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.19
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.42 ————————————————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite ——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —202 202 0.01 0.01 0.81 205
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —185 185 0.01 0.01 0.02 187
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —32.9 32.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 33.3
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
18 / 31
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —5.44 5.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.52
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
19 / 31
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
20 / 31
Sequest ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description
Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/1/2023 4/10/2023 5.00 6.00 —
Grading Grading 4/11/2023 5/10/2023 5.00 22.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 5/11/2023 1/31/2024 5.00 190 —
Paving Paving 1/21/2024 4/20/2024 5.00 65.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2024 4/30/2024 5.00 64.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
21 / 31
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 5.00 8.00 367 0.40
Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 367 0.40
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 367 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 46.0 0.45
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36
Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 6.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Building Construction Crawler Tractors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix
Site Preparation ————
Site Preparation Worker 28.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 1.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
22 / 31
Grading ————
Grading Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 3.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 50.0 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Building Construction ————
Building Construction Worker 71.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 24.0 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Paving ————
Paving Worker 15.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Architectural Coating ————
Architectural Coating Worker 14.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
23 / 31
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 260,239 86,746 9,467
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards)Material Exported (Cubic Yards)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (sq. ft.)Acres Paved (acres)
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 33.0 0.00 —
Grading 8,764 0.00 55.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.62
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
Water Exposed Area 3 74%74%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt
General Light Industry 0.00 0%
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 1.16 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.46 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
24 / 31
2023 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG
emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 21.7 annual days of extreme heat
Extreme Precipitation 5.25 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
25 / 31
Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed
historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full
day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different
increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make
different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature
possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate,
vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make
different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature
possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
26 / 31
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 97.0
AQ-PM 91.2
AQ-DPM 44.6
Drinking Water 66.7
Lead Risk Housing 17.7
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 70.1
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
27 / 31
Traffic 22.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 87.1
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 35.5
Cardio-vascular 74.9
Low Birth Weights 90.0
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 67.1
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 42.1
Poverty 46.6
Unemployment 60.6
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 73.87398948
Employed 66.08494803
Median HI —
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 33.61991531
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
28 / 31
High school enrollment 16.64314128
Preschool enrollment 6.954959579
Transportation —
Auto Access 81.29090209
Active commuting 28.82073656
Social —
2-parent households 63.10791736
Voting 37.89298088
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 69.81906839
Park access 24.90696779
Retail density 29.59065828
Supermarket access 48.50506865
Tree canopy 11.20236109
Housing —
Homeownership 87.77107661
Housing habitability 74.22045425
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 66.09778006
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 33.49159502
Uncrowded housing 67.80443988
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 47.32452201
Arthritis 87.4
Asthma ER Admissions 59.8
High Blood Pressure 83.5
Cancer (excluding skin)80.0
Asthma 58.2
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
29 / 31
Coronary Heart Disease 90.3
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 88.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 65.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 84.7
Cognitively Disabled 85.7
Physically Disabled 88.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 27.3
Mental Health Not Good 56.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 44.4
Pedestrian Injuries 39.5
Physical Health Not Good 65.0
Stroke 88.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 15.4
Current Smoker 63.1
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.9
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 45.9
Elderly 96.3
English Speaking 60.3
Foreign-born 41.2
Outdoor Workers 55.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 52.6
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
30 / 31
Traffic Density 33.7
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 49.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 49.9
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)58.0
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)51.0
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No
Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Total Project area is 8.43 acres
Beech Logistics Center (Construction - Unmitigated) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
31 / 31
Construction: Construction Phases Construction anticipated to end in 2024
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Crawler Tractors used in lieu of Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Construction: Trips and VMT Vendor Trips adjusted based on CalEEMod defaults for Building Construction and number of days for
Site Preparation, Grading, and Building Construction
Construction: Architectural Coatings Rule 1113
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
This page intentionally left blank
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
APPENDIX 3.2:
CALEEMOD PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
1 / 32
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
2 / 32
4.3.2. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
3 / 32
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
4 / 32
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
5 / 32
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
6 / 32
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations)
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)2.80
Precipitation (days)6.40
Location 34.108970164547955, -117.47238518529332
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Fontana
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5304
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
General Light
Industry
42.2 1000sqft 1.20 42,190 10,200 0.00 ——
User Defined
Industrial
42.2 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ——
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
7 / 32
Parking Lot 183 Space 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 ——
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
107 1000sqft 2.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 ——
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.32 2.16 1.87 12.2 0.03 0.06 0.82 0.88 0.06 0.15 0.21 46.9 3,806 3,853 4.97 0.22 20.9 4,063
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.95 1.81 1.95 8.53 0.03 0.06 0.82 0.88 0.06 0.15 0.20 46.9 3,642 3,688 4.97 0.22 11.2 3,889
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.93 1.81 1.58 7.85 0.02 0.05 0.60 0.65 0.05 0.11 0.16 46.9 2,974 3,020 4.93 0.18 14.1 3,210
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.17 0.33 0.29 1.43 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.03 7.76 492 500 0.82 0.03 2.34 532
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
8 / 32
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 0.94 0.79 1.37 9.93 0.03 0.02 0.82 0.84 0.02 0.15 0.17 —2,728 2,728 0.14 0.16 9.91 2,790
Area 0.33 1.34 0.02 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —7.55 7.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.77
Energy 0.05 0.03 0.49 0.41 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —1,007 1,007 0.09 0.01 —1,011
Water ———————————18.7 64.3 83.0 1.92 0.05 —145
Waste ———————————28.2 0.00 28.2 2.82 0.00 —98.6
Refrig.————————————————11.0 11.0
Total 1.32 2.16 1.87 12.2 0.03 0.06 0.82 0.88 0.06 0.15 0.21 46.9 3,806 3,853 4.97 0.22 20.9 4,063
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 0.89 0.75 1.46 8.12 0.02 0.02 0.82 0.84 0.02 0.15 0.17 —2,571 2,571 0.14 0.17 0.26 2,624
Area —1.03 ————————————————
Energy 0.05 0.03 0.49 0.41 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —1,007 1,007 0.09 0.01 —1,011
Water ———————————18.7 64.3 83.0 1.92 0.05 —145
Waste ———————————28.2 0.00 28.2 2.82 0.00 —98.6
Refrig.————————————————11.0 11.0
Total 0.95 1.81 1.95 8.53 0.03 0.06 0.82 0.88 0.06 0.15 0.20 46.9 3,642 3,688 4.97 0.22 11.2 3,889
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 0.65 0.55 1.09 6.18 0.02 0.01 0.60 0.61 0.01 0.11 0.12 —1,898 1,898 0.10 0.12 3.13 1,940
Area 0.22 1.24 0.01 1.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —5.17 5.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.32
Energy 0.05 0.03 0.49 0.41 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —1,007 1,007 0.09 0.01 —1,011
Water ———————————18.7 64.3 83.0 1.92 0.05 —145
Waste ———————————28.2 0.00 28.2 2.82 0.00 —98.6
Refrig.————————————————11.0 11.0
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
9 / 32
Total 0.93 1.81 1.58 7.85 0.02 0.05 0.60 0.65 0.05 0.11 0.16 46.9 2,974 3,020 4.93 0.18 14.1 3,210
Annual ——————————————————
Mobile 0.12 0.10 0.20 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 —314 314 0.02 0.02 0.52 321
Area 0.04 0.23 < 0.005 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.86 0.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.88
Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —167 167 0.02 < 0.005 —167
Water ———————————3.10 10.6 13.7 0.32 0.01 —24.0
Waste ———————————4.67 0.00 4.67 0.47 0.00 —16.3
Refrig.————————————————1.82 1.82
Total 0.17 0.33 0.29 1.43 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.03 7.76 492 500 0.82 0.03 2.34 532
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
0.85 0.77 0.48 9.41 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.04 —1,961 1,961 0.07 0.05 7.75 1,985
User
Defined
Industrial
0.09 0.02 0.89 0.51 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 —767 767 0.07 0.12 2.16 806
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
10 / 32
0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 0.94 0.79 1.37 9.93 0.03 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.02 0.05 0.07 —2,728 2,728 0.14 0.16 9.91 2,790
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
0.80 0.73 0.54 7.61 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.04 —1,803 1,803 0.07 0.05 0.20 1,821
User
Defined
Industrial
0.09 0.02 0.93 0.52 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 —767 767 0.07 0.12 0.06 804
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.89 0.75 1.46 8.12 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.02 0.05 0.07 —2,571 2,571 0.14 0.17 0.26 2,624
Annual ——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
0.11 0.10 0.07 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —221 221 0.01 0.01 0.41 224
User
Defined
Industrial
0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —92.9 92.9 0.01 0.01 0.11 97.4
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.12 0.10 0.20 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —314 314 0.02 0.02 0.52 321
4.2. Energy
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
11 / 32
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
————————————384 384 0.04 < 0.005 —387
User
Defined
Industrial
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
————————————42.3 42.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —42.5
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ————————————427 427 0.04 < 0.005 —429
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
————————————384 384 0.04 < 0.005 —387
User
Defined
Industrial
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
————————————42.3 42.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —42.5
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ————————————427 427 0.04 < 0.005 —429
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
12 / 32
Annual ——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
————————————63.6 63.6 0.01 < 0.005 —64.0
User
Defined
Industrial
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
————————————7.00 7.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.04
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ————————————70.6 70.6 0.01 < 0.005 —71.0
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
0.05 0.03 0.49 0.41 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —580 580 0.05 < 0.005 —581
User
Defined
Industrial
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.05 0.03 0.49 0.41 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —580 580 0.05 < 0.005 —581
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
13 / 32
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
General
Light
Industry
0.05 0.03 0.49 0.41 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —580 580 0.05 < 0.005 —581
User
Defined
Industrial
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.05 0.03 0.49 0.41 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —580 580 0.05 < 0.005 —581
Annual ——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —96.0 96.0 0.01 < 0.005 —96.3
User
Defined
Industrial
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —96.0 96.0 0.01 < 0.005 —96.3
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
14 / 32
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.92 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.12 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.33 0.30 0.02 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —7.55 7.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.77
Total 0.33 1.34 0.02 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —7.55 7.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 —7.77
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.92 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.12 ————————————————
Total —1.03 ————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.17 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.02 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.86 0.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.88
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
15 / 32
Total 0.04 0.23 < 0.005 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.86 0.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.88
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
———————————18.7 64.3 83.0 1.92 0.05 —145
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————18.7 64.3 83.0 1.92 0.05 —145
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
———————————18.7 64.3 83.0 1.92 0.05 —145
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
16 / 32
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————18.7 64.3 83.0 1.92 0.05 —145
Annual ——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
———————————3.10 10.6 13.7 0.32 0.01 —24.0
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————3.10 10.6 13.7 0.32 0.01 —24.0
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
———————————28.2 0.00 28.2 2.82 0.00 —98.6
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
17 / 32
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————28.2 0.00 28.2 2.82 0.00 —98.6
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
———————————28.2 0.00 28.2 2.82 0.00 —98.6
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————28.2 0.00 28.2 2.82 0.00 —98.6
Annual ——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
———————————4.67 0.00 4.67 0.47 0.00 —16.3
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Parking
Lot
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————4.67 0.00 4.67 0.47 0.00 —16.3
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
18 / 32
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
————————————————11.0 11.0
Total ————————————————11.0 11.0
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
————————————————11.0 11.0
Total ————————————————11.0 11.0
Annual ——————————————————
General
Light
Industry
————————————————1.82 1.82
Total ————————————————1.82 1.82
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
19 / 32
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGEquipme
nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
20 / 32
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
21 / 32
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
22 / 32
Remove ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
23 / 32
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year
General Light
Industry
196 16.6 6.63 52,311 2,626 222 88.9 700,866
User Defined
Industrial
12.0 1.02 0.41 3,202 258 21.8 8.70 68,816
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 63,285 21,095 9,467
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
24 / 32
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
General Light Industry 402,397 349 0.0330 0.0040 1,809,365
User Defined Industrial 0.00 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 44,264 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year)
General Light Industry 9,756,438 163,795
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
General Light Industry 52.3 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
25 / 32
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
General Light Industry Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 0.30 4.00 4.00 18.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
——
5.18. Vegetation
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
26 / 32
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG
emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 21.7 annual days of extreme heat
Extreme Precipitation 5.25 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed
historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
27 / 32
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full
day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different
increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make
different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature
possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate,
vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make
different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature
possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
28 / 32
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 97.0
AQ-PM 91.2
AQ-DPM 44.6
Drinking Water 66.7
Lead Risk Housing 17.7
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 70.1
Traffic 22.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
29 / 32
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 87.1
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 35.5
Cardio-vascular 74.9
Low Birth Weights 90.0
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 67.1
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 42.1
Poverty 46.6
Unemployment 60.6
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 73.87398948
Employed 66.08494803
Median HI 76.97934043
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 33.61991531
High school enrollment 16.64314128
Preschool enrollment 6.954959579
Transportation —
Auto Access 81.29090209
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
30 / 32
Active commuting 28.82073656
Social —
2-parent households 63.10791736
Voting 37.89298088
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 69.81906839
Park access 24.90696779
Retail density 29.59065828
Supermarket access 48.50506865
Tree canopy 11.20236109
Housing —
Homeownership 87.77107661
Housing habitability 74.22045425
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 66.09778006
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 33.49159502
Uncrowded housing 67.80443988
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 47.32452201
Arthritis 87.4
Asthma ER Admissions 59.8
High Blood Pressure 83.5
Cancer (excluding skin)80.0
Asthma 58.2
Coronary Heart Disease 90.3
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 88.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 65.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 84.7
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
31 / 32
Cognitively Disabled 85.7
Physically Disabled 88.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 27.3
Mental Health Not Good 56.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 44.4
Pedestrian Injuries 39.5
Physical Health Not Good 65.0
Stroke 88.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 15.4
Current Smoker 63.1
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.9
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 45.9
Elderly 96.3
English Speaking 60.3
Foreign-born 41.2
Outdoor Workers 55.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 52.6
Traffic Density 33.7
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 49.3
Beech Logistics Center (General Light Industrial Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
32 / 32
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 49.9
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)58.0
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)51.0
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No
Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Total Project area is 8.43 acres
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip characteristics based on information provided in the Traffic analysis
Operations: Fleet Mix Passenger Car Mix estimated based on the CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle
classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, & MCY). Truck Mix based on information in the Traffic analysis
Operations: Energy Use Natural gas will not be used as part of the Project
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
1 / 31
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
2 / 31
4.3.2. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
3 / 31
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
4 / 31
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
5 / 31
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
6 / 31
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations)
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s)2.80
Precipitation (days)6.40
Location 34.108970164547955, -117.47238518529332
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Fontana
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5304
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq
ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
127 1000sqft 3.61 126,569 30,599 0.00 ——
User Defined
Industrial
127 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ——
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
7 / 31
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.2.20 4.65 6.42 15.9 0.06 0.13 1.23 1.37 0.13 0.26 0.39 120 7,645 7,765 12.7 0.89 148 8,496
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.19 3.72 6.65 9.11 0.06 0.13 1.23 1.36 0.12 0.26 0.38 120 7,511 7,631 12.7 0.89 130 8,344
Average
Daily
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.1.56 4.16 5.11 10.7 0.04 0.11 0.90 1.01 0.11 0.19 0.30 120 5,929 6,049 12.6 0.69 135 6,706
Annual
(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit.0.28 0.76 0.93 1.96 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.18 0.02 0.03 0.05 19.9 982 1,002 2.09 0.11 22.4 1,110
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
8 / 31
Mobile 1.15 0.69 5.72 9.85 0.06 0.08 1.23 1.31 0.07 0.26 0.33 —6,100 6,100 0.45 0.74 19.3 6,350
Area 0.98 3.93 0.05 5.50 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —23.3
Energy 0.07 0.04 0.65 0.54 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —1,330 1,330 0.12 0.01 —1,335
Water ———————————56.1 193 249 5.77 0.14 —434
Waste ———————————64.1 0.00 64.1 6.41 0.00 —224
Refrig.————————————————129 129
Total 2.20 4.65 6.42 15.9 0.06 0.13 1.23 1.37 0.13 0.26 0.39 120 7,645 7,765 12.7 0.89 148 8,496
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Mobile 1.12 0.65 6.00 8.57 0.06 0.08 1.23 1.31 0.07 0.26 0.33 —5,988 5,988 0.45 0.74 0.50 6,221
Area —3.03 ————————————————
Energy 0.07 0.04 0.65 0.54 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —1,330 1,330 0.12 0.01 —1,335
Water ———————————56.1 193 249 5.77 0.14 —434
Waste ———————————64.1 0.00 64.1 6.41 0.00 —224
Refrig.————————————————129 129
Total 1.19 3.72 6.65 9.11 0.06 0.13 1.23 1.36 0.12 0.26 0.38 120 7,511 7,631 12.7 0.89 130 8,344
Average
Daily
——————————————————
Mobile 0.81 0.48 4.44 6.43 0.04 0.06 0.90 0.96 0.05 0.19 0.24 —4,391 4,391 0.33 0.54 6.08 4,567
Area 0.67 3.65 0.03 3.77 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.0
Energy 0.07 0.04 0.65 0.54 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —1,330 1,330 0.12 0.01 —1,335
Water ———————————56.1 193 249 5.77 0.14 —434
Waste ———————————64.1 0.00 64.1 6.41 0.00 —224
Refrig.————————————————129 129
Total 1.56 4.16 5.11 10.7 0.04 0.11 0.90 1.01 0.11 0.19 0.30 120 5,929 6,049 12.6 0.69 135 6,706
Annual ——————————————————
Mobile 0.15 0.09 0.81 1.17 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.03 0.04 —727 727 0.05 0.09 1.01 756
Area 0.12 0.67 0.01 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.57 2.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.64
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
9 / 31
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —220 220 0.02 < 0.005 —221
Water ———————————9.29 31.9 41.2 0.96 0.02 —71.9
Waste ———————————10.6 0.00 10.6 1.06 0.00 —37.1
Refrig.————————————————21.4 21.4
Total 0.28 0.76 0.93 1.96 0.01 0.02 0.16 0.18 0.02 0.03 0.05 19.9 982 1,002 2.09 0.11 22.4 1,110
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.60 0.55 0.35 6.72 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 —1,401 1,401 0.05 0.03 5.53 1,418
User
Defined
Industrial
0.55 0.13 5.38 3.12 0.04 0.07 0.36 0.43 0.07 0.12 0.18 —4,700 4,700 0.40 0.70 13.7 4,933
Total 1.15 0.69 5.72 9.85 0.06 0.08 0.42 0.50 0.07 0.14 0.21 —6,100 6,100 0.45 0.74 19.3 6,350
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
10 / 31
1,3000.140.040.051,2881,288—0.030.020.010.070.070.010.015.440.380.520.57Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
User
Defined
Industrial
0.54 0.13 5.62 3.13 0.04 0.07 0.36 0.43 0.07 0.12 0.18 —4,700 4,700 0.40 0.70 0.36 4,920
Total 1.12 0.65 6.00 8.57 0.06 0.08 0.42 0.50 0.07 0.14 0.21 —5,988 5,988 0.45 0.74 0.50 6,221
Annual ——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.08 0.07 0.05 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —158 158 0.01 < 0.005 0.29 160
User
Defined
Industrial
0.07 0.02 0.76 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 —569 569 0.05 0.09 0.72 596
Total 0.15 0.09 0.81 1.17 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 —727 727 0.05 0.09 1.01 756
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
————————————558 558 0.05 0.01 —562
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
11 / 31
0.00—0.000.000.000.00————————————User
Defined
Industrial
Total ————————————558 558 0.05 0.01 —562
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
————————————558 558 0.05 0.01 —562
User
Defined
Industrial
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ————————————558 558 0.05 0.01 —562
Annual ——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
————————————92.4 92.4 0.01 < 0.005 —93.0
User
Defined
Industrial
————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ————————————92.4 92.4 0.01 < 0.005 —93.0
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
12 / 31
Unrefrige
Warehouse-No
Rail
0.07 0.04 0.65 0.54 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —771 771 0.07 < 0.005 —773
User
Defined
Industrial
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.07 0.04 0.65 0.54 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —771 771 0.07 < 0.005 —773
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.07 0.04 0.65 0.54 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —771 771 0.07 < 0.005 —773
User
Defined
Industrial
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.07 0.04 0.65 0.54 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —771 771 0.07 < 0.005 —773
Annual ——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
0.01 0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —128 128 0.01 < 0.005 —128
User
Defined
Industrial
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —128 128 0.01 < 0.005 —128
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
13 / 31
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—2.71 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.32 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.98 0.90 0.05 5.50 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —23.3
Total 0.98 3.93 0.05 5.50 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —23.3
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—2.71 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.32 ————————————————
Total —3.03 ————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Consum
er
Products
—0.49 ————————————————
Architect
ural
Coatings
—0.06 ————————————————
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.12 0.11 0.01 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.57 2.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.64
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
14 / 31
Total 0.12 0.67 0.01 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.57 2.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.64
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————56.1 193 249 5.77 0.14 —434
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————56.1 193 249 5.77 0.14 —434
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————56.1 193 249 5.77 0.14 —434
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————56.1 193 249 5.77 0.14 —434
Annual ——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
15 / 31
71.9—0.020.9641.231.99.29———————————Unrefrige
rated
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————9.29 31.9 41.2 0.96 0.02 —71.9
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————64.1 0.00 64.1 6.41 0.00 —224
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————64.1 0.00 64.1 6.41 0.00 —224
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————64.1 0.00 64.1 6.41 0.00 —224
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
16 / 31
0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————User
Defined
Industrial
Total ———————————64.1 0.00 64.1 6.41 0.00 —224
Annual ——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
———————————10.6 0.00 10.6 1.06 0.00 —37.1
User
Defined
Industrial
———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00
Total ———————————10.6 0.00 10.6 1.06 0.00 —37.1
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
————————————————129 129
Total ————————————————129 129
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
17 / 31
129129————————————————Unrefrige
rated
Total ————————————————129 129
Annual ——————————————————
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
————————————————21.4 21.4
Total ————————————————21.4 21.4
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
18 / 31
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
19 / 31
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
20 / 31
Total ——————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Total ——————————————————
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
21 / 31
———————————————————
Annual ——————————————————
Avoided ——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
Remove
d
——————————————————
Subtotal ——————————————————
———————————————————
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
140 11.8 4.73 37,364 1,876 159 63.4 500,606
User Defined
Industrial
78.0 6.59 2.65 20,819 1,615 137 54.8 430,965
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
22 / 31
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 189,854 63,285 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
584,585 349 0.0330 0.0040 2,406,163
User Defined Industrial 0.00 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 29,269,081 491,385
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
23 / 31
Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 119 0.00
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
Cold storage User Defined 150 7.50 7.50 7.50 25.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
24 / 31
——
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG
emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 21.7 annual days of extreme heat
Extreme Precipitation 5.25 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm
Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
25 / 31
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed
historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full
day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different
increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make
different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature
possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate,
vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make
different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature
possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
26 / 31
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the
greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 97.0
AQ-PM 91.2
AQ-DPM 44.6
Drinking Water 66.7
Lead Risk Housing 17.7
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 70.1
Traffic 22.7
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
27 / 31
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 87.1
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 35.5
Cardio-vascular 74.9
Low Birth Weights 90.0
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 67.1
Housing 32.3
Linguistic 42.1
Poverty 46.6
Unemployment 60.6
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 73.87398948
Employed 66.08494803
Median HI 76.97934043
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 33.61991531
High school enrollment 16.64314128
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
28 / 31
Preschool enrollment 6.954959579
Transportation —
Auto Access 81.29090209
Active commuting 28.82073656
Social —
2-parent households 63.10791736
Voting 37.89298088
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 69.81906839
Park access 24.90696779
Retail density 29.59065828
Supermarket access 48.50506865
Tree canopy 11.20236109
Housing —
Homeownership 87.77107661
Housing habitability 74.22045425
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 66.09778006
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 33.49159502
Uncrowded housing 67.80443988
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 47.32452201
Arthritis 87.4
Asthma ER Admissions 59.8
High Blood Pressure 83.5
Cancer (excluding skin)80.0
Asthma 58.2
Coronary Heart Disease 90.3
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
29 / 31
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 88.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 65.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 84.7
Cognitively Disabled 85.7
Physically Disabled 88.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 27.3
Mental Health Not Good 56.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 79.8
Obesity 44.4
Pedestrian Injuries 39.5
Physical Health Not Good 65.0
Stroke 88.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 15.4
Current Smoker 63.1
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 61.9
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 45.9
Elderly 96.3
English Speaking 60.3
Foreign-born 41.2
Outdoor Workers 55.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 52.6
Traffic Density 33.7
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
30 / 31
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 49.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 49.9
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)58.0
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)51.0
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No
Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Total Project area (warehouse only) is 3.61 acres
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip characteristics based on information provided in the Traffic analysis
Beech Logistics Center (Warehouse Operations) Detailed Report, 11/15/2022
31 / 31
Operations: Fleet Mix Passenger Car Mix estimated based on the CalEEMod default fleet mix and the ratio of the vehicle
classes (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV, & MCY). Truck Mix based on information in the Traffic analysis
Operations: Energy Use No natural gas
Operations: Refrigerants Per 17 CCR 95371, new refrigeration equipment containing >50 lbs of refrigerant in new facilities is
prohibited from utilizing refrigerants with a GWP of 150 or greater as of 1 Jan 2022
Beech Logistics Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis
14726-02 GHG Report
This page intentionally left blank