Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
Q&A
Differences between NYC's proposed rule and California's indirect source rule
1:25:29
·
91 sec
Dawn Miller from DEP outlines key differences between NYC's proposed indirect source rule and the one implemented in Southern California. These distinctions reflect New York City's unique urban environment and policy goals.
- NYC is considering a lower size threshold (50,000 sq ft) compared to California (100,000 sq ft) due to the dense urban environment
- The points menu for compliance options would be different in NYC
- NYC is not considering a mitigation fee option, which exists in the California policy
- NYC aims to have operators make changes in their operations rather than paying fees without changing practices
Alexa Avilés
1:25:29
Are there any other distinctions between, I guess, how the role is modeled in Southern California and what the thinking is here?
1:25:38
I mean, you mentioned right now just additional mitigation options.
1:25:43
Are there other distinctions?
Dawn Miller
1:25:46
Ms.
1:25:46
Yes.
1:25:48
One important distinction is the smallest warehouse size that is regulated California is a hundred thousand square feet.
1:25:58
We think New York City is a dense urban environment and our warehouses are therefore used intensively.
1:26:04
So that's why we've been looking at a smaller a lower size threshold for us rather than what they did in Southern California.
1:26:16
I think the things that are on the points menu would be different.
1:26:20
There's also in the Southern California policy, there is a compliance option called a mitigation fee, which is basically a warehouse operator could purchase points and then, you know, the government uses that money to develop other mitigation programs.
1:26:41
That's not something we've been contemplated low locally.
1:26:46
You know, we are looking to have the operators really make changes in their own operation as opposed to paying money and not having to change the way they operate.