SACRAMENTO, Calif.— The California Energy Commission unanimously approved a petition today from conservation, environmental justice and local government groups requiring that it factor in the environment and public health when making decisions about the state’s clean energy and climate future. The action launches a process, including public workshops beginning this summer, to develop methods that include non-energy benefits and social costs throughout the commission’s work.

“This is an enormous first step toward making sure California’s energy decisions don’t harm communities, air and water to benefit polluting industries and corporate utilities, and it will tip the scales toward clean energy,” said Roger Lin, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The commission’s leadership will go a long way toward bringing climate justice to California’s hardest hit communities and sets a precedent that other states should follow. We’ll see less pollution and unlock more clean energy funding for overburdened communities that have been last in line.”

The groups’ February petition followed a series of regressive policy moves by the California Public Utilities Commission attacking local clean energy solutions, including a recent proposal to stifle community solar in California.

“We applaud the commission’s leadership in granting the petition to account for the full non-energy benefits and social costs of energy resources,” said Alexis Sutterman, energy justice manager with California Environmental Justice Alliance. “For far too long, environmental justice communities have been treated as sacrifice zones for the state, subject to dangerously high levels of pollution from ‘cost-effective’ resources that in reality cost them their health and well-being. Accounting for the full costs and benefits is long overdue and will help California finally unlock investments that advance our climate, health, and environmental justice goals.”

“We’re glad the CEC has corrected course by acknowledging the true costs of keeping gas plants and other dirty energy sources online,” said Julia Dowell, a senior field organizer with the Sierra Club. “An analysis of energy sources that ignores toxic pollution and its legacy of harms in environmental justice communities is like trying to pick the best option from a lineup with a blindfold on. We’re hopeful that this decision will be implemented in a timely manner and will make clean energy decision making in California more comprehensive and equitable.”

The California Energy Commission oversees the mix of energy resources needed to meet the state’s 100% clean energy target by comparing their costs and benefits, which has benefited fossil fuels and for-profit utilities. Those cost-benefit analyses have failed to consider the potential local harms (or “social costs”) and community benefits (or “non-energy benefits”) of energy programs or projects.

The petition requires the commission to consider consequences such as local air and water pollution, excessive water use, and other environmental harms. For example, in the past power plants and biofuel combustion have been deemed “cost-effective” because the commission has ignored the pollution and other harms of these projects, which disproportionately fall on low-income communities and those of color.

The commission also will be required to consider local benefits such as improved public health from reduced pollution and the resiliency of distributed renewable energy resources. For example, energy-efficiency programs targeting low-income and disadvantaged communities have been deemed not “cost-effective” under a cost-benefit analysis that has ignored the benefits to these families’ wellbeing. That needlessly limits state and federal funding available to serve those communities.

The commission has hired a consultant to develop values and methods to weigh the social costs and non-energy benefits of its decisions. The commission will hold the first in a series of workshops at 9:30 a.m. April 16 in Sacramento, focused on the approach and implications of examining these costs and benefits.