SACRAMENTO, Calif.— The California Energy Commission will consider a petition Wednesday from conservation, environmental justice and local government groups that would require it to factor in the environment and public health when making decisions about the state’s clean energy future. The commission’s staff has recommended approval.

The groups filed the petition in February, and soon afterward the commission added it to its March business meeting agenda. It follows a series of regressive policy moves by the California Public Utility Commission attacking local clean energy solutions, including a recent proposal to stifle community solar in California.

What: California Energy Commission votes on a rulemaking petition to require commissioners to consider the environment and public health in energy decisions.

When: 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 13

Where: California Natural Resources Agency Building, 715 P Street, First Floor Auditorium, Sacramento, CA 95814

Join via Zoom. Zoom technical support, 1-888-799-9666 x 2.

Call in: (669) 900-6833 or (888) 475-4499 and enter webinar ID: 938 6923 0237.

Who: Attorney Roger Lin with the Center for Biological Diversity will be available for interviews before and after the hearing, along with representatives of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch and other petitioners.

Background
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. Those cost-benefit analyses omit the potential local harms (or “social costs”) and community benefits (or “non-energy benefits”) of energy programs or projects.

The commission doesn’t consider consequences such as local air and water pollution, excessive water use, and other environmental harms. For example, power plants and biofuel combustion appear to be “cost-effective” because the commission ignores the pollution and other harms of these projects, which disproportionately fall on low-income communities and those of color.

The commission also fails 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 analyses that ignores the benefits to these families’ wellbeing.