SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — Environmental justice groups filed a petition with the California Energy Commission Monday morning asking the commission to comply with state law and consider the environment and public health when it makes decisions about the Golden State’s clean energy policies.
The Center for Biological Diversity, the Central California Asthma collaborative and a coalition of other public health and environmental groups take aim in their petition at Senate Bill 100, a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of electric retail sales to end-use customers by 2045. Former Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill in 2018.
“This petition is the first step toward getting regulators in line with the law,” said Roger Lin, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “For decades the California Energy Commission has ignored the state’s hardest-hit communities, our air and our water in favor of a lopsided cost-benefit analysis that helps polluting industries and corporate utilities. By basing its decisions on inaccurate data, the commission has worsened conditions in disadvantaged communities and blocked their access to clean energy resources.”
The petitioners claim that California doesn't consider the environment or effects on public health as it pushes for a target of 100% renewable energy, like wind or solar power. The state bases its decisions on wonky data, according to the environmentalists, worsening health outcomes in underprivileged communities.
“We have been fighting so hard for resources to ensure environmental justice communities are not left behind in this energy transition,” said Katie Valenzuela, senior policy advocate at the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition and facilitator for the Building Energy, Equity and Power Coalition. “Including these needs in decisions will ensure that the California Energy Commission's work is equitable — continuing as usual will only further exacerbate the inequities that plague our communities.”
The petitioners claim that California Energy Commission officials have failed to satisfy statutory mandates to consider the impacts of "non-energy benefits" and social costs in its quest for 100% non-renewable energy.
According to the California Energy Commission’s own definition, “NEBs represent the array of diverse impacts of energy programs and projects beyond the generation, conservation and transportation of energy.”
The petitioners say this includes "improved health, safety and comfort to individuals, as well as NEBs that ‘accrue to society at large,’ including local job creation, increased community resilience, improved air quality and other environmental benefits, such as reduced water use and water quality improvements."
Until the commission properly considers the impacts of these non-energy benefits, the environmental groups claim that disadvantaged communities will bear the brunt of impacts from pollution and be left behind in the clean energy transition, risking the success of SB 100 and California’s climate policy overall, as well as communities in the state.
“Biogas energy projects make millions for their owners and utilities, while people living next to them suffer health effects from their pollution and their energy costs continue to skyrocket,” said Kevin Hamilton, senior director of government affairs at the Central California Asthma Collaborative.
The environmentalists say that the state’s failure to consider public health and the environment in its energy decisions is “fundamental” to new California Public Utility Commission rooftop solar policies, which go into effect Feb. 14. Those policies are expected to reduce the rate paid for solar energy sold back to the grid by 75%, while also disallowing solar and storage customers from using their excess energy to offset utility delivery charges
The state’s rooftop solar rules were overhauled after contentious debate in 2022, and power companies and the solar industry criticized the new rules. Utilities claimed they did not get all the concessions they hoped for to lower bills for non-solar customers, and solar developers said the rules would discourage people from installing solar panels.
This policy change “will put rooftop solar further out of reach for renters and make net-metering changes that have already led to widespread business closures and layoffs — just when California should be accelerating this key tool for tackling the climate emergency,” the petitioners say.
The petitioners urged the California Energy Commission to initiate a rulemaking process to integrate non-energy benefits and social costs into the cost-effectiveness determination that drives California’s energy planning. The groups filed the petition with the commission's executive director, Drew Bohan, and requested a response within 30 days.
“We don’t have to accept tradeoffs that hurt the environment and our people to meet our climate goals,” said Lin. “We have to serve 100% of Californians to reach our 100% clean energy target.”
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Newsom’s ‘May revise’ trims budget to $288 billion May 10, 2024 -
