The new guidelines essentially flip the scrutiny on emissions limits, shifting the burden of proof from communities to polluters. If approved by the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency -- who has endorsed the blueprint -- facilities that pump pollution into the air, land or water would have to satisfy regulators that the discharges are safe, no matter the level.

The traditional paradigm, employed throughout the United States, forces communities and activist groups to establish a firm link between the pollution source and specific ailments plaguing residents.

"It's always been a cause-and-effect relationship -- your cancer and the (power) plant next door to you -- which is hard to prove," said Romel Pascual, assistant secretary for environmental justice at CalEPA. "What environmental justice says is in the absence of definitive science -- but with enough science to show there's a concern -- err on the side of caution."

Rooted in civil rights, the environmental justice movement calls for a change to policies and regulations that, intentionally or not, place a disproportionate share of environmental hazards in disadvantaged neighborhoods -- typically the poor and minorities.

The new rules won't turn the Fruitvale district into Rockridge but they will allow communities more say in decisions -- be it a power plant renewal permit or an air quality plan, said Pascual.

The policy, approved by the agency's Advisory Committee on Environmental Justice by a 15-1 vote, is already drawing national attention.

"It's a very modern perspective," said Peter Montague, director of the New Jersey-based Environmental Research Foundation.

The overhaul envisioned by the committee could touch businesses in profound ways, calling for regulators to assess cumulative impact of pollution on communities and, if necessary, redesign traffic flows or relocate or even deny permits for certain facilities. It also urges the state to adopt less toxic alternatives for certain manufacturing processes. Industry groups, which generally supported the philosophy behind the framework, saw red flags.

"There's a lot of good things in the report," said Cindy Tuck, general counsel for the California Council for Environment and Economic Balance and one of two large business representatives on the panel. But, she added, "some aspects could have a negative impact on California. When you talk about relocating businesses and denying permits and putting a buffer zone around facilities, those are the kinds of things that hurt jobs."

Tuck was the lone opposing vote on the panel. The committee's other business representative took a different tack. The guidelines allow industry to become a "neighbor of choice," said Robert Harris, vice president of environmental affairs for Pacific Gas & Electric Co.