A coalition of businesses want to build more quickly in California. The way they hope to do it is by putting a big, legal stopwatch on California’s Environmental Quality Act or CEQA.
The sweeping environmental movement of the 1960s gave birth to CEQA. The intent: limit environmental harm of development by placing the responsibility on government to ensure a project doesn’t significantly damage the California environment.
While well intentioned, CEQA has also been used to block or stall projects – even projects cities are trying to encourage, like more affordable apartments and clean energy infrastructure.
Here’s an example: A private company wanted to build a solar farm outside of the town of Jacumba. A consulting company, called Dudek, wrote an environmental impact report, analyzing how the project would affect the area. Officials at the county of San Diego signed off on it. But upset residents who didn’t want to look at solar panels sued the county over that report because the local government is ultimately responsible for CEQA compliance under the law. Eventually, the courts sided with the solar developer, but the project was delayed a number of years to let the case play out.
Developers say Proposition 45 is the answer to this kind of problem. If voters approved it, governments would have one year to review the environmental impacts of a proposed project. After a project receives the green light from the government, anyone who wanted to sue would have to file their lawsuit in 30 days after approval. And Prop 45 would require courts resolve the litigation in under a year. Meanwhile, developers would be able to keep building.
I’ll be hosting a panel with lawyers and campaign spokespeople from both sides of the argument to duke out what the Prop does and doesn’t do to this extremely cumbersome and critical California law at Politifest 2026 on October 3 at 3 p.m. Get your tickets here.
Proponents, like the California Chamber of Commerce and the Building Industry Association, argue CEQA slows development down by permitting frivolous litigation. They say Prop 45 would make housing in California more affordable by cutting down on expensive bureaucracy to fulfill CEQA requirements.
The California Democratic Party and environmental organizations like the Sierra Club are opposed to Prop 45. They argue it would completely handicap CEQA’s ability to protect and preserve the environment. Government agencies, they say, aren’t equipped with enough staff and expertise to study environmental impacts within these timeframes and already overburdened courts would have a difficult time speeding these cases along.
Big unionized labor groups like the State Building Construction Trades Council of California and the Ironworkers of the State of California have spent collectively over $2.5 million to oppose the proposition, according to CalMatters. One might think labor unions that stand to benefit from faster building timelines would support Prop 45, especially since the proposition includes a clause that builders be paid prevailing wage or industry standard wages.
“This ballot measure is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, pretending to be about speeding up construction. But what it actually will do is strip every California family of their right to ensure projects built in their community are safe,” said Dave Osborne, president of the District Council of Ironworkers, California and Vicinity.
The measure’s supporters argue that unions have frequently weaponized CEQA to stop projects they don’t like.
Groups like Building A Better California have spent $10 million to support Prop 45. That’s the same group, backed by billionaires like Google cofounder Sergey Brin, spending money to fight Prop 40, the so-called billionaire’s tax also on the ballot this November. Investor-owned utilities trade group, Edison International, and other large building groups also support Prop 45.
The opposition argues that data centers – which the public has soured on — could be built faster and with less time for environmental review under Prop 45. For now, it’s unclear if that’s actually true. The argument comes down to whether data centers count among the types of buildings covered under Prop 45.
Prop 45 allows “essential broadband internet access project” to fall under the streamlined CEQA process. So, the question is, could a data center be considered one of those?
I have no idea. And neither would anyone else, really, unless Prop 45 were to pass and a data center developer were to try to use that definition to argue it should be built under these new faster timelines. Ultimately, the decision would fall on the courts.
Amelia Matier, a spokesperson for Yes on Prop 45, said this data center argument is just a “scare tactic.” Data centers poll really badly, she said, and the opposition wants to capitalize on that.
“Nothing about this applies to data centers,” Matier said.
Get your Politifest tickets here, if you’d like to join us.
In Other News
- In other data center and CEQA news, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 887 which clarifies that all new data centers are subject to environmental review. (KPBS)
- An Imperial County judge said the proposed data center there must undergo a full environmental review, even though the area where the proposed project would go was zoned for data centers. (Courthouse News)
- Karin Burns, San Diego Community Power’s former CEO, was on leave for three months, as we first reported. Now she’ll change job titles and become an “executive adviser” to the agency through Jan. 15 of next year. She’ll retain her CEO salary of $505,270 during that time, the agency confirmed to me. (Union-Tribune and Voice of San Diego)
- What will become of the beloved Pacific Surfliner train along the Southern California coast as the oncoming intense El Niño winter comes barreling towards us? (Los Angeles Times)
