GET READY TO VOTE

• What’s at stake?
• Ballot language
• Understanding Proposition 45
• Here’s what supporters say
• Here’s what opponents say
• What it takes to win
• Potential financial impact
• Campaign finance

Proposition 45 would limit environmental reviews for certain projects designated by developers as “essential,” including housing, clean energy, water and other infrastructure.

Proposition 45 says it will “cut red tape” and collapse the time it takes for projects — such as housing, clean energy, water and other infrastructure — to go through an environmental review process.

What’s at stake?

Proposition 45 would speed up the time it takes for certain projects to be evaluated under the state’s main environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.

If passed, the law would limit environmental review timelines to about a year and a half, or 365 business days, for “essential” infrastructure, including housing, energy, water, roads and bridges, health and public safety facilities, broadband internet, as well as wildfire-related projects. It would require courts to rule on lawsuits within 270 days and limit the courts’ ability to reject a project in its entirety.

Additionally, the law would allow project applicants to develop just one alternative, instead of multiple; require consultation with only federally recognized tribes, instead of a broader range of tribes; and set a maximum time limit for public comment (the law currently has only a minimum limit), among other things.

Ballot language

Official title

Proposition 45: Modifies environmental review for certain projects

Language you will see

Understanding Proposition 45

The California Environmental Quality Act was signed into law in 1970 by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan. It was a landmark law that required government agencies to study the environmental effects of public infrastructure projects. It also gave the public the right to sue if that analysis was believed to be insufficient. In 1972, courts ruled that any project requiring public approval would be considered a “public project,” meaning the law applies to private developments that require public permits or approvals.

Fast forward to the present, when we have a statewide housing crisis and critical infrastructure aging beyond its limits. That’s why the California Chamber of Commerce successfully got Prop. 45 on the ballot, arguing that in the decades since the law’s passage, it’s made the process for approving “essential” projects, such as housing and infrastructure, “too slow, too bureaucratic, and too costly.” Other laws have aimed to address the housing side of this: For example, last year the state legislature passed a law, AB 130, exempting “infill” housing from environmental review under CEQA.

Here’s what supporters say

• Supporters argue that Prop. 45 would streamline the environmental review process and allow faster development of projects deemed “essential,” such as housing, clean energy and other critical infrastructure. The state’s Chamber of Commerce says CEQA is “outdated” and leads to excessive lawsuits that slow development and increase costs for taxpayers and consumers.
  

• Notable endorsements:  California Republican Party, California Chamber of Commerce, L.A. County BizFed, California Hospital Association, California Water Association. Here's the list of endorsements on the Yes on Prop. 4 site. 

Here’s what opponents say

• Opponents argue that Prop. 45 takes away too many guardrails that protect communities and the environment from major developments that could be harmful. They say the definition of “essential projects” in Prop. 45 is too broad and could strip the public of tools to combat polluting projects that may affect them or the environment. 
  

• Notable opponents: California Democratic Party, Sierra Club of California, California Labor Federation, Physicians for Social Responsibility — Los Angeles, Communities for a Better Environment. Here's the list of opponents on the No on Prop. 4 site. 

What it takes to win

A majority is needed to pass.

Potential financial impact

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Prop. 45 would likely increase costs for local governments and the state “in the high tens of millions of dollars annually, potentially exceeding $100 million annually,” for the first several years at least. Those costs would be associated with developing new guidelines for eligible projects.

In the longer term, the LAO says, the financial impact is less certain: If Prop. 45 does speed up certain projects, those projects may cost less. But if the approval of projects leads to negative environmental effects, the state and local governments could end up paying more to respond to such outcomes. See the full LAO analysis here.

Campaign finance