Proposition 45 landed on the California ballot promising to streamline the approval of essential projects — housing, transportation, clean energy, and broadband infrastructure. What the measure doesn't say in large print is that hidden within 41 pages of technical text is a loophole capable of allowing data center developers to sidestep decades of environmental scrutiny. And the timing is critical: exactly now, as the race for AI compute capacity explodes, private companies are building ever-larger data centers across California.
Proposition 45, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, would modify the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) — the most stringent environmental law in any U.S. state — creating mandatory deadlines for environmental reviews and reducing the obligation of public agencies to consider viable alternatives to mitigate impacts. For eligible projects, the environmental impact report would have a maximum deadline of 365 days to complete, and legal challenges would need to be resolved within 270 days. What seems rational, in practice, transfers the power to decide the scope of environmental review from public agencies and communities to the developers themselves.
The problem begins with the list of eligible categories. The proposition covers nine types of "essential" projects, including housing, water systems, clean energy (including carbon capture and storage), transportation, wildfire risk reduction, and broadband internet access. All related and "ancillary" infrastructure is also covered. The term "ancillary" is key — and this is where the controversy centers.
Data centers, which typically require broadband infrastructure to operate, are in a gray zone. The "Yes on Prop 45" campaign repeatedly insists that the measure does not apply to data centers. But the text does not explicitly exclude them from the list of controversial projects that remain subject to environmental review. At the same time, the definition of "broadband internet access project" as "mass-market retail service that provides the capability to transmit data to, and receive data from, all or substantially all Internet endpoints" describes exactly many facilities that house the physical infrastructure used to transmit consumer data.
The money trail reveals what is at stake. According to election records, just three data center builders donated at least US$ 2 million to support Proposition 45. California Resources Corporation, the state's largest oil and gas producer, donated US$ 500,000 directly to the campaign and another half million to a business committee — even though oil and gas facilities are explicitly excluded from the proposition. CRC has a data center under environmental review at its Elk Hills oil field. If Prop 45 passes, that project could gain an expedited path to construction.
To put this in context, California had already significantly simplified CEQA the previous year, with laws that exempt urban and mixed-use housing construction from its provisions, along with certain infrastructure and clean energy. YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) groups, traditionally pro-construction, do not support Prop 45 — most are neutral, some oppose it. The reason? Expanding housing beyond already developed areas means building new freeways, water connections, and other expensive infrastructure that taxpayers ultimately pay for. According to Woody Little, spokesperson for the "No on Prop 45" movement, "the housing issue is a smoke screen for all these other polluting projects".
The impacts go far beyond data centers. The measure transfers control over who proposes mitigation alternatives: only the developer or corporation can suggest measures, taking away from local communities and environmental organizations the ability to propose alternatives. Julía Stein, deputy director of UCLA's Emmett Institute, classifies the measure as "a blunt force instrument" that unlikely builds projects faster by removing public participation. Mabel Tsang, political director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, says "this is the strongest tool that communities like ours use to protect ourselves from the worst health impacts before another polluting project is approved next to our homes".
The proposal also has a significant impact on Native American tribes. The measure removes the right of tribes not federally recognized to protect their sacred lands — which Myles Chambers of the Indigenous Environmental Network calls "a really harmful legal precedent". This occurs at a moment when California already faces catastrophic fires exacerbated by climate change, and the expansion of polluting infrastructure in wildland-urban interface zones increases risks.
What makes the case even more interesting is the Legislative Analyst's Office estimate that Prop 45 could cost between US$ 100 million and US$ 100 million per year to state and local governments — largely to cover the environmental impacts of expedited projects. This contradicts the promise of defenders that the measure would reduce costs for taxpayers.
Polling shows voters are falling into consciousness. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, published on Tuesday, 50% of voters oppose Prop 45, while supporters dropped from 73% in July, when voters knew only general information, to 46% now that details are known. On an election day where Californians vote on the proposition that redefines one of the most important environmental pillars in the world, the question is whether they will reject what critics call "a wolf in sheep's clothing" — or if the urgency for AI infrastructure convinces the majority.
Sources: The Verge, Inside Climate News, CalMatters
✓ Independent sources cross-checked and verified before publishing
