California’s long-running fight over its landmark environmental law is once again playing out on two separate stages this fall — one inside the state Capitol, the other on the November ballot — as lawmakers and interest groups wrestle over how much oversight developers and manufacturers should face before breaking ground on new projects.
The California Environmental Quality Act, signed into law 56 years ago by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, has rarely gone a legislative session without controversy. This year is no exception. With the Legislature racing to wrap up its two-year session and the Nov. 3 election drawing closer, the perennial argument over the law commonly known as CEQA has resurfaced with new intensity.
At its core, the debate remains the same one that has followed the law since its inception: how to balance environmental protections with the need to build housing, infrastructure and industrial capacity. Business interests and environmental advocates continue to find themselves on opposite sides.
In recent years, much of that tension has centered on housing. As the state pushed cities and counties to approve more apartments — especially units affordable to low- and middle-income residents — CEQA became a favorite tool for opponents. Neighbors worried about density often cited the law to slow or block projects, and construction unions leaned on it as leverage to ensure union labor was used on job sites.
That fight reached a turning point last year when Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders folded two major CEQA changes into the state budget. Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131 exempted certain types of housing developments from CEQA review altogether. Newsom framed the move as a broader philosophical shift for the state.
“This isn’t just a budget,” Newsom said at the time. “This is a budget that builds. It proves what’s possible when we govern with urgency, with clarity, and with a belief in abundance over scarcity.”
But SB 131 did more than address housing. It also loosened CEQA requirements for certain non-residential projects, including so-called advanced manufacturing facilities — a provision that alarmed environmental groups almost as soon as it passed. Critics warned the language was written broadly enough to potentially shield polluting industries, including strip mining operations, from meaningful environmental review. Advocacy groups spent much of the following months pushing Newsom and lawmakers to rein in the exemption.
That effort has now taken shape in Senate Bill 954, which environmental organizations are backing as a necessary correction. Business groups, however, argue the bill goes too far in the other direction. They point not only to its CEQA-related provisions but also to language requiring union labor on qualifying projects, which they say could scare off industrial investment.
The California Manufacturers & Technology Association has warned that the bill could complicate supply chain operations and discourage companies from upgrading existing facilities — including improvements that would actually help the state meet its own climate and energy goals — at a time when California is competing with other states for manufacturing dollars.
While environmentalists see SB 131 as having opened the door too wide, the California Chamber of Commerce views the law as insufficient. The Chamber argues that CEQA reform didn’t go far enough to meaningfully speed up project approvals, and it’s taking that fight directly to voters.
Proposition 45, if approved in November, would streamline CEQA’s review process for certain projects and place new limits on the ability of opponents to challenge approvals in court. Chamber of Commerce President Jennifer Barrera says the measure responds to years of frustration among businesses and residents alike.
“Californians have too long paid the price for bureaucratic red tape and delays, and they’re ready for solutions,” Barrera said.
Backing the measure is a business-funded campaign called the Committee to Build an Affordable California. Opposing it is a coalition of environmental and labor groups known as People Over Polluters.
“We strongly oppose it,” said Miguel Miguel, director of Sierra Club California. “We know that what they are really trying to do is eliminate a lot of the environmental safeguards that have existed for a long time.”
Voters will decide on 14 statewide ballot measures this November, with tax-related proposals — particularly Proposition 40, which targets billionaire wealth — expected to dominate headlines. But Proposition 45 is shaping up to be one of the most consequential measures on the ballot, with the potential to attract tens of millions of dollars in campaign spending from both sides.
Whatever the outcome, the vote is likely to mark a defining moment in California’s decades-long tug-of-war over how — and how much — the state’s signature environmental law should shape development.
Original source: CalMatters
