On November 3, California voters will decide Proposition 45, the “Building an Affordable California Act.” The proposition claims to be about building clean energy and housing faster, but after digging into the full text, we found something far worse. It rewrites California’s environmental review process to favor the desires of data center developers and extractive industries over the input of communities like ours. Prop 45 guts the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the law that makes developers study and disclose the environmental and public health impacts of their projects, and even mitigate them. 

For the projects it deems “essential,” it does the following:

Calling this a clean energy measure takes some effort. Prop 45 empowers corporations and utilities to fast-track data centers, forest clear-cutting, dams, CO2 pipelines, freeway expansions, landfill gas facilities, and sprawl housing.

Speaking of housing, nothing in the text requires any of the housing it covers to be affordable, and nothing requires lower utility bills. Also, California already exempted infill housing from CEQA in 2025 with AB 130.

Then there are data centers. Prop 45 excludes a list of other controversial projects, including new oil and gas production, nuclear facilities, and high-speed rail, but data centers are not on that list. Two land use attorneys, Richard Frank of UC Davis and Matthew McKerley, argue that a court would read that silence as intent to include them. The attorneys also count more than $2 million in donations to the Yes campaign from three companies developing data centers, including Prologis and California Resources Corporation.

Taxpayers cover the cost. The Legislative Analyst, the state’s nonpartisan fiscal office, estimates the new process would cost state and local governments in the high tens of millions of dollars a year, and potentially more than $100 million. 

Hundreds of organizations oppose Prop 45, including the California Native Plant Society, Sierra Club California, the California Labor Federation, and us here at Friends of the Inyo.

Decisions by counties, towns, state agencies, and LADWP run through CEQA and would be directly affected by this proposition.

In the Owens Valley, CEQA is how the public has held LADWP to its word. The Lower Owens River Project, which restores about 60 miles of river, came out of a CEQA lawsuit by the Sierra Club and the Owens Valley Committee. Last December, Friends of the Inyo and two partners, the Sierra Club Range of Light Group and the Owens Valley Indian Water Commission, filed suit because LADWP failed to deliver on its revegetation commitments at Laws. Prop 45 would make that kind of accountability harder for the projects it covers.

Seven federally recognized tribes are based in Mono and Inyo counties. The Mono Lake Kootzaduka’a Tribe, the indigenous people of the Mono Basin, is not federally recognized, and a bill to change that is still pending in Congress. Mono County has consulted with the tribe under current state law. For essential projects, Prop 45 would no longer require it.

In a region where affordable housing is hard to find and wildfire risk is real, the type of project and where it gets built matters. Prop 45 cuts back the alternatives analysis that asks whether a different site or design would do less harm.

Everyone here wants housing people can afford and a grid that runs on something cleaner. Neither requires taking the public out of the review.

Vote NO on Prop 45. Ballots went out earlier this month to every active registered voter. Return yours by mail with a postmark no later than November 3, or drop it at an official drop box or vote center. Polls are open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Election Day.

Check your registration. Check here. If you missed the October 19 registration deadline, you can still register and vote at a vote center. Find a drop box or vote center.

Tell people. Most voters will see a ballot label about speeding up reviews for housing and infrastructure. Forward this alert to friends and neighbors.

Read it yourself. The Legislative Analyst’s summary is short, the full text begins on page 157 of the voter guide, and the California Native Plant Society and California Environmental Voters have each published their own breakdowns.