Measure to overhaul California’s bedrock environmental law fails

California voters have rejected an attempt to overhaul and roll back decades-old environmental rules to make it easier to build highways, housing, and clean energy projects.Known as Proposition 45, the proposed changes to California’s Environmental Quality Act failed with 55.9% of voters rejecting the measure, with 77% of the votes in as of Monday morning, according to the Associated Press.The Golden State’s landmark environmental law was signed by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1970. It requires state agencies to consider and publicize the environmental impacts of projects before issuing approvals. It also allows the general public to sue and challenge state permits if they believe an agency failed to study or disclose the environmental effects of projects sufficiently. The ability for individuals and neighborhood groups to challenge approvals in court has led to yearslong delays for infrastructure projects, including new roads, bridges, housing, water systems, and even solar and wind installations.For example, a road project developed by the California Department of Transportation, planned to pass through Richardson Grove State Park, was first held up by a 2014 lawsuit filed by residents and environmental groups. At the time, they argued the state did not adequately review how the project would impact redwood trees in the region.The project faced 15 years of court delays before it could move forward.The Prop 45 initiative was led by the California Chamber of Commerce, which hoped to remove these legal and regulatory roadblocks by shortening the review process for a certain set of essential projects, including clean water, clean energy, hospitals, affordable housing, roads, wildfire prevention, schools, and public safety.The proposition specifically would have required city- and county-led agencies to complete environmental reviews within 365 business days. They would also have had to determine whether an application is complete within 30 days and make determinations on negative declarations — meaning there is not a significant adverse effect on the environment — within about 180 days.Agencies would have been required to issue all other approvals for essential projects that do not fall under the environmental law within 90 days. This includes approvals for building permits.Public comment periods for a draft environmental review document would have also been limited to 45 days and could only be extended by a court. Additionally, individuals and groups looking to challenge a permit or approval would have had to do so within 30 days. The court proceedings must also be completed within 270 days.If a challenge wins in court, the proposition would have required that only the specific issue identified in the lawsuit be addressed. This essentially means that a court could not require an agency to rescind its broader approval for a project, and would only block one specific part.Prop 45 was widely criticized by California environmentalists, who argued the changes would incentivize building housing in wildfire-prone areas and put corporate profits over public health and environmental safety.Proponents of the proposal, however, argued that it would significantly address the state’s housing crisis, facilitate the development of renewable energy resources, and address affordability.Prop 45’s failure to pass comes amid a broader national debate over whether changes to federal and local permitting systems help or hinder the development of clean energy. This has primarily been driven by an environmental split regarding the Senate’s own permitting reform bill.REP. ROBERT GARCIA JOKES ‘MAYBE IT’S BECAUSE I’M GAY’ WHILE VOWING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR TRUMP OFFICIALSJane Flegal, who served as senior director for Industrial Emissions in the Biden administration’s Office of Domestic Climate Policy, told the Washington Examiner last week that the debate among green groups raises the question whether blocking fossil fuel infrastructure is the fastest and most effective path to decarbonization.“It’s a debate about whether we should be focused on weaponizing the permitting regime to block fossil or not,” Flegal, a senior fellow with the Searchlight Institute, said. “I don’t think there’s any evidence that rescinding permits for fossil fuels has been an effective decarbonization strategy.”