California’s Prop 45 divides lawyers over data center fast tracking
California’s proposed Proposition 45 would shorten environmental reviews and legal challenges for infrastructure deemed essential. Lawyers disagree about whether its broadband provisions could bring data centers within that faster process. The proposal also changes public consultation and the remedies courts can impose, drawing opposition from environmental advocates and support from groups seeking faster construction.
Artificial Intelligence··Midday
A faster path for essential projects
California’s proposed Proposition 45 would place tighter deadlines on environmental reviews of projects classified as essential. The November 1 account in The Verge describes a 365-day limit for environmental impact reports, a public-comment period of 45 days and a deadline of 270 days for litigation. The existing California Environmental Quality Act requires agencies to assess environmental and public-health effects and seek ways to reduce harm before approval.[1]
Lawyers dispute the broadband definition
The disagreement centers on whether broadband internet access projects could include data centers. Richard Frank, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, and attorney Matthew McKerley argue that facilities containing transmission infrastructure could qualify. They also point to the absence of an express data-center exclusion. Kurt Oneto, the attorney and lobbyist formally proposing the measure, argues that supporting internet operations does not put those facilities within its broadband-access category.[1]
Changes to consultation and court orders
The proposal would limit compulsory tribal consultation to federally recognized Native American tribes. Developers would submit one alternative plan, and agencies would specify the information they require at the start of an application. Courts finding failures to comply with environmental rules could pause affected portions instead of stopping an entire project. Fernando Gaytan, an attorney with environmental advocacy organization Earthjustice, opposes that restriction, arguing that construction can make subsequent harm difficult to reverse.[1]
