Who it helps if it passes
- Homebuilders, utilities and other developers, whose projects would be approved faster
- People waiting on housing and infrastructure, if projects get built sooner
Who pays or loses if it passes
- Neighbors and groups who use CEQA lawsuits to stop or change projects
- State and local governments, for the initial cost
What the funders get Top YES donors are homebuilders, utilities (Edison, PG&E), an oil producer and business groups whose projects would face fewer delays. The NO side is mainly construction unions and environmental groups.
1
Cost to taxpayers Likely high tens of millions of dollars a year at first for state and local governments, possibly over $100 million, partly covered by fees. Long-term effects are uncertain.7
Sets a 365-day deadline for environmental review of projects designated as essential, including housing, infrastructure, schools, broadband and wildfire prevention, and requires courts to rule on related lawsuits within 270 days.7
This would be one of the largest changes to the California Environmental Quality Act in decades. Environmental groups and many building trades unions oppose it. Business, homebuilders, utilities and hospitals support it.7
YES side special interest: Low
- ✗ One funder dominates: No single funder paid more than 32% of the YES money1
- ✓ Funders profit: The builders and utilities funding it get faster approvals (our judgment)
- ✗ Narrow benefit: Hospitals, water systems and wildfire projects qualify, along with private development (our judgment)
- ✗ Outside money: All top YES donors are in California1
NO side special interest: Low
- ✗ One funder dominates: No single funder paid more than 35% of the NO money1
- ✓ Funders profit: Construction unions keep their CEQA leverage to win union-labor agreements (our judgment)
- ✗ Narrow benefit: Environmental review rules apply statewide (our judgment)
- ✗ Outside money: 4% of the NO money came from outside California1
Opposed by
- California Labor Federation
- California Nurses Association
- Sierra Club California
- League of Women Voters
- Western Center on Law & Poverty
- California Democratic Party
Funding the YES campaign
-
$10.6M
Homebuilders, including Lennar and KB Home
-
$10M
PAC whose top donors are Sergey Brin and John Doerr
-
$4.5M
The PAC's top donors are California Resources Corp. (oil and gas) and PG&E
-
Edison International and PG&E
$4.4M
Utilities: Edison $2M, PG&E $2.4M through its own committee
-
$1.5M
-
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
$750K
Formerly the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
-
Modern Infrastructure Alliance (Prologis)
$500K
Funded by Prologis, a warehouse and logistics real estate company
-
California Water Service Company
$500K
Water utility
Funding the NO campaign
-
Wendy Schmidt
$10M
Philanthropist
-
Building and construction trades unions
$9.6M
Trades council, laborers, operating engineers, iron workers, pipe trades and others
-
Clean and Healthy California
$7.1M
Environmental organizations
-
Earthjustice and other environmental donors
$1.2M
Earthjustice, Jane Fonda Climate PAC, Wildlands Conservancy, NRDC and individual donors
-
Center for Biological Diversity
$600K
Environmental group based in Arizona
Sources for this measure: 1,6,7,8