Proposition 45: Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects.

MODIFIES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Amends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for certain projects (including most housing, transportation, water, and health projects) by setting deadlines to complete environmental review and resolve lawsuits challenging project approvals. Fiscal Impact: Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars—potentially exceeding $100 million—annually, partly covered by fees. Uncertain, potentially more significant positive or negative longer-term fiscal effects. Supporters: California Children's Hospital Association; California Water Association; California Council for Affordable Housing Opponents: Coalition for Clean Air; CA Environmental Voters; Physicians for Social Responsibility, LA; National Wildlife Federation

MODIFIES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. • Amends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for specified project categories (including most housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire mitigation, educational facility, internet access, and clean energy projects). For these types of projects, this measure: o Sets deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review and take required actions. o Allows expedited review of environmental impacts, limiting public agencies' current obligation to consider a range of feasible project alternatives to reduce environmental impacts. o Establishes deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits challenging project approvals; limits evidence courts may consider and relief courts can order. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: • Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars annually—potentially exceeding $100 million annually—to implement new project review and court challenge procedures for eligible projects. Fees paid by project applicants and people filing lawsuits would partly cover these costs. • In the longer term, uncertain, but potentially more significant positive or negative fiscal effects for state and local governments.

Source: California Secretary of State

Support: $70M  ·  Oppose: $15.1M

As of Reports processed through September 19, 2026; next report deadline October 22, 2026.

Top supporters: Sergey Brin ($102,000,000.00); L. John Doerr, III ($30,000,000.00); Patrick Collison ($22,000,000.00); Eric Schmidt ($15,141,313.01); Vinod Khosla ($12,561,504.00)

Top opponents: Clean and Healthy California ($7,078,075.00); Wendy Schmidt ($5,000,000.00); State Building and Construction Trades Council of California ($1,999,857.25); District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California PAC ($500,000.00); Earthjustice ($208,521.39)

Source: Ballotpedia campaign finance

Public Policy Institute of California · Sept. 4, 2026 – Sept. 10, 2026

Yes 49% · No 46% · Undecided 5%

1103 likely voters (±3.80%)

Source

Public Policy Institute of California · June 29, 2026 – July 6, 2026

Yes 73% · No 24% · Undecided 4%

1003 likely voters (±3.80%)

Source

Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars annually, partly covered by fees; uncertain longer-term effects. (Ballotpedia.)