Budget Trailer Bills Strip CEQA Protections for Ecosystems and Communities

California’s bedrock environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and its protections are designed to safeguard the health and safety of all Californians, particularly those who are most vulnerable. NRDC supports targeted reforms that can make CEQA work better and more efficiently, especially for clean energy infrastructure and housing projects that are close to jobs, services, and transit, as well as for projects that improve mobility for transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists.  

CEQA has worked for decades to provide transparency on the environmental impacts of new development and to reduce those impacts. It provides a process for communities to weigh in on how to best address pollution that can come with new projects and for decision-makers to obtain accurate information about environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and feasible mitigation. As one example, it was the CEQA process that recently brought to light the harmful air quality and climate impacts of Golden State Natural Resources’ (GSNR) proposed wood pellet project, contributing to GSNR’s decision to abandon plans to ship wood pellets from California overseas to be burned for energy.  

But recently enacted CEQA exemptions go well beyond the stated aims to increase housing supply. Senate Bill 131 exempts “advanced manufacturing” facilities from CEQA, but this term is vaguely defined and could include facilities like those that manufacture semiconductors, biotechnology, and nanotechnology and that may use harmful chemicals in their manufacturing processes, which are known to harm communities, workers, and the environment. Examining ways to control industrial pollution to protect workers, nearby communities, and ecosystems is exactly what the CEQA process is designed to address before the damage is done. We are not opposed to these projects, but enabling their development with the absence of environmental review could pose risks to the environment and public health. 

SB 131 also includes language that purportedly protects natural ecosystems by saying the exemptions do not apply to “natural and protected lands,” but that provision omits habitats for threatened or endangered species, leaving a huge gap in the state’s ability to protect biodiversity and examine the impacts of, and alternatives to, development on critical habitats. The prospect of CEQA oversight of such habitats was one of the important motivations for negotiation of one of the largest conservation agreements in California history—the 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement—resulting in protection of 90 percent of the 270,000-acre Tejon Ranch. 

NRDC has a long track record of supporting legislation that promotes and expedites affordable infill housing, as well as creative housing solutions like Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or “in-law units.” This session, for example, we are supporting the following:

• SB 71 (Scott Wiener): Permanently exempts from CEQA certain transit projects and sustainable transportation projects such as improving bus, rapid transit, ferry and light rail service
• SB 79 (Wiener): Would enable more streamlining for housing near high-quality transit

However, SB 131 includes provisions that put California’s environment and public health at risk. Therefore, NRDC stands with our partners in labor and the environmental/environmental justice community in opposing it, both on its substance and for the irregular order of legislative procedure. We believe there are permitting reforms that could adequately streamline technology projects without compromising the environment, the community, and worker health. 

Cleanup on the budget trailer bills is needed now

NRDC is working with a broad coalition of environmental groups, environmental justice groups, and labor partners to put forward new legislative language that can address some of the most egregious issues in SB 131. Senate budget chair Wiener and legislative leadership have committed to addressing concerns around advanced manufacturing, Tribal consultation, and endangered species habitats as soon as possible, and we stand ready to engage in that process.  

More details of our areas of concern: 

• Exempting industrial facilities and projects in vulnerable communities from CEQA review puts people at risk. The definition of "advanced manufacturing" is very broad and would include facilities that have significant adverse air and water impacts. The bill offers zero protections for environmental justice communities living alongside industrial-zoned land. This definition is so broad that facilities receiving funding under this definition include plastic recycling, aerospace, biofuels, and battery plants, to name a few. 

  These facilities have incredibly high risks to workers, surrounding communities, and the environment, and they would mean that projects handling highly explosive and hazardous materials would not be subject to environmental review under CEQA. Without changes to this section, will semiconductor recycling plants be sited next to schools and in residential neighborhoods, which could expose people to dangerous chemicals, including carcinogens and repro-toxic agents? 
  

• Allowing development in endangered and threatened species’ habitats without examination of the impacts, and therefore no ability to require mitigation, is in direct contravention of California’s commitment to protecting biodiversity and advancing its 30x30 goals. We are in a nature crisis with an unprecedented loss of biodiversity. These provisions of SB 131 make the situation worse.