October 2, 2026
By Kurt Oneto
Does California Prop 45 apply to data centers? Luckily, this is not an abstract environmental law question but instead a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation. And under the rules of statutory interpretation applied by California courts, the answer is an emphatic “No.”
I am the official proponent of Prop 45, a measure that establishes clear and enforceable timelines for the environmental review, permitting, and judicial review of certain essential projects in California. Data centers are not among the projects Prop 45 was drafted to cover. More importantly, the text of the measure itself makes clear that data centers are not eligible for Prop 45’s streamlined process.
Prop 45 only applies to eight types of projects: essential housing projects, essential clean energy projects, essential water projects, essential public health projects, essential public safety projects, essential broadband Internet access projects, essential education facility projects, and essential transportation projects.[1] Data centers do not appear on the list.
The goal of statutory interpretation is to determine the lawmaking body’s intent so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. Courts begin with the plain language of the statute because the language used is the most reliable indicator of intent.[2] The fact that data centers are not identified in Prop 45’s language is a major strike against the notion that they are covered by the measure.
Opponents have claimed that data centers could be considered a broadband Internet access project. Prop 45’s broadband Internet definition is borrowed from, and nearly identical to, the definition found in Gov. Code § 53167. Because these provisions touch upon the same subject—the definition of broadband Internet—the rules of statutory construction require them to be interpreted in the same manner. This is not just a preference; it is a mandatory rule of statutory interpretation.[3] Any suggestion that courts have discretion to “choose” to interpret the provisions similarly, or that an express cross-reference is required, is unmoored from California’s rules of statutory interpretation. Section 53167 does not reach data centers, so neither can Prop 45. Period.
Others have argued that data centers could qualify as an “ancillary” component of broadband Internet because Prop 45 states that the expressly-covered projects also include related and ancillary “infrastructure and public service facilities” such as “electric, telecommunications, gas, water, wastewater, stormwater, transit, police, fire, and transportation improvements.”[4] But this too is a bridge too far.
Under the canon of construction noscitur a sociis—“a word is known by its associates”—the phrase “related and ancillary infrastructure and public services” must be read in the context of the other examples provided.[5] Those examples exclusively consist of municipal utilities (gas, water, wastewater, telecommunications, stormwater, transit) or local public safety (police, fire). Data centers do not get remotely close to either category and thus cannot be treated as “ancillary infrastructure” to broadband Internet.
The fact that data centers may play a role in supporting the Internet does not make them “essential broadband Internet access projects” under Prop 45. Lumber is essential to housing construction—far more “essential” than data centers are to broadband Internet. But that does not mean a sawmill could be streamlined under Prop 45 as “ancillary” infrastructure to a housing project. “A cardinal rule of statutory interpretation requires that statutes be construed in a reasonable and common sense manner.”[6]
Relatedly, the provision in Prop 45 (Pub. Res. Code § 21029) which directs courts to interpret the measure to afford the fullest possible weight to the realization of “essential projects” does not expand the scope of what qualifies as an essential project in the first instance. Using the prior example, this section could be relied upon to build more housing. But it still would not extend Prop 45 to sawmills.
Finally, the argument that Prop 45 should have expressly excluded data centers also fundamentally misunderstands California statutory interpretation. A facility only needs to be excluded from the definition of an essential project if, absent the exclusion, it would otherwise fall within the boundaries of that definition. This is precisely why Prop 45 excludes the Delta tunnels from an “essential water project” and the bullet train from an “essential transportation project.” Without those express exclusions, the Delta tunnels and the bullet train would qualify as essential projects. But like sawmills, data centers do not fall within the “essential project” definition in the first instance.
Including an express carve-out where none is needed would only muddy the waters. Courts must presume that the lawmaking body intended every word, phrase, and provision in a statute to have meaning and perform a useful function.[7] An express data center exemption would therefore invite the argument that, without it, data centers otherwise would have been covered. From there, other projects or facilities not expressly excluded could make the same argument.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the results would be disastrous. Clean energy projects use large amounts of copper and aluminum wire. Would a copper mine or an aluminum smelter qualify as a clean energy project since they weren’t expressly excluded? Water and transportation projects use large quantities of concrete. Would the same logic bring cement plants within the measure? Of course not. The boundaries are established by what the essential project definitions include—not by an exhaustive list of everything they exclude. Including unnecessary exemptions would only lead to greater mischief.
The text says it. The rules of statutory interpretation confirm it. It is unequivocal: data centers are not covered. And as Prop 45’s official proponent, I will defend that interpretation after Election Day. California courts have long recognized the unique role of official initiative proponents in litigation over voter-approved measures, including their ability to intervene or appear as real parties in interest in post-election litigation defending an initiative.[8]
The Supreme Court of California has repeatedly stated, “in the case of a voters’ initiative, we may not properly interpret the measure in a way the electorate did not contemplate: the voters should get what they enacted, not more and not less.”[9] Adhering to California’s rules of statutory interpretation can lead only to one destination: Prop 45 does not contemplate data centers.
Kurt Oneto is one of California’s foremost experts in California initiative and referendum law who has served as counsel to more than 60 ballot measure campaigns. He is the official proponent of Proposition 45.
Endnotes
[1] Prop. 45; Pub. Res. Code § 21013.
[2] Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 838 (courts begin “as always with the statute’s actual words, the most reliable indicator of legislative intent”).
[3] Kaanaana v. Barrett Bus. Servs. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 158, 175 (“Identical language appearing in separate provisions dealing with the same subject matter should be accorded the same interpretation”).
[4] Prop. 45; Pub. Res. Code § 21028(m)(1)(B).
[5] Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1094, 1108.
[6] People v. Carvajal (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 487, 501.
[7] Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 476.
[8] Perry v. Brown (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1116; Building Industry Assn. v. City of Camarillo (1986) 41 Cal.3d 810, 822.
[9] Robert L. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 909.