OPINION – In the closing days of last year’s budget negotiations, California lawmakers approved Senate Bill 131, a far-reaching policy change that reshaped the state’s environmental review system with little warning and even less public discussion. Folded quietly into the budget, SB 131 carved out a sweeping exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a broadly defined category labeled “advanced manufacturing.” It marked the first time the Legislature has so broadly exempted whole classes of industrial, often polluting, development from California’s bedrock environmental law.The full danger to California’s communities of passing SB 131 will depend on how quickly lawmakers fix their mistake.Under SB 131, projects such as lithium processing plants, plastics and petrochemical facilities, metal forging operations, and other heavy industrial uses can now bypass environmental review entirely. These industries carry well-documented risks to air quality, water resources, and public health. Removing public disclosure of harmful impacts strips communities – especially low-income neighborhoods and communities of color – of their primary tool to understand what is being proposed, weigh potential alternatives, and demand mitigation before damage occurs.The way SB 131 was enacted made matters worse. Exemptions of this scale are typically debated openly, narrowed carefully, and refined through public testimony. Instead, SB 131 was added at the last moment as part of the state budget process, sidestepping meaningful legislative scrutiny. Environmental justice advocates, Tribes, conservation organizations, and labor groups criticized both the policy and the process, warning that it undermined democratic accountability.In response, Assemblymember Damon Connolly introduced AB 1083 to repair the damage. While imperfect, the bill acknowledged an undeniable truth: SB 131 went too far, too fast, and left vulnerable communities and workers exposed. AB 1083 offered a path toward restoring balance and rebuilding trust.Then, days before its first scheduled hearing, the bill was abruptly withdrawn. That decision did more than halt a legislative fix. It left SB 131 fully intact and reopened the harm lawmakers had pledged to address. Communities that were told relief was coming now face unchecked industrial expansion without transparency or recourse. Are lawmakers who promised a real fix to address the risks presented by SB 131 going to keep their word?These risks are real, not theoretical. SB 131 invites a surge of high-impact facilities—from battery-component manufacturing to chemical blending and materials production—to proceed without public awareness. For many frontline communities, CEQA is the only opportunity to receive information on a project and to meaningfully engage before irreversible decisions on public health are made.
This debate is not about whether California should support manufacturing or clean energy. It is about whether efficiency for corporate polluters excuses secrecy, and whether some communities can be forced to absorb disproportionate harm without a voice. California’s environmental framework has long rejected that premise.
California is, without question, already a manufacturing powerhouse. More than a million people work in the sector, supporting an economy that spans aerospace, defense, electronics, medical devices, food processing, and clean technology. In fact, with a strong CEQA in place, California has become the fourth largest economy in the world.
But California’s manufacturing strength was not built by abandoning environmental safeguards. It grew in tandem with an insistence on transparency, public engagement, and responsible planning. SB 131 breaks from that tradition by allowing entire categories of industrial facilities to move forward without environmental review, regardless of location or local conditions.
The solution is clear. Legislative leaders must immediately introduce a new bill to fully restore environmental review for projects swept up by SB 131’s exemption. That bill must move through regular order, receive public hearings, and incorporate stakeholder input. Anything less leaves a known legislative mistake uncorrected.
SB 131 was not just a misstep—it was a choice. The legislature still has time to choose differently, reaffirm its commitment to environmental justice, and restore confidence in its own process. Capitol Weekly readers recognize unfinished business. This is exactly that.
Jennifer Ganata is Legal Department Co-Director for Communities for a Better Environment.
