The Yes on 45 campaign accused opponents Friday, Sept. 25, of lying to California voters about whether the ballot measure covers data centers.

"Prop 45 opponents are lying to voters, plain and simple," Yes on 45 spokesperson Amelia Matier said in a statement published by the Contra Costa Herald. She said opponents are resorting to scare tactics about projects not included in the measure rather than defending years of costly delays.

The accusation sharpens a dispute that matters in Walnut Creek. Proposition 45, the Building an Affordable California Act, would streamline California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) approvals for eight categories of projects: housing, water infrastructure, clean energy, transportation, hospitals, schools, broadband and wildfire prevention. The city must plan for 5,805 new housing units under its current Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycle through 2031. Voters will decide on Prop. 45 on Nov. 3.

The data center dispute

The No on 45 campaign has made data centers a central argument against the measure. Opponents contend data centers could qualify for streamlined review under Prop. 45's "essential broadband Internet access projects" category. No on 45 spokesperson Gabriel Tolson told Politico in late August that the campaign was focusing on data centers because they are "a top concern for Californians."

The Yes campaign's rebuttal rests on two points. First, the measure's text: Section 21028(y)(2) states that "nonresidential uses shall not include any heavy industrial, extractive, port, refinery, or hazardous materials uses or designations." Second, the campaign says there is no reference to data centers anywhere in the ballot measure or in the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) analysis.

Rachelle Chong, a former commissioner of both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), reviewed the measure and sided with the Yes campaign. She concluded that Prop. 45 does not cover a conventional data center simply because it is connected to or uses the internet, calling the distinction "technologically sensible" and consistent with 15 years of regulatory language.

The Data Center Coalition, the industry's own trade group, reached the same conclusion, according to the Yes campaign's statement.

The No side has pointed to analysis by Eric Biber, a law professor at UC Berkeley, who argued in a legal blog that data centers could "easily fall under" the broadband category. Chong told Politico in August that Biber's argument was "just wrong." Both told Politico they were unpaid by either campaign and would not take positions on Prop. 45.

CalChamber President Jennifer Barrera, a Prop. 45 proponent, told Politico in August that data centers were never part of the conversation during drafting. "When we were drafting the language it wasn't contemplated even as a part of the issue," Barrera said.

Tight polling, big coalitions

A Public Policy Institute of California poll of 1,103 likely voters, conducted Sept. 4-10, showed Prop. 45 narrowly ahead. KQED reported the split at 48% yes to 46% no.

Both sides have drawn large coalitions. The Yes campaign says more than 160 organizations support the measure. The opposition includes the California Democratic Party, environmental groups and some labor unions, according to Politico. Billionaire Wendy Schmidt contributed $5 million to the No campaign as of late August, while the California Association of Realtors put $1.5 million behind the Yes side.

No response from the No on 45 campaign specifically addressing the Sept. 25 accusation appeared in public reporting as of publication. The Tolson and Barrera quotes predate the Yes campaign's latest statement.

The Yes campaign estimates the measure could cut project approval delays by two to 10 years statewide.