At the end of March, Senator Scott Wiener introduced SB 1097, a bill aimed at accelerating the development of clean energy infrastructure in California. The bill focuses on streamlining permitting under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a range of energy projects—an issue that has long been viewed as a bottleneck for the state’s ambitious climate goals.
While its ultimate impact will depend on how the bill evolves, SB 1097 signals a meaningful shift in how California may balance environmental review with the urgency of deploying clean energy.
What Projects Are Covered?
SB 1097 would apply to several categories of energy infrastructure, including:
- Solar photovoltaic and terrestrial wind powerplants
- Energy storage systems (as defined in Section 2835 of the Public Utilities Code)
- Stationary electrical generating powerplants using any source of thermal energy
- Specified overhead electrical transmission lines
However, the bill includes fairly typical siting restrictions. Projects would not qualify if located in sensitive or protected areas such as wilderness areas, national parks, high fire hazard zones, floodways, or lands under conservation easement, among other restriction.
The bill also restricts development on sites listed on the Cortese List, but does contain an exception for cases where a regulatory agency has closed a leaking underground storage tank case or determined the site is suitable for the proposed project.
A Shift in CEQA Review Standards
The most significant aspect of SB 1097 is its proposed change to the standard of review applicable to environmental determinations under CEQA.
Under current law, Negative Declarations (NDs) and Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs) are evaluated using the “fair argument” standard. This standard makes it relatively easy for project opponents to challenge approvals: if there is a fair argument that a project may have a significant environmental impact, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. This standard is favorable to project opponents because in the event of a disagreement among experts over the project’s potential to have a significant effect on the environment, the courts do not give any deference to the lead agency and, as a result, it is easier for the party challenging the project to prevail.
SB 1097 would replace this with the more deferential “substantial evidence” standard for covered projects. Under this approach, courts would uphold an agency’s determination so long as it is supported by substantial evidence—even in the face of conflicting expert opinions. In practice, this shift would make NDs and MNDs significantly more defensible and reduce litigation risk.
Raising the Threshold for Full Environmental Review
The bill also adjusts when a full EIR is required. Currently, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a significant environmental effect. SB 1097 raises that bar, providing that an EIR would only be required if the project is more likely than not to have such an effect.
A Note on Public Controversy
SB 1097 includes a notable clarification: Public controversy alone does not trigger the need for an EIR. While “public controversy” is not taken into consideration for CEQA purposes, SB 1097’s inclusion of this language underscores the legislative intent to prevent opposition-driven delays from escalating review requirements absent substantive environmental concerns.
Faster Timelines for Legal Challenges
To address project delays in the courts, SB 1097 introduces a 270-day timeline for resolving legal challenges to qualifying NDs and MNDs. While the requirement is qualified by “to the extent feasible,” it reflects an effort to bring more predictability—and speed—to CEQA litigation.
A Targeted CEQA Exemption for Grid Upgrades
In addition to streamlining review, the bill proposes a CEQA exemption for “the inspection, maintenance, repair, restoration, reconditioning, reconductoring with advanced conductors, replacement, or removal of a transmission wire or cable used to conduct electricity or other piece of equipment that is directly attached to the wire or cable.” To qualify, the work must occur within an existing right-of-way or within a private right-of-way with landowner permission and the project sponsor must commit to restoring the right-of-way to its condition prior to commencement of the project.
What Comes Next?
SB 1097 is still in its early stages and will likely be revised as it moves through the legislative process. It is currently scheduled for a hearing on April 15.