Why is Lyft bankrolling this California ballot measure on electric cars?

The company’s involvement has divided Democrats who otherwise tend to be aligned over the state’s ambitious goals to reduce heat-trapping emissions that exacerbate climate change. Many environmentalists and building labor groups support the measure, while Gov. Gavin Newsom and the teachers unions oppose it.

Newsom and other opponents say Lyft’s involvement is a self-interested ploy to get taxpayers to cover its cost to meet a state mandate to electrify its vehicle fleet.

But environmentalists behind Prop. 30 say Lyft has proved to be an important ally as the state struggles to meet its goals to phase out gas-powered cars. They said California needs to act more urgently to mitigate the threat of climate change and reduce dangerous smog from vehicle emissions, which hasincreased in recent years.

The split could be one of the most contentious fights over a ballot measure this year, which could test Newsom’s already shaky ties with environmental groups, some of which view him as inconsistent on climate.

Prop. 30 would increase the income tax rate for people who earn more than $2 million per year — by 1.75%. Most of the money would be used for electric cars, with 45% for rebates and other incentives to help drivers buy electric models and 35% for charging and refueling stations. At least half of the money for electric vehicles would have to be directed toward low-income communities.

The other 20% of the funding would be for wildfire prevention and firefighting programs. According to a legislative estimate, the tax would bring in $3 billion to $4.5 billion in revenue annually. It would expire in 2030 if the state meets its climate goals, or 2043 at the latest.

Daniel Ives, a Wall Street analyst who tracks ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft, said it’s clear that the latter sees its success as tied to subsidies for drivers to switch to electric cars. Without state support, he said the company would “face a very steep uphill battle” trying to meet California’s clean-car rules.

“They have almost no choice but to dive into the deep end of the pool when it comes to this initiative,” Ives said. “In a smart way, they’re trying to surf the EV wave.”

The clock is ticking for Lyft and Uber to get their drivers behind the wheels of zero-emissions vehicles. Last year, stateair-pollution regulators adopted a mandatethat the companies must use zero-emissions vehicles for 90% of the miles their drivers travel by 2030.

The mandate means Uber and Lyft must transition to electric cars faster than the rest of the state. In 2020, Newsom signed an executive order toban the sale of new gas-powered carsin California starting in 2035.

Regulators at the California Air Resources Board singled out ride-hailing apps for a reason: They are responsible for a disproportionate share of carbon emissions.

Using a ride-hailing app creates about 48% more emissions per trip than if the rider had driven separately in a gas-powered car because drivers typically spend more than a third of their time without a passenger in the car — idling while they wait for a ride request or driving en route to a pick-up, according to a 2018 analysis from the state.

On one hand,the mandateis in line with Lyft’s pledge to switch its fleet to100% electric vehiclesby 2030, though the company is now legally bound to meet the state’s slightly lower goal.

Still, Lyft’s lobbyists told air-pollution regulators the state needed to create special incentives for the company to “prevent disproportionate impacts of the regulations on low- and moderate-income drivers.”

“While we are pleased to see aggressive environmental targets, we are disappointed that the efforts of the past years have culminated in metaphorical sticks with no carrots,” the company wrote in a letter.

Lyft has spent nearly $300,000 on lobbyists since early 2021, according to disclosure forms. Among a a handful of other issues, the company’s lobbyists contacted legislators and the Air Resources Board about the electrification mandate.

Lyft spokesperson CJ Macklin said federal uncertainty about funding for climate initiatives has made it clear that others need to step up to help the state meet its goals. He added, “when environmental groups approached us about partnering with them on their plan ... we were excited at the prospect.”

Democrats in the U.S. Senate are rushing to vote on aclimate spending bill, a breakthrough deal that would expand federal tax credits for electric car buyers and create new incentives for automakers. But the bill only recently materialized and nearly died in the Senate numerous times.

Early polling suggests support among Californians for Prop. 30 is strong. Last month, asurveyfrom the Public Policy Institute of California found 63% of likely voters supported the initiative while 35% opposed it.

But opposition to Prop. 30 from within Democratic circles means the initiative faces a two-front battle, with attacks from both liberal forces and conservative-leaning groups, which oppose the notion of a wealth-based tax.

纽森宣布他反对在7月下旬,in epic fashion, called the measure “a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company.”

The governor said that the tax could make the state’s budget more unstable; he has long opposed measures that carve out a portion of revenue for pet issues. Newsom also stressed that the state’scurrent budgetsets aside a record $10 billion for electric vehicle subsidies and infrastructure.

Newsom was joined in his opposition by the powerful California Teachers Association, which warned that it could put a “special interest lock box” on revenue that the state might need for schools, in the event of an economic downturn.

“This is a money grab by one big corporation trying to get taxpayers to pay for their share of the cost,” said Becky Zoglman, an associate executive director of CTA.

For many environmentalists, Lyft’s role in the ballot fight is a tangential issue to the existential threat posed by climate change. They said there’s also no guarantee that the company’s drivers would get a sizable piece of the money earmarked for buyer incentives.

“There’s no carve-out at all in the measure,” said Bill Magavern, policy director of the Coalition for Clean Air, which supports the initiative. “We have not made the progress in transportation that we need to.”

If Prop. 30 passes, the Air Resources Board will be tasked with determining how the funding is doled out for rebates and other incentives designed to offset the higher sticker price of electric vehicles. The measure doesn’t require funding for ride-hailing apps specifically, but Lyft could lobby the air board for targeted subsidies.

Supporters of Prop. 30 have accused Newsom of opposing the measure to protect his ultra-wealthy supporters from higher taxes. They said California — where several cities, such as Los Angeles and Bakersfield, consistentlyrank among the worst in the countryfor air pollution — must take bold action to cut tailpipe emissions.

“This is a Robin Hood type of a ballot measure,” said Dr. Ashley McClure, an Oakland primary care physician and co-founder of Climate Health Now, which supports the measure. “I commend Lyft because they’re trying to align incentives in the right way. We’ve got to help those people who aren’t already driving Teslas.”

Sales of electric cars are surging in California — about 9.5% of new vehicles sold in the state last year were electric models, according to the New Car Dealers Association. But analysts say a much smaller percentage of ride-hailing drivers have electric cars, as few as 1-3%.

Uber and Lyft face a clear hurdle converting their fleets to clean cars: Their drivers are independent contractors who own their own vehicles and set their own hours. Both companies have partnered with leasing companies tohelp drivers transitionto electric cars, though some critics say the companies are unfairly shifting the burden to drivers.

Harry Campbell, a driver who runs theRideshare Guy blog, said most drivers simply can’t afford the sticker price of an electric car, even though it would save them money on gas and maintenance over time. He said they need help to make the switch.

“For a lot of them, it’s the upfront cost,” Campbell said. “I don’t see how they could get there on their own.”