A broad coalition of organizations is determined to earmark additional state funding to speed up California’s transition away from internal combustion vehicles. Proposition 30 would raise the tax rate on personal income in excess of two million dollars to reduce the purchase price of zero emission vehicles and help fund modern fueling infrastructure. It would also provide desperately needed support to overwhelmed state firefighters. Dirty transportation and escalating wildfires generate the lion’s share of California’s carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas most responsible for climate change, and also contribute heavily to local pollutants that endanger human health.

The coalition includes major environmental organizations like the National Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, California Environmental Voters, and the Coalition for Clean Air. Because of the proposition’s substantial health benefits, it has the backing of the American Lung Association and the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. Supportive organizations representing the EV community include the California Electric Transportation Coalition and Coltura. Labor organizations endorsing the proposition include the CalFire State Firefighters and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The California Democratic Party supports the proposition, but Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom does not. Lyft has provided substantial funding for the Yes on 30 campaign, and Newsom has been featured in television commercials accusing the ridesharing company of greedy impropriety.

Proposition 30 would help Lyft meet its voluntary pledge of electrifying 100% of the independently owned vehicles operating on its platform by the year 2030. The progressive company has supported legislation in multiple states that would establish its aspirational goal as a legal mandate. Ridesharing vehicles represent a small percentage of California’s fleet, but they travel many more miles than average passenger vehicles, yielding significant environmental benefits when they are powered by electricity instead of gasoline. In May of 2021, California’s Air Resources Board adopted its Clean Miles Standard, which requires ridesharing companies to dispatch fleets that are 90% fully electric by 2030. Lyft is now obligated to comply with a legal mandate that it fully supports.

Conservative organizations working to defeat Proposition 30 are heavily focused on demonizing Lyft, but the strategy may fail to persuade thoughtful, informed voters. It seems reasonable to demand that ridesharing companies bear the financial burden of electrifying the independently owned vehicles that they dispatch, but it is difficult to argue that Lyft is scheming to steer a large portion of state revenue directly into its own coffers. Out of roughly $100 billion of revenue dispensed over 20 years, about $45 billion would help subsidize zero emission vehicles for consumers, businesses, and local governments. Ridesharing vehicles currently make up about 2.5% of vehicles registered in California, so only a small fraction of the rebates would go to drivers that might help Lyft fulfill its legal obligations. Roughly $35 billion would also be spent to help build public charging infrastructure, aiding Lyft indirectly as it works to decarbonize its operations by 2030.

The automotive industry is facing its own mandate from the Air Resources Board designed to phase out the sale of internal combustion vehicles by 2035, and Proposition 30 would help automakers achieve compliance with the challenging timeline. Lyft has an even earlier deadline to meet, and appears to benefit in a similar way.