SEEKING DEEP POCKETS — A California ballot initiative that would tax the rich to pay for electric vehicle infrastructure has sparked a high-stakes political battle that shows how hard it may be to finance the green transition. Proposition 30, on the Nov. 8 ballot, would impose an extra 1.75 percent levy on personal income over $2 million and devote the proceeds to EV rebates, charging infrastructure and firefighters. It's triggered an expensive fight between Lyft Inc., which has spent $45 million on the measure, and a cross-section of wealthy Californians, who have spent about $20 million to stave off the tax hike. The measure was doing well in polls, until rich people started fighting back. And they have a key ally in Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who publicly opposed it over the summer, citing Lyft's self-interest. It was polling at about 55 percent support before Newsom began running ads calling it a "Trojan horse that puts corporate welfare above the fiscal welfare of our entire state." Now it's on the ropes at 49 percent , and more opponents are piling on. Big donors to the No on 30 campaign since last month include Netflix CEO Reed Hastings; Mark Heising, chair of the Environmental Defense Fund's board of trustees; and Gap Inc. chairman Rob Fisher, who served on the Natural Resources Defense Council's board for decades. The 'no' campaign rolled out a statewide tour of "Gryfty the Lyft Grifter" on Monday. Backers say they are worried. "The opposition is really the opposition to a tax increase on the wealthy, but they know that the voters are fine with increasing taxes on the very wealthy, so they go after Lyft instead," said Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, a California environmental group. Tom Steyer, the hedge fund founder who's been the go-to backer of past California environmental initiatives, including putting $20 million into a corporate-tax measure in 2012, has been noticeably quiet, contributing just $50,000 to the Yes on 30 campaign. His environmental group, NextGen America, hasn't taken a position on the measure. A spokesperson for Steyer didn't respond to requests for comment. Modeling by the firm E3 shows the measure is needed, even with the Inflation Reduction Act's added funding for electric vehicles and chargers. The roughly $80 billion that it would raise over 20 years would pay for an additional 7.4 million chargers, which would be enough to support the state's goal of selling only zero-emission cars by 2035. If it fails, policymakers will have to keep looking for more long-term funding. "It may not be the best way to do it, but no one's really answered the question of how is this going to happen?" said Rob Stutzman, a California Republican political strategist. "Everyone's going to end up paying for this transition. That becomes the inconvenient part to talk about."
|
Comments
Post a Comment