Why California's EV-Rebate Proposition Lost

California's EV-funding proposition 30 "has suffered an unambiguous defeat," reports Bay City News. The measure would've increased taxes by 1.75% on income above $2 million a year (for roughly 43,000 California multimillionaires) to fund electric car rebates and combat wildfires. "In the statewide vote count as of late Wednesday, 59% rejected the proposal." So what happened? Before the election the New York Times described the fight:On one side, environmentalists have teamed up with firefighters, Democrats and Lyft, the ride-share company, which has poured more than $45 million into its campaign to pass a climate initiative. On the other, [Democrat] Governor Gavin Newsom has aligned himself with California billionaires, teachers and Republicans in opposition.... Proponents say the measure would raise money from those who can afford it to fund critical state mandates on electric vehicle sales and ride-share miles that have been highly promoted but not fully funded. Opponents argue it would require taxpayers to foot the bill for electric vehicle subsidies that Uber and Lyft would eventually have to pay for on their own. In August, California regulators voted to ban the sale of all gasoline-powered cars in the state by 2035, which was hailed by environmentalists - and by Newsom - as a significant step in combating climate change. Last year, the state implemented an even earlier standard for ride-share companies like Lyft and Uber: 90 percent of ride-share drivers' miles will have to be in electric vehicles by 2030. Left out of those mandates was an explanation of who would be expected to pay for the switch to greener cars.... The opposition to the measure, which includes some of the wealthy individuals who would have to pay more in taxes and business groups opposed to tax increases, argues that the proposal benefits corporations, because Uber and Lyft would eventually have to comply with the new state electric vehicle mandates and would have to cough up the money to do so on their own, most likely by offering subsidies for their drivers to buy battery-powered cars. The "no" campaign got a huge boost over the summer from Newsom, who, despite his focus on fighting climate change, has emerged as its highest-profile opponent and appeared in an television advertisement attacking Lyft in September. "Prop. 30 is being advertised as a climate initiative," Newsom says in the ad as he strolls across the screen. "But in reality, it was devised by a single corporation, to funnel state income taxes to benefit their company." Currently Lyft's gig workers use their own cars - but was the opposition looking ahead to a future where Lyft owns its own fleet of self-driving (and electric) robo-taxis? In any case, Proposition 30 "was among the country's top five ballot measures this Election Day in terms of total contributions," reports Axios, "with nearly $73 million spent by parties on either side, per Ballotpedia.The results "are an unfortunate setback for the climate movement," Lyft - which spent about $45 million supporting Prop 30 - said in a statement Wednesday. On the other side of the country, Massachusetts voters approved a new 4% tax on those making more than $1 million for transportation and education funding, broadly speaking. And New Yorkers OK'd $4.2 billion in bond sales to fund climate change mitigation and resiliency programs.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.