Tax the rich. Clean the air. It’s not a bumper stick yet. But it might soon be.
A plan to raise income taxes on some of California’s wealthiest residents — individuals and couples making more than $2 million a year — and use the money to pay for increased electric vehicle rebates, more electric charging stations, expanded wildfire fighting resources and other clean air programs has qualified for the November statewide ballot.
The “Clean Cars and Clean Air Act,” if approved by a majority of voters this fall, would generate $3 billion to $4.5 billion annually, according to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The measure was certified Wednesday by Secretary of State Shirley Weber after she confirmed that its supporters turned in the signatures of more than 623,212 registered voters, as required.
It is supported by environmental groups and public health groups, who say that California needs a more stable funding source to increase the number of electric vehicles on the road, and provide more firefighters, engines, helicopters and programs to reduce fire risk as the threat grows each summer.
“We’ve seen 50 years of California policies reducing air pollution,” said Will Barrett, national senior director for clean air policy at the American Lung Association, which supports the measure. “But that job is now becoming more difficult because of climate change. A big driver of that unhealthy air has been wildfires increasing in severity in recent years.
“And we know that we can’t achieve our clean air standards,” Barrett added, “without widespread transition to zero emission vehicles.”
The measure is opposed by taxpayer groups. They say that California has a budget surplus, and should lower taxes, not raise them.
“We already have the highest income tax rate in America, the highest sales tax and the highest gas tax,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “People are pretty upset about paying higher taxes. Proponents will say this only affects the super-wealthy. But you can only go so far before you drive all these people to Incline Village, Nevada, or Las Vegas, or Houston or Miami.”
The measure will be one of the major environmental ballot questions in the past decade to face California voters.
But there are some political twists. So far, the yes campaign has raised $8.4 million. Of that, $8 million is from Lyft, the San Francisco ride-sharing company. Several Bay Area billionaire technology investors, Tom Steyer, Ron Conway and John Doerr, have each contributed $50,000.
Last year, the California Air Resources Board passed a rule requiring Lyft, Uber and other ride-sharing companies to use zero-emission vehicles to drive at least 90% of their miles by 2030. But the air board did not specify whether the drivers, who are private contractors, or the companies, would pay the cost for all those electric cars and charging stations.
Coupal said the campaign opposing the measure plans to focus on that issue.
“It’s going to look like a corporate power grab,” he said. “You have a major corporation that says I want other people to pay for our charging infrastructure.”
If passed, the measure would increase state income taxes by 1.75% on income above $2 million for up to 20 years. California’s top income tax rate is 13.3% on income above $1 million for individuals, or $1.25 million for couples who file jointly, so the rate would increase to 15.05% for those incomes.
Supporters say that only affects a tiny minority of the super-wealthy, and that the beneficiaries will include everyone, through cleaner air and better rebates for anyone buying an electric vehicle.
“This initiative will be good for all Californians,” said Bill Magavern, policy director with the Coalition for Clean Air, an environmental group with offices in Sacramento and Los Angeles.
“Sure it will be good for the ride-hailing companies,” he said. “But it doesn’t do them any special favors. It will fund existing programs to clean up transportation and fight wildfires.”
C.J. Macklin, a spokesman for Lyft, said a company representative was not available for an interview.
“We’re supporting the Clean Cars & Clean Air Act because we’re committed to accelerating the transition to clean vehicles in order to reduce air pollution in California and curb climate change,” he said in a statement. “To meet our state’s bold climate goals, we must do more to help people afford zero-emission vehicles and develop a more robust and convenient charging network.”
One prominent opponent is the California Teachers Association. The union did not respond Wednesday to questions about its position. The measure does not raise money for schools.
Other unions support the measure, including the State Association of Electrical Workers, Cal Fire Local 2881 and the California State Pipe Trades Council. It also has the backing of San Francisco Mayor London Breed, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, along with various nurses groups and environmental organizations, like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
If approved, the measure would require that 45% of funding go to the California Air Resources Board for incentives for electric vehicles, such as rebates. Another 35% would go to the California Energy Commission to install more electric vehicle chargers at homes, apartments and public places. And 20% would go to Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal’s Office to hire more firefighters, buy more firefighting equipment and expand controlled burns, forest thinning projects and other efforts to reduce wildfire risk.
The state auditor would be required to audit the program every two years, and in some categories, half of the funding would be required to be spent in low-income areas, which often have the highest air pollution levels.
