California Proposition 30, Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative (2022)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 30
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 8, 2022
Topic
Taxes and Transportation
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
State statute		Origin
Citizens

California Proposition 30, the Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 8, 2022.[1] The ballot measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported increasing the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% and dedicating the revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies; zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention programs.

A "no" vote opposed increasing the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% and dedicating the revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies; zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention programs.


Election results

California Proposition 30

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 4,560,483 42.37%

Defeated No

6,203,806 57.63%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

What would Proposition 30 have done?

See also: Measure design

Proposition 30 would have increased the income tax by an additional 1.75% on income above $2 million for individuals. At the time of the election, income above $2 million for individuals was taxed at a rate of 13.3% in California. The additional tax would have taken effect on January 1, 2023. The initiative provides that the tax would have ened on the earliest of the following dates:[1]

  • January 1, 2043, or
  • January 1 after three consecutive calendar years after January 1, 2030, of statewide emissions reduced by 80% of 1990 levels.

Revenue from the increased income tax would have been appropriated into the Clean Cars and Clean Air Trust Fund (CCCATF). It would then have been allocated to the following three sub-funds: Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Investment Plan Sub-Fund (35% of revenue), Zero-Emission Vehicle and Clean Mobility Sub-Fund (45% of revenue), and Wildfire Green House Gas Emissions Reduction Sub-Fund (20% of revenue). The sub-funds would have funded zero-emission vehicles, charging stations, and infrastructure, as well as hiring and training firefighters.[1]

Who supported and opposed Proposition 30?

See also: Support and Opposition

Yes on 30: Clean Air California led the campaign in support of Proposition 30. It received endorsements from the California State Association of Electrical Workers and California Environmental Voters. Two other committees also registered in support of Proposition 30: Yes on 30: Working Families and Environmental Voters to Expose Greedy Billionaires and CEOs and California Environmental Voters Issues Committee. Together the committees reported $48.1 million in contributions. Lyft was the top contributor with $45.2 million in contributions. Bill Magavern, one of the authors of the initiative, said, "We need to protect the health of Californians. California needs to step up to protect its own. The state is doing a lot to reduce harmful emissions but the budget, even with the governor making the commitment he has, is insufficient to address these problems."[2][3]

There are two committees registered in opposition to Proposition 30: No on 30 and No on 30 - Educators Opposed to Corporate Handouts. The committees reported $31.9 million in contributions. Proposition 30 has received opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), the California Teachers Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Gov. Newsom (D) said, "Prop. 30 is a special interest carve-out — a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company. … Californians should know that just this year our state committed $10 billion for electric vehicles and their infrastructure."[4]

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of Proposition 30.

Income Tax Authorization: New income tax on individuals with income over $2 million

Proposition 30 would have amended state statute to increase the income tax by an additional 1.75% on income above $2 million for individuals. The additional tax would have taken effect on January 1, 2023. The initiative provides that the tax would have ened on the earliest of the following dates:[1]

  • January 1, 2043, or
  • January 1 after three consecutive calendar years after January 1, 2030, of statewide greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 80% of 1990 levels.

The Legislative Analyst's Office estimated that the additional tax would generate between $3 billion to $4.5 billion annually.[5]

Creation of the Clean Cars and Clean Air Trust Fund: Revenue allocation

Proposition 30 would have created the Clean Cars and Clean Air Trust Fund (CCCATF) and authorize the attorney general, state auditor, and state controller with oversight powers including biennial independent financial audits of the fund. The initiative would have also authorized the state controller to conduct performance audits of the programs receiving funds every four years and require the findings to be made public. The initiative limits the amount that may be used to conduct audits to $600,000 per audit (adjusted for inflation every 10 years).

The money in the CCCATF would have been allocated to three sub-funds created by the initiative:

  • 35% to the Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Investment Plan Sub-Fund;
  • 45% to the Zero-Emission Vehicle and Clean Mobility Sub-Fund; and
  • 20% to the Wildfire Green House Gas Emissions Reduction Sub-Fund.

The initiative would have required that the sub-fund begin awarding financial incentives no later than the second January 1 after the effective date of the funds.

Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Investment Plan Sub-Fund: Purpose of sub-fund

The measure was designed to have the tax revenue allocated to the sub-fund be distributed by the California Energy Commission (CEC), in consultation with the Public Utilities Commission, for programs to develop zero-emission vehicle infrastructure. The initiative would have required that 50% of funds be deposited into the Infrastructure Access Account to be used on projects that would benefit low-income or disadvantaged communities, and the remaining 50% of funds would be deposited into the General Infrastructure Account. For the first five years of the fund's existence, the initiative would have required the following spending minimums for both the Infrastructure Access and General Infrastructure accounts:[1]

  • 20% to develop multifamily dwelling charging stations;
  • 10% to develop single-family charging stations;
  • 10% to develop fast fueling infrastructure for passenger vehicles; and
  • 10% to develop medium and heavy-duty fueling infrastructure.

The initiative would have required the CEC to consider the following principles in developing infrastructure: low cost to drivers, price transparency, long-term reliability, grid support, a robust grid, and equitable access.

Zero-Emission Vehicle and Clean Mobility Sub-Fund: Purpose of sub-fund

The measure was designed to have the tax revenue allocated to the sub-fund be distributed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to fund programs to promote the purchase of zero-emission vehicles and other transportation intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The initiative would have required at least two-thirds of the fund's money to be allocated to projects or programs that increase passenger zero-emission vehicles for the first five years of the fund's operation. Like the Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Investment Plan Sub-Fund, the initiative would have required that at least half of the money in the fund be used to fund zero-emission vehicle incentives in low-income and disadvantaged communities, while the other half would be deposited into the Zero-Emission Vehicle General Account.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many

The initiative lists the following eligible programs for funding:Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many

  • financial incentives for zero-emission school and transit buses;
  • financial incentives for governments and businesses to buy medium-, heavy-duty, and off-road agricultural and construction zero-emission vehicles;
  • help drivers retire polluting vehicles and replace them with zero-emission vehicles;
  • help workers utilize zero-emission vanpools;
  • local air quality benefits in communities overburdened by diesel pollution; and
  • access to electric bikes, bike-sharing, bike lanes, and transit passes.

The measure was designed to have funds in the Zero-Emission Vehicle General Account be used to create a zero-emission vehicle incentive program that distributes rebates, subsidies, grants, and other financial incentives for all California residents to purchase or lease zero-emission vehicles. The initiative would have required that CARB, who would administer the program, prioritize applications in the following order: individual residents, businesses and state or local governments that would drive vehicles at least 25,000 miles annually, and any other remaining businesses or governments.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many

Wildfire Green House Gas Emissions Reduction Sub-Fund: Purpose of sub-fund

The initiative would have allocated 75% of the fund's revenue to Cal Fire, which is the state's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The other 25% would have been allocated to the Office of the State Fire Marshall. The money allocated to Cal Fire would have funded the hiring and training of firefighters; purchasing wildfire detection and monitoring systems; improving fire suppression in fire-prone communities; improving defensible spaces around homes and communities; awarding grants for retrofitting homes in low-income communities; and supporting forest resilience programs and other forestry management. The initiative would have required that Cal Fire prioritize hiring and training firefighters above the other prescribed uses for the funds. The initiative would have also restricted funds for the uses to 25% for the first six years.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many

Other initiative provisions: Continuous fund appropriation and cap on administrative costs

The initiative states that all revenue from the tax deposited into the sub-funds would be continuously appropriated without regard to fiscal year and would not be included in the state's annual budgetary process. The initiative would have also limited administrative costs for the California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, and Cal Fire to 5% of the money in any sub-fund.[1]


Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[6][1]

“

Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million. Initiative Statute.[7]

”

Petition summary

The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:[1]

“

Increases tax on personal income over $2 million by 1.75% for individuals and married couples and allocates new tax revenues as follows: (1) 45% for rebates and other incentives for zero-emission vehicle purchases and 35% for charging stations for zero-emission vehicles, with at least half of this funding directed to low-income households and communities; and (2) 20% for wildfire prevention and suppression programs, with priority given to hiring and training firefighters. Requires audits of programs and expenditures.[7]

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[1]

“

Increased annual state tax revenue ranging from $3 billion to $4.5 billion, with the additional revenue used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire-related activities. Potential increased state administrative costs paid from other funding sources that could reach tens of millions to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Net decrease in state and local transportation revenue of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually in the initial years, and growing to up to a few hundreds of millions of dollars annually after several years.[7]

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot measure is below:[1]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2022

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 12, and the FRE is 28. The word count for the ballot title is 19.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 21, and the FRE is 8. The word count for the ballot summary is 73.


Support

Yes on 30 (2022).jpeg

Yes on 30: Clean Air California led the campaign in support of Proposition 30.[2]

Supporters

The coalition published a full list of endorsements on its website that can be found here.

Officials

Political Parties

Corporations

  • Lyft

Unions

  • CAL FIRE Local 2881
  • California State Association of Electrical Workers
  • Unite HERE

Organizations

  • American Lung Association
  • California Environmental Voters

Individuals


Arguments

  • Bill Magavern, one of the authors of the initiative: "We need to protect the health of Californians. California needs to step up to protect its own. The state is doing a lot to reduce harmful emissions but the budget, even with the governor making the commitment he has, is insufficient to address these problems."
  • Veda Banerjee, communications director for California Environmental Voters: "The Clean Cars, Clean Air Act cuts right to the heart of the climate crisis in our state. And so far, the biggest threats of this crisis have been shouldered by the most underserved populations. We heartily support this historic approach — one that embraces science and builds equity — and look forward to our partnership within this coalition."
  • Nick Josefowitz, the chief policy officer for SPUR, and Shane Ysais, communications coordinator for the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice: "Prop. 30 will finance this bold agenda in a way that’s true to our California values: by increasing the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75%. The funding will come solely from the 0.1% of Californians most able to afford it, and restore clean air to low- and middle-income families who most need it. ... This November, California must vote for Prop. 30, a transformative, life-saving, equitable investment in a livable environment."
  • Dr. Ashley McClure, a co-founder of Climate Health Now: "This is a Robin Hood type of a ballot 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."
  • State Rep. Kevin McCarty (D): "Our air quality is the worst in the nation and among the worst in the world, and our consecutive years of devastating wildfires are poisoning our air, threatening lives and exhausting our brave firefighters. With Proposition 30, we have the opportunity to reduce air pollution, curb climate change, and build a bold, long-range plan to fund both our acceleration to EVs and firefighting resources."
  • David Reichmuth, senior engineer of the Clean Transportation Program: "Proposition 30 will mean more ZEVs on the road at an earlier date and therefore should help Lyft and Uber reduce emissions from their operations. But the incentives and infrastructure investments are not designed to specifically benefit these companies, but to help the drivers in California make a faster transition to cleaner transportation. The assertion that Proposition 30 benefits one company alone is simply false."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 30 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[8]

  • Official Voter Information Guide: CALIFORNIANS DESERVE CLEAN AIR TO BREATHE Climate change is fueling extreme heat, prolonged drought and catastrophic wildfires that are taking lives, destroying homes and costing California’s economy tens of billions of dollars. Fire season is now year-round. The air quality in California is the worst in the country (2022 American Lung Association report). The toxic, polluted air exposes us—especially children and seniors—to increased health risks like asthma, heart attacks, lung cancer and strokes. Existing programs are not enough to address this growing threat to California’s economy, environment and public health. We must act urgently to reduce the top two sources of air pollution and greenhouse gases in California: wildfires and vehicles. PROP. 30 WILL REDUCE CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES AND AIR POLLUTION FROM VEHICLES Prop. 30 provides funding to improve California air quality by: • Preventing and fighting wildfires. • Providing consumers rebates to help them afford clean, zero-emission electric vehicles. • Creating a statewide network of affordable, convenient charging stations for electric vehicles. The measure is funded by a 1.75% tax increase on the roughly 35,000 Californians who make more than $2 million annually. PERSONAL INCOME BELOW $2 MILLION IS NOT TAXED. Only the wealthiest 0.2% will be impacted. Small business revenue is NOT taxed. PREVENTING WILDFIRES AND PROTECTING HOMES Prop. 30 funds critically needed programs to prevent catastrophic wildfires and protect homes, including: • Managing forests to reduce dry vegetation that fuels extreme wildfires. • Improving protective space around homes and businesses to reduce the risk wildfires spread through communities. • Hiring and training state firefighters and increasing firefighting equipment to stop wildfires before they grow out of control. Our firefighters put their lives on the line to protect us—they deserve more help as they face increasingly dangerous fires. PROP. 30: STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY • Caps administrative expenses. • Requires independent audits by the State Auditor and State Controller to ensure funds get spent as intended. • Prohibits the Legislature from appropriating funds for other purposes. • Provides criminal and financial penalties for misuse of funds. MAKING ELECTRIC VEHICLES A MORE AFFORDABLE CHOICE Gas is too expensive. Consumers want options, but many can’t afford an electric vehicle. Prop. 30 provides DIRECT REBATES AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO CONSUMERS to make sure low- and middle-income families who want an electric vehicle can afford one. School buses, farm equipment and big rig trucks are also eligible to help reduce diesel pollution. EXPANDING CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE STATEWIDE Prop. 30 develops the network of affordable charging stations throughout the state that we need—creating thousands of good-paying green jobs. Homes, apartments, businesses and local governments are eligible to ensure charging a car is more convenient than buying gas: available at work, home and in commercial and public spaces. The measure will upgrade the electric grid to ensure reliability as we transition to more electric vehicles. OUR KIDS DESERVE A FUTURE WITH CLEAN AIR With Prop. 30, we can reduce extreme wildfires and restore clean air to California. Please join state firefighters, nurses, doctors, scientists, environmental groups and businesses across California in support. www.Yeson30.org ---Tim Edwards, President, CalFire State Firefighters; David Tom Cooke, M.D., FACS, American Lung Association; and Sherry Jackman, Vice Chair, Coalition for Clean Air

Campaign advertisements

The following campaign ads were released by the Yes on 30 campaign:[9]

Opposition

No on Prop 30 CA 2022.jpeg

No on 30 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 30.[10]

Opponents

Officials

Political Parties

Unions

Organizations

Arguments

  • Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: "We already have some of the highest taxes in the country. A lot of the air pollution in Southern California could be eliminated by spending transportation dollars on freeway improvements to reduce traffic jams. If these proposals are really priorities, they should be paid for out of the existing general fund."
  • Gov. Gavin Newsom (D): "Prop. 30 is a special interest carve-out — a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company. … Californians should know that just this year our state committed $10 billion for electric vehicles and their infrastructure."
  • Jennifer Barrera, president and chief executive officer of the California Chamber of Commerce: "California already has the highest personal income tax, gas tax, and sales tax rates in the country. We are dealing with record high inflation and economists are predicting a recession. The last thing California needs right now is a tax increase. Higher taxes—especially now—are off the table."
  • Matt Rodriguez, founder and CEO of Rodriguez Strategies and a part of the No on Prop. 30 campaign: "Voters should think twice. While it has been marketed as a clean-air initiative benefiting all Californians, Prop. 30 represents the worst of ballot-box budgeting. The campaign has been funded largely by a single corporation — ride-hailing giant Lyft — to secure electric vehicle subsidies from taxpayers."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 30 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[11]

  • Official Voter Information Guide: PROP. 30 WILL INCREASE TAXES FOR UP TO 20 YEARS BY AT LEAST $30 BILLION AND AS MUCH AS $90 BILLION, DRIVING UP COSTS FOR EVERY CALIFORNIAN. California families are feeling the pinch from high inflation, and rising gas, food and housing prices. The last thing we need now are higher taxes, especially if the recession predicted by many economists hits families and threatens their livelihoods. Californians already pay the highest state income taxes and highest gas taxes, one of the highest sales taxes, and grapple daily with among the highest costs of living in the nation. Prop. 30 will be the largest tax increase in California in over a decade—as utility rates skyrocket for homeowners and small businesses, and higher taxes get passed on to consumers. PROP. 30 WILL SEVERELY STRAIN A STRUGGLING ELECTRICITY GRID ALREADY AT RISK OF ROLLING BLACKOUTS. Prop. 30 would add up to three million new zero-emission vehicles in California over the next ten years, which means the state would need to increase the capacity of the current electricity grid to handle this massive increase. This expense is NOT included in Prop. 30 and could be paid for by regular utility ratepayers (who already pay some of the highest rates in the nation). Utility costs could skyrocket, and ratepayers could pay much higher electricity bills each month. California’s power grid is already stressed to the brink each summer—just two years ago many Californians suffered rolling blackouts. Our electricity grid is already at the limit in the summer months, and Prop. 30 will increase demand so the risk of rolling blackouts will become even worse. CALIFORNIA IS CURRENTLY POURING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO ELECTRIC VEHICLE PROGRAMS. More new tax revenue is unnecessary. The State budget surplus grew to $97.5 billion this year. The state has already developed a spending plan to ensure the rapid adoption of zero emission vehicles without raising taxes and without threatening the stability of the electricity grid, and has already budgeted $10 billion to achieve these goals. If more funding is needed, the state’s budget surplus can be tapped—instead of raising more new taxes. MORE SPENDING ON WILDFIRE PROTECTION CAN EASILY BE PAID USING THE STATE’S BUDGET SURPLUS. California currently spends billions of dollars annually on wildfire prevention and suppression. Using part of the state’s $97.5 billion surplus, this year spending nearly $4 billion on wildfire protection—with more than a thousand new fire fighter positions. This initiative would make a small increase to their budget, an amount that could easily be funded from the state’s budget surplus. JOIN TAXPAYERS, TEACHERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES TO REJECT THIS UNNECESSARY TAX INCREASE THAT COULD PUT OUR ELECTRICITY GRID AT RISK! ---Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Betty Jo Toccoli, President, California Small Business Association; and Joe Coto, President, United Latinos Action

Campaign advertisements

The following video was released by Vote No Prop 30:[10]

Title: "One Company

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through January 31, 2023.


See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

There are three ballot measure committees, Yes on 30: Clean Air California, Yes on 30: Working Families and Environmental Voters to Expose Greedy Billionaires and CEOs, and California Environmental Voters Issues Committee, registered in support of the initiative. Together the committees reported nearly $48.1 million in contributions. There are two ballot measure committees, No on 30 and No on 30 - Educators Opposed to Corporate Handouts, registered in opposition to the initiative. The committees reported $31.9 million.[12]

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $47,105,955.00 $1,021,764.57 $48,127,719.57 $43,301,767.18 $44,323,531.75
Oppose $24,695,736.00 $7,180,058.10 $31,875,794.10 $30,298,389.29 $37,478,447.39

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the ballot measure.[12]

Committees in support of Proposition 30
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Yes on 30: Clean Air California $46,754,955.00 $1,016,938.43 $47,771,893.43 $43,032,566.88 $44,049,505.31
Yes on 30: Working Families and Environmental Voters to Expose Greedy Billionaires and CEOs $190,000.00 $0.00 $190,000.00 $200,796.06 $200,796.06
California Environmental Voters Issues Committee $161,000.00 $4,826.14 $165,826.14 $68,404.24 $73,230.38
Total $47,105,955.00 $1,021,764.57 $48,127,719.57 $43,301,767.18 $44,323,531.75

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of the ballot measure.[12]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
Lyft $45,000,000.00 $210,573.84 $45,210,573.84
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00
Zinc Collective $200,000.00 $0.00 $200,000.00
Joseph Sanberg $100,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00
California Environmental Voters Issues Committee $90,000.00 $0.00 $90,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the ballot measure.[12]

Committees in opposition to Proposition 30
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
No on 30 $19,487,236.00 $7,180,058.10 $26,667,294.10 $25,059,495.31 $32,239,553.41
No on 30 - Educators Opposed to Corporate Handouts $5,208,500.00 $0.00 $5,208,500.00 $5,238,893.98 $5,238,893.98
Total $24,695,736.00 $7,180,058.10 $31,875,794.10 $30,298,389.29 $37,478,447.39

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in opposition to the ballot measure.[12]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
California Teachers Association/Issues PAC $5,000,000.00 $0.00 $5,000,000.00
Michael Moritz $1,000,000.00 $1,333,007.80 $2,333,007.80
Newsom for California Governor 2022 $0.00 $1,617,216.88 $1,617,216.88
Leonard G. Baker Jr $463,084.80 $1,066,957.44 $1,530,042.24
Mark Heising $1,250,000.00 $0.00 $1,250,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the initiative.

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

  • Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "This tax makes sense if the state is truly going to embrace zero-emission vehicles. Vote YES on Prop 30."
  • San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "The clock is ticking to decarbonize California. For all its flaws, Prop. 30 is a crucial effort to meet the urgency of the moment."

Opposition

  • The Mercury News Editorial Board: "Voters should reject Prop. 30. It’s a prime example of the pitfalls of budgeting by initiative. Once again, Californians are provided little independent policy analysis on which to base a multi-billion-dollar decision. Yet they’re being asked to lock in spending on a program, this time for 20 years, without the ability to adjust for future needs. And Prop. 30 is yet another measure that would disproportionately benefit a special interest. In this case, that’s Lyft, the ride-hailing company that has thus far poured $15 million into the initiative campaign in hopes that wealthy taxpayers will subsidize the firm’s transition to electric vehicles."
  • Los Angeles Editorial Board: "Proposition 30 would push the top-earner rate to 15.05%, which is much higher than other states, most of which have income tax rates in the single digits. The state’s dependence on wealthy residents’ income, which is often tied to investments and the stock market, creates tremendous instability in the budget. Revenues sharply rise and fall with Wall Street, leading to feast-or-famine cycles. It doesn’t make sense to pin another priority on such a volatile funding stream. Proposition 30 could also drive investors who fund high-risk technologies out of the state."
  • The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "These are hugely consequential considerations that Proposition 30 ignores. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also makes an important point that doesn’t get the attention it deserves: The measure could push state spending past the Gann limit, the potent but as-yet-uninvoked California constitutional provision approved by voters in 1979 that puts a hard cap on expenditures. ... The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board recommends a 'no' vote on Proposition 30."
  • The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "Proposition 30’s proponents are clever. They hide behind legitimate issues and even tap into class envy. But this measure is a special interest money grab, pure and simple. Vote no on Proposition 30."
  • The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "In simple terms, Prop. 30 is Lyft’s way of getting someone else to pay the bill for the transition from gas- to electric-powered cars. That someone else would be Californians earning more than $2 million a year, whose income tax would go up by 1.75 percentage points. ... Vote no on Proposition 30."


Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2022 ballot measure polls
Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
California Proposition 30, Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative (2022)
Poll
Dates
Sample size
Margin of error
Support
Oppose
Undecided
Public Policy Institute of California 10/14/2022-10/23/2022 1,111 LV ± 5.1% 41% 52% 7%
Question: "Proposition 30 is called Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income over $2 Million. Initiative Statute. It allocates tax revenues to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention. The fiscal impact is increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 30?"
Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) 9/22/22 - 9/27/22 6,939 LV ± 2.5% 49% 37% 14%
Question: "PROVIDES FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION AND PREVENT WILDFIRES BY INCREASING TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME OVER $2 MILLION. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Allocates tax revenues to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities. If the election were held today, how would you vote on Proposition 30?"
Public Policy Institute of California 9/2/22 - 9/11/22 1,060 LV ± 5.4% 55% 40% 5%
Question: "Proposition 30 is called Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million. Initiative Statute. It allocates tax revenues to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention. The fiscal impact is increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 30?"
Public Policy Institute of California 7/8/22 - 7/15/22 1,132 LV ± 4.1% 63% 35% 2%
Question: "A citizens’ initiative on the November ballot provides funding for programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the tax on personal income over $2 million with the additional revenue used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire-related activities. Do you favor or oppose this initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?"
Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Background

Income tax rates in California

At the time of the election,California had a graduated individual income tax with rates ranging from 1% to 13.3%. The various brackets are listed below:[13]

California income tax brackets
Tax rate Single filer bracket Married filer bracket
1% > $0 > $0
2% > $9,325 > $18,650
4% > $22,107 > $44,214
6% > $34,892 > $69,784
8% > $48,435 > $96,870
9.3% > $61,214 >$122,428
10.3% > $312,686 >$625,372
11.3% > $375,221 >$750,442
12.3% > $625,369 >$1,000,000
13.3% > $1,000,000 >$1,250,738


As of 2022, 43 states tax individual income—41 taxed wages while New Hampshire taxes only dividend and interest revenue and Washington taxes the capital gains income of high earners. The remaining seven states did not tax personal income. Of the 41 states with an income tax, 11 states have a flat rate, and the other states have graduated rates that varied depending on different income brackets. The number of income tax brackets ranged from three in Kansas to 12 in Hawaii.

The tax rate applied to income within the highest bracket across the 43 states with income taxes ranging from 2.9% applied to income above $445,000 in North Dakota to 13.3% applied to income above $1,000,000 in California.[14]

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) was created on August 30, 1967, with the passage of the Mulford-Carrel Air Resources Act. In that same year, the federal government enacted the Federal Air Quality Act authorizing states to set their own air quality rules. CARB adopted the nation's first NOx (nitrogen oxides) emissions standards for motor vehicles in 1971.[15]

CARB consists of 16 members—12 appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate; one member appointed by each legislative chamber; and one nonvoting member appointed by each legislative chamber for legislative oversight. The 12 members appointed by the governor include six who serve on local air districts, four members considered experts in the fields that shape air quality rules, two public members, and one full-time member who serves as the chair of the board.[16]

On the board's website, it lists the following responsibilities: set the state's air quality standards; identify pollutants that pose the greatest health risk; measure progress in reducing pollutants; verify automakers' emissions compliance; and research the cause of air pollution problems; study the costs and benefits of pollution controls.[15]

Regulations related to zero-emission vehicles

In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) directed CARB to adopt regulations to end the sale of gas-powered cars in California by 2035. In 2021, CARB adopted regulations requiring about 8% of new cars sold in the state to be zero-emission by 2025. Also in 2021, CARB adopted regulations requiring rideshare companies, such as Uber and Lyft, to achieve a level of zero greenhouse gas emissions and to ensure 90% of their vehicle miles are fully electric.[17][18]

California Energy Commission (CEC)

The California Energy Commission (CEC) was established in 1975 by the Warren-Alquist Act. CEC is the state's primary energy policy and planning agency. The commission consists of five members appointed by the governor and approved by the senate that serve five-year staggered terms. The commissioners must represent one of the following fields: law, environment, economics, science or engineering, and the public at large.[19]

The commission's website lists the following responsibilities: advancing state energy policy, achieving energy efficiency, investing in energy innovation, developing renewable energy, transitioning the transportation sector to low-carbon fuels and zero- and near-zero-emission technologies, overseeing energy infrastructure, and preparing for energy emergencies.[20]

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) was founded in 1885. CAL FIRE is tasked with "providing wildland fire protection, fire prevention, and resource management on more than 31 million acres of State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands throughout California ... [and providing] emergency services to 115 local government cooperators through agreements with districts, cities and counties." The CAL FIRE Budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 was $2.6 billion.[21]

Office of the State Fire Marshall (OSFM)

The Office of the State Fire Marshall has been under CAL FIRE since 1995. The OSFM is responsible for providing fire safety where people live, work, and congregate by enforcing fire-related laws and codes. Between 2020 and 2021, the OSFM conducted over 230,000 inspections of defensible space and pipelines.[21]

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

Process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.

The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2022 ballot:

  • Signatures: 623,212 valid signatures were required.
  • Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was 131 days before the general election, which was around June 30, 2022. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months and proponents are recommended to file signatures at least two months before the verification deadline.

Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.

Initiative #21-0037

Joseph Wiedman filed the ballot initiative on November 4, 2021. The Attorney General of California issued ballot language for the initiative on January 10, 2022, allowing a signature drive to begin. Signatures were due on July 11, 2022. Proponents reported collecting 25% of the required signatures on February 16, 2022.[22]

On May 16, 2022, the secretary of state reported the campaign had filed 990,608 raw signatures.[6]

On June 28, 2022, the secretary of state reported that the initiative had qualified for the ballot. The final random sample count concluded that 720,238 of the 990,608 submitted signatures were valid.[23]

Sponsors of the measure hired 2022 Campaigns Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $8,419,126.80 was spent to collect the 623,212 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $13.51.


How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

See also

External links

Support

Opposition

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 California Attorney General, "Initiative 21-0037," December 13, 2021
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Clean Air California, "Home," accessed March 9, 2022
  3. ↑ The Press Enterprise, "Ballot proposal would raise billions for electric cars, charging stations," January 14, 2022
  4. ↑ CalMatter, "Climate Change California Newsom," accessed July 27, 2022
  5. ↑ Legislative Analyst's Office, "Initiative 37 analysis," accessed May 6, 2022
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed January 31, 2022
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  8. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed October 23, 2022
  9. ↑ Facebook, "Yes on 30 - Clean Air California, accessed October 12, 2022
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 YouTube, "Vote No Prop 30," accessed September 13, 2022
  11. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed October 23, 2022
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Cal-Access, "CLEAN AIR CALIFORNIA, A COALITION OF RIDESHARE COMPANIES, LABOR, AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS," accessed March 7, 2022
  13. ↑ Tax Foundation, "State Individual Income Tax Rates and Brackets for 2022," July 27, 2022
  14. ↑ Tax Foundation, "State Individual Income Tax Rates and Brackets for 2017," March 9, 2017
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 California Air Resources Board, "About," accessed July 27, 2022
  16. ↑ California Air Resources Board, "History," accessed July 27, 2022
  17. ↑ CAP Radio, "Clean-car rules: California unveils proposed measure to ban new gasoline-fueled cars," April 17, 2022
  18. ↑ California Air Resources Board, "California requires zero-emissions vehicle use for ridesharing services, another step toward achieving the state’s climate goals," May 20, 2021
  19. ↑ California Energy Commission, "About," accessed July 27, 2022
  20. ↑ California Energy Commission, "Core Responsibility Fact Sheets," accessed July 27, 2022
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, "CAL FIRE at a Glance," accessed July 27, 2022
  22. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Initiatives," accessed January 11, 2022
  23. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Final Count," accessed June 29, 2022
  24. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed April 4, 2023
  25. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed April 4, 2023
  26. ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Brown approves automatic voter registration for Californians," October 10, 2015
  27. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "California voter law could register millions–for a start," October 20, 2015
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed April 4, 2023
  29. ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed April 4, 2023
  30. ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed April 4, 2023
v • e
2022 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming
Non I&R States
 • Alabama • Connecticut • Georgia • Hawaii • Iowa • Kentucky • Kansas • Louisiana • New Hampshire • New York • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Tennessee • Texas • Vermont • West Virginia
Political topics
Other
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_30,_Tax_on_Income_Above_$2_Million_for_Zero-Emissions_Vehicles_and_Wildfire_Prevention_Initiative_(2022)&oldid=9059037"