As a result, future heat waves are more likely to result in emergency conservation measures, which can include rolling blackouts as well as restrictions on air conditioner use and electric vehicle charging.Īlthough it is possible to charge electric vehicles at home, EV owners often need to use public charging stations if they run low during the day, typically due to long-distance travel. Opponents also contend that by hastening the conversion to electric vehicles, Proposition 30 would increase demand for electricity without funding increased power generation capacity, thereby straining the state’s electrical grid, which is facing issues in September 2022. 30 is fiscally irresponsible and puts the profits of a single corporation ahead of the welfare of the entire state.” “Californians should know that just this year our state committed $10 billion for electric vehicles and their infrastructure, part of a $54 billion nation-leading package to fight climate change and build a zero-emission future. “California’s tax revenues are famously volatile, and this measure would make our state’s finances more unstable - all so that special interests can benefit,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom are among others who oppose the proposition. The California Teachers Association and Gov. If these proposals are really priorities, they should be paid for out of the existing general fund.” “A lot of the air pollution in Southern California could be eliminated by spending transportation dollars on freeway improvements to reduce traffic jams. “We already have some of the highest taxes in the country,” Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, told the Mercury News. 30 reduces the state legislature’s ability to allocate state resources and might take funding away from schools and other priorities. Proponents say reducing the number and size of fires and fighting them more effectively would improve the state’s air quality. To fight fires more effectively once they start, the measure would also fund additional personnel and equipment. In an effort to reduce wildfire risks, Proposition 30’s proceeds would also be used to clear dry vegetation and increase protective spaces around homes and businesses. In the first year alone, over 500,000 apartments and houses will be equipped with EV chargers,” claims the Yes On 30 Clean Air Coalition.

“The initiative will expand access to electric vehicle chargers for every Californian, regardless of where they live or work. Politico reports that ride-sharing company Lyft, environmental groups, and “unions that would build electric infrastructure” are among those supporting Prop.

Supporters say the funds from Proposition 30 would accelerate the transition to electric vehicles by making electric vehicles more affordable and increasing the number of charging stations, thereby making charging more convenient and encouraging more people to buy EVs. Proponents argue that the state must take more vigorous action to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions while countering wildfires which have become worse in recent years. Although LAO notes that “some taxpayers probably would take steps to reduce the amount of income taxes they owe,” it does not attempt to quantify any potential revenue losses. 30’s additional tax would raise between $3.5 billion and $5 billion annually which would be split across the zero-emission vehicle and wildfire prevention programs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that Prop. 30 would allocate the increased 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. California’s Proposition 30 would increase state taxes on personal income over $2 million by 1.75% for individuals and married couples.

California income tax brackets 2021