California Will Require Uber, Lyft Drivers To Transition To Electric Cars (thehill.com) 120
Slashdot reader PolygamousRanchKid quotes The Hill: California is requiring ride-sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft to transition from gasoline to electric vehicles (EVs) in their networks by the end of this decade.
The state's clean-air regulator on Thursday unanimously approved the Clean Miles Standard mandating that EVs account for 90 percent of ride-hailing vehicle miles traveled in California by 2030. The ride-share companies will have to begin the electrification of their fleets in 2023. The move by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is part of California's effort to phase out gas-powered vehicles and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become carbon neutral by 2045. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) last year signed an executive order requiring all new cars and passenger trucks sold in the state of nearly 40 million residents be zero-emission by 2035. "The transportation sector is responsible for nearly half of California's greenhouse gas emissions, the vast majority of which come from light-duty vehicles," CARB Chair Liane M. Randolph said in a statement...
Both Uber and Lyft have already committed to converting their fleets entirely to EVs by 2030 and have made efforts to help drivers make the shift.
The companies have said, however, California needs to spend more money to help drivers afford the zero emissions vehicles, according to Reuters.
The state's clean-air regulator on Thursday unanimously approved the Clean Miles Standard mandating that EVs account for 90 percent of ride-hailing vehicle miles traveled in California by 2030. The ride-share companies will have to begin the electrification of their fleets in 2023. The move by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is part of California's effort to phase out gas-powered vehicles and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become carbon neutral by 2045. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) last year signed an executive order requiring all new cars and passenger trucks sold in the state of nearly 40 million residents be zero-emission by 2035. "The transportation sector is responsible for nearly half of California's greenhouse gas emissions, the vast majority of which come from light-duty vehicles," CARB Chair Liane M. Randolph said in a statement...
Both Uber and Lyft have already committed to converting their fleets entirely to EVs by 2030 and have made efforts to help drivers make the shift.
The companies have said, however, California needs to spend more money to help drivers afford the zero emissions vehicles, according to Reuters.
Let's save the earth... (Score:5, Insightful)
California is schizophrenic (Score:4, Interesting)
Usually the way this plays out is the left wingers will put a rule like this in place and then also a bunch of social programs & regulations to help the low income people comply.
The the right wingers come in, spend a few hundred million (*cough*Prop 22*cough*) kill the social programs & regulations and leave the compliance stuff in place.
This is not an accident. It's part of a large scale effort by the right wing to discredit government as a useful feature so that people will abandon any attempts to participate, leaving the ring wing in charge of everything. They call it "Starve the Beast". It works because you can use wedge issues to divide city and rural voters and gerrymandering and voter suppression to amplify rural voting power, making it possible to turn virtually all left wing, pro employee legislation into a burden.
Go look up what they did with "the projects" and how they brought people into cities from the rural area to alleviate poverty and then pulled all the programs meant to give them jobs. It's like that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The the right wingers come in, spend a few hundred million (*cough*Prop 22*cough*) kill the social programs & regulations and leave the compliance stuff in place.
I guess you didn't care how many people would been fired if that passed. You think majority of people that do drive for uber/lyft work enough to offset costs of benifits they would pay out? Throw on top that now they will be giving up rights to said company that can now tell them when and how long they will have to work per week to keep from being fired?
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you didn't care how many people would been fired if that passed.
The same can be said when the U.S. passed the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like how unions successfully fought to https://www.latimes.com/local/... [slashdot.org]">exempt their members from minimum wage laws in most California cities? Those wacky "right wingers"!
Your link doesn't work (Score:1)
Here's the thing, if you have a few corrupt politicians do you drop a nuke on the country, burn everything to ashes and call it a day? Or do you get rid of the corrupt politicians and fix the country?
Unions are run by people, people can suck. You have to put
Re:California is schizophrenic (Score:4, Interesting)
the left wingers will put a rule like this in place
And by "left wingers", you mean the people who read the research on "ride-sharing" (not really) services increasing pollution. (We can therefore conclude that you think that non-leftwingers as a rule ignore science...which some of those non-leftwingers may find offensive.)
Re: (Score:2)
Left-wingers pick and choose the facts they use.
Just as "any"-winger ideologues do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for this, its gonna be great for the taxi drivers, whose unions are really behind this, as it makes Uber take on more costs and makes it harder for them to find drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
They run roughshod over the conservatives on a regular basis
Not enough, apparently.
Re: California is schizophrenic (Score:2)
Remember when Uber/Lyft was supposed to be just anyone being able to use any car they had in their personal lives to get a cheap trip out in the burbs?
This will just make the rural areas have no coverage or super expensive
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when Uber/Lyft was supposed to be just anyone being able to use any car they had in their personal lives to get a cheap trip out in the burbs?
This will just make the rural areas have no coverage or super expensive
And pray tell, what data are you basing all this on? ... or did you just pull that statement out of your rectum?
Re: (Score:2)
Usually the way this plays out is the left wingers will put a rule like this in place and then also a bunch of social programs & regulations to help the low income people comply.
But this part is already broken. By doing this, you're creating a society where a large chunk of the population is dependent on handouts so that they can function within the law. It also means you're crushing the middle class, which has to pay the increasing costs and also pay for the aforementioned social programs.
Re: California is schizophrenic (Score:1)
Wow, the cognitive dissonance is strong in you. The California government is ran by an extreme left-wing buffoon that is being recalled by his own party. The senate is 31-9 Democrats, the state assembly is 58-19-1 in favor of Democrats. You donâ(TM)t just have a majority, you have a super-majority, every law in effect comes directly without compromise from Democrats.
Democrats are the party of big business and regulation and taxes on the poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it's all those filthy conservative "wreckers" who totally have political power in California who ruined the great socialist dream!
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like if they actually gave a shit they'd make laws that do exactly what they intended with no chance for anyone else to twist or change the outcomes without a full repeal of the law.
Unless, of course, only having the appearance of giving a shit was the actual intent all along. Which, given the state of things in places like Baltimore and certain cities in California, I'm hard pressed to believe there's a possibility of arguing that that isn't the case.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah yeah, except .. you can't "start from the corporation" without affecting the little guy. The "little guy" who may have savings and 401k depends on dividends and shares for their retirement. Who suffers most when the cost of products and services increases whilst the quality goes down?
If cell phone manufacturers have to all pay $100 per phone to the government, you don't think they will increase the cost of the phone by $500 .. given that many won't be able to afford the phone they have to increase the
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like people take a position on this to argue whichever side they want for the issue at hand.
Re: (Score:3)
> I have been told repeatedly that imposing costs on producers does not actually affect them, they just pass it on to consumers.
Depends on whether it's a capital or marginal cost. If the drivers can't afford to buy or finance the car, the marginal increase isn't a factor.
Last I heard, though, Uber still gave drivers more VC money than customers gave Uber.
However, I can't see a law that says "no, you can't give somebody a ride in a gas car for money" actually being upheld. If California, as currently co
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is still not enough [taxfoundation.org].
Re: (Score:1)
but not sure beginning with people who are at the bottom of the pay/food chain should be the first to have to bear the burden. How about we start with the corporations themselves and work our way down?
The politically unconnected take the blame for everything.
Progressives take more flights and fly more miles each year than conservatives, and way more than working-class conservatives. Planes are the predominate cause of ‘global warming”, but the current young generation with money loves to fly. T
What nonsense is that CoolDiscoRex ? (Score:2)
Planes are the predominate cause of ‘global warming”,
Planes aren't even the dominant form of global warming from transport.
What the hell are you smoking?
Transport as a total is only 29% [epa.gov]
Aircraft are only 9% of that. [epa.gov]
Light duty vehicles are 59%. Exactly the vehicles targeted by this new rule.
Re: What nonsense is that CoolDiscoRex ? (Score:1)
This is not what qualifies as a light duty vehicle. Light duty vehicles are the trucks and small vans contractors and other service providers drive around in. They are also the least likely to be able to go electric, unless you at least quadruple the range on the electric F150, which would make it too heavy to be moved around with current battery tech.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not what qualifies as a light duty vehicle. Light duty vehicles are the trucks and small vans contractors and other service providers drive around in.
Had you bothered to read the PDF linked from that page, you would have learned that the category of "Light-Duty Vehicles" comprises *both* "Passenger Cars" *and* "Light-Duty Trucks".
Re: (Score:2)
That's impressive...
Re: (Score:3)
This, is probably the most Insightful thing that I've seen posted in a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed a memo somewhere.
The entire point of ALL messaging, especially in the US, but in nearly any other capitalist country, is that the people on the bottom NEED to pay first, NEED to pay most, and NEED to be aware that it's THEIR actions causing all problems. They need to bear the guilt of the elite that traipse about the world in private jets pronouncing global climate change a problem of the masses that must be dealt with. They also need to pay more taxes so that we can continue to send ma
Re: (Score:3)
In the long run this is a great law. California need to keep passing awesome legislation like this. Keep on pressing the middle class till all that is left is the very poor, those that can't pay taxes. An the very rich, those that don't pay taxes. Once all the middle class has left then California won't have any where near the power it has in congress.
Once this happens, then the rest of the country will be free to impose more sane laws and legislation on California.
Typical California Stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)
The drivers unable to switch will be the poorest ones, who can't afford a shiny new electric car.
Re: (Score:2)
The drivers unable to switch will be the poorest ones, who can't afford a shiny new electric car.
Rideshare services already require a relatively late-model car in most major cities. The poor have been priced out of doing this sort of work in those areas, regardless.
What I'd like to know is if these EV requirements will also apply to food/grocery delivery drivers (Uber Eats, Instacart, etc.)? Those people generally are the ones driving beaters and can't afford something newer.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'd like to know is if these EV requirements will also apply to food/grocery delivery drivers (Uber Eats, Instacart, etc.)?
No. Unless egg rolls or cheeseburgers qualify as "passengers".
(m) Ride-hailing services, known formally as transportation network companies, are services that offer on-demand rides by connecting drivers using their personal vehicles with passengers hailing a ride through a technology-based platform. As more Californians use ride-hailing services, transportation network companies are well positioned to help state and local governments meet pollution and emission reduction goals, advance sustainable land-use objectives, and help meet goals to increase access to clean mobility options for low- and moderate-income individuals, by increasing use of ride-hailing services that utilize zero-emission vehicles, promoting and encouraging shared rides, and helping to reduce congestion.
(3) "Transportation network company" has the same meaning as defined in Section 5431 of the Public Utilities Code.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca... [ca.gov]
5431(c) "Transportation network company" means an organization, including, but not limited to, a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole proprietor, or any other entity, operating in California that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application or platform to connect passengers with drivers using a personal vehicle.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's see, a state demanding all cars, eventually, be converted to electric. This in a state that can't even keep the lights on.
https://www.politico.com/state... [politico.com]
Libtards like to make fun of southern and flyover states, but at least those hillbillies and rednecks, know how to keep the lights on.
Re:Typical California Stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How is a taxi driver doing 300 miles in a shift?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pay? (Score:5, Informative)
You mean to tell me most EVs can drive around cities for 8 hours without needing a charge?
Most Teslas can certainly do that. Average taxi mileage in Austin is 164 miles on a weekday, it's around 100 miles for SF. That's less than even the shortest-range Tesla.
Long-range Tesla Model 3 can do up to 350 miles on a single 100% charge, and even charging to 80% to preserve battery is still 280 miles.
Re: (Score:1)
Take into account the average low speed of a taxi, and the numbers are even better. (More airco use, though, probably).
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that those quoted ranges are based on highway driving. If you’re in start-and-stop traffic with a lot of wasted time idling as you wait for fares, you likely won’t get anywhere close to that range.
Even so, yes, this should be within the range of most or all EVs today, and certainly will be of all EVs within a few more years.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that those quoted ranges are based on highway driving. If you’re in start-and-stop traffic with a lot of wasted time idling as you wait for fares, you likely won’t get anywhere close to that range.
You get MORE mileage in city traffic on EVs. Basically, the slower you go, the farther you can get. One guy managed to get around 500 miles of range driving at 25 mph on a Tesla with 270 mile nominal range.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. The more you know.
Thanks for the correction. Happy to accept it!
Re: (Score:2)
Electric cars don't idle. Their motors don't use energy while they stop (though the air conditioner will).
Re: Pay? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. What makes you think they can’t?
Re: (Score:2)
When the original Nissan Leaf came out way back when some taxi companies bought them in the UK. They proved more than capable of meeting the needs of the companies. One installed a rapid charger for drivers to use, one just had a couple of spare cars.
Obviously the distances in the US tend to be a bit longer, but the affordable cars these days will do 250-300 miles.
EVs make great taxis because the "fuel" is still cheap and they need little maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pay? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Will the Uber driver get paid to sit and wait for his car to charge one or two times a day?
No. (The same way they don't get paid while sitting around waiting for a ping)
The real deal here is these companies probably expect to replace their human-operated fleet with autonomous vehicles by the time this regulation kicks in. So the humans will be out of a job regardless of whether or not they could afford an EV. As they say at that long and somewhat boring attraction in The Magic Kingdom: That's what they call progress, dear.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that! (Score:1)
Electric cars have relatively shorter range (even fully charged) than gas burners, and even with "fast" charging it can still take a long time (half-hour or more) just to recharge to full, even with the fastest available chargers. Losing a half-hour is a disaster for drivers, never mind the companies.
Unless and until the electrics can a: do at least 250miles on one charge AND be recharged in five minutes (battery swapping anybody), making electric cars mandatory will be a disaster for the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Do drivers never take breaks? For lunch, or bathroom? Could those breaks not also be used for charging?
Re: (Score:1)
Bathroom: Micturation generally lasts under a minute. Defecation not more than a few minutes, usually.
Lunch: Half hour/one hour. And how many lunchtimes a day?
Re: (Score:2)
The Model 3 LR does 353 miles on a charge, and when at low states of charge, and can charge at a supercharger from 0% to 80% in around 27 minutes. So a single half hour stop gets you up to around 635 miles driven in a single day.
Looking at uber/lyft drivers, they report that ~100 miles per day is pretty normal, while the average taxi driver in NYC drives around 180 miles per 12-hour shift.
So it looks like looking up the charge speed was pointless, even the standard range model 3 has more than enough range f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably the EV premium will be a lot less by 2030.
Re: Good luck with that! (Score:1)
Taxi companies have their cars running 24/7 except for maintenance. It makes no sense having it sit out hours/day and buy a second car, insurance and medallion to do a charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Some do, where I live most taxi drivers own their cars, as Uber/Lyft drivers do. Which is its own problem, if taxi drivers are required to buy much more expensive cars. However, it's possible that the EV premium will be much lower by 2030.
In some jurisdictions, medallions can be for the number of cars the taxi company has on the road at any given time, which is what the local EV taxi company does. But even then it's not quite the same as doubling, as EVs have enough battery life to operate as a taxi for the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good luck with that! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
making electric cars mandatory will be a disaster for the industry.
It's only a disaster for the industry if they can't find drivers. As long as people are willing to put miles on their cars in exchange for a few bucks, there's no looming disaster. Plus, I'm sure there will be some percentage of drivers who know where they can get "free juice", making their work even more profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to read this. Teslas make great taxis and shuttle vehicles.
http://perriottpartners.com/20... [perriottpartners.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My heart bleeds for them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
only woke left wing commie liberals need to breathe clean air. True confederate patriots gain sustenance fun photochemical smog.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Uber didn't have a fleet (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why legislate a tech rather than an outcome (Score:2, Insightful)
What if we have a new technology that is superior by then? Shouldn't the law be based on pollution standards rather than a specific tech?
Re: (Score:2)
They could just amend the law...?
Little puzzled: is ride sharing especially bad? (Score:3)
I'm a little puzzled about the logic behind this move.
Are miles driven by ride sharing vehicles somehow worse than taxis? How about by regular commuters with long commutes? How about other delivery services (e.g. FedEx and USPS)? And people just knocking around town running errands?
If I were cynical, I'd suspect that CARB singled out ride sharing as a way to put the screws to Lyft and Uber, specifically as comeuppance for Prop 22. Thing is, since neither Lyft nor Uber actually owns the vehicles (that's the key to the whole sharing economy financial model), it's the drivers who will bear the burden. And I didn't think your typical ride sharing driver was the sort who could afford an extended range Tesla.
This being California and CARB, it's also entirely plausible they either already have or are planning similar regulations for every other industry which uses vehicles. I have to remember to buy and mothball a few gas cars just before they ban them completely.
Re: (Score:1)
This being California and CARB, it's also entirely plausible they either already have or are planning similar regulations for every other industry which uses vehicles. I have to remember to buy and mothball a few gas cars just before they ban them completely.
Not much use once they start forcing gas stations to close, or adding a $10/gal tax to gasoline. Make sure those vehicles you mothball are flex-fuel, and look into getting a fuel distillation license, maybe. Better yet, make them diesels and set up your own biodiesel plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Not much use once they start forcing gas stations to close, or adding a $10/gal tax to gasoline. Make sure those vehicles you mothball are flex-fuel, and look into getting a fuel distillation license, maybe. Better yet, make them diesels and set up your own biodiesel plant.
One of my kids used to work at Chevron. I was hoping that was my in.
My previous car as a diesel. I had hoped to keep it for a good long time but Dieselgate sunk that plan. Maybe my next one will be another diesel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to remember to buy and mothball a few gas cars just before they ban them completely.
Might I recommend a Red Barchetta?
Politicians should decide how (Score:4, Interesting)
They shall not make legislation favoring one technology over another. They should simply make a CO2 tax and keep increasing it. If someone find out it is cheaper to make artificial fuel for ICE cars than batteries that would win. That's how free market works.
But they aren't employees..... (Score:4, Interesting)
...So how the hell are the drivers cars considered part of Uber/Lyfts "fleet"?
Re: (Score:2)
And while they fought everything else tooth and nail, they just blanket said "ok!" since this isn't their skin in the game.
No Lobbying? (Score:1)
Let's all remember that they won't spend 180 million dollars to lobby this one because it won't cost them a nickel. The onus is on their drivers. Crooks.
Currently that would be illegal (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
New rule: To be a gig driver, you have to buy an electric car.
Not that much of a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Currently that would be illegal (Score:1)
Shameless (Score:2)
"We have to protect entrenched taxi interests somehow."
"How about ladle them with regulatory burden?"
"They said ok to some and fought back others in court."
"Rats. How about we assert out of nowhere their workers are actually employees, which will drag more burden onto their heads?"
"They fought back and The People of California, who know what they're doing when they elected us, didn't know what they were doing by rejecting that."
"Rats. We have to do something to protect our profitable entrenched taxi inter
Politicians and Lobbyists getting their revenge (Score:1)
First, a Democrat state representative from down in San Diego pushed through legislation that would have required all Uber and Lyft drivers to be employees rather than independent contractors. This was done very openly to block people from competing with the taxi people who lobbied for it. The [super-majority Democrat] Assembly and [super-majority Democrat] State Senate both passed it, they sent it to Democrat Gov Newsom, and he signed it into law.
Then Uber and Lyft and their drivers got outraged and thos
Re: (Score:2)
Last year both companies donated around $1 million each to the Democrat party. Seems like they're getting what they wanted?
Re: (Score:2)
Replacing smog with smug (Score:1)
The state is known for rolling blackouts... (Score:2)
And the best thing they can come up with is to increase demand for electricity?
Insanity (Score:2)
Just more reason why you need to buy your own car, and not use Uber.
Ah, America... (Score:2)