"Or -- wait -- could a good deal of it be BY USING FOSSIL FUELS?!!"

I am not surprised to see an objection of this type, because the majority of the public has no schooling on energy usage at any level - especially the concept of rejected heat: the expediture of energy which does NOT perform the desired task.

For instance: a compact car that uses 20 horsepower to drive down the interstate releases another 74 horsepower to the environment as heat.

That this is invisible is the reason so many are vehement about the issue. All they can see is another government power grab - a valid concern at all times - and being told that they cannot drive for free, or even cheaply. Some conspiracy has to be at work.

Yet energy usage is not subject to argument.

Please note the graph, and that the Transportation segment is THE most wasteful of energy. The easiest way to reduce this is to eliminate travel, which has not been strictly necessary for knowledge workers for many years, and to eliminate rejected heat, where hot exhaust simply throws energy away.

Nuclear.

Why should rideshare drivers be required by law to buy electric cars, but conventional motorists aren't?

Selective outrage.

What about taxi cabs? LA is deploying electric buses and even a fire engine to reduce pollution. If the logic behind requiring Uber and Lyft to go all-electric is to reduce pollution, cabs spend at least as much time on the road as ride-share vehicles. Or is the taxi lobby strong enough to fight the city hall.

I'm pretty sure after AB 5 passed, no one will be able to afford to be in the gig economy, so Garcetti's tomfoolery won't be a problem.

cabs spend at least as much time on the road as ride-share vehicles. Or is the taxi lobby strong enough to fight the city hall.

Guess: the cabs are probably on the road 24/7 unless in the shop for repair. It isn't clear how much it costs in LA to be licensed to have a cab, but in other locations that require a medallion they are many thousands of dollars.

As for the last half, yes, the cab companies most likely have enough clout to cause issues.

NicoleK's answer, while the correct one, will cause the pearl clutchers to clutch their pearls so tight as to create diamond-like gems.

This isn't about the environment, global climate change, or anything else. Scratch a Green, find a Red generally is truer than not. This is about control, and the power to compel obedience upon the masses.

Don't worry about the jet setters. They'll still be allowed to jet set to the destination of their choice. They'll just buy some carbon credits.

Don't forget, California also enacted a mandate for the state's electric supply to go 100% renewable. (Meaning unreliable.) Even natural gas is being phased out. So there won't be any way to charge your electric car reliably if you get one.

I suspect this is to prevent anyone from running over the bums taking dumps in the streets.

I see it more in economic terms. Did the Mayor get a nice donation from taxi groups, or did he buy stock in Tessla?

In spite of Radwaste's comment, the perception is that electric is both free and environmentally clean. But both wind and solar occupy huge areas of the natural landscape, causing objections from Green groups. Both have problems of intermittancy. At night if there is no wind, where will your electricity come from? If batteries were the answer they would already be in place. In fact batteries will never be the answer. Instead you need the same infrastructure of fossil fuel power plants to back up the electric. If you have 50% solar/wind, you still need 100% of the same generators you needed before but now they run less of the time and thus cost more (capital is not being used wisely). Thus costs skyrocket. Denmark which has so much wind can offload it to Germany when there is too much and import electricity from French nuclear when there is no wind. That is the only reason it works for them. The high amount of renewable in Europe has led to high elec costs (2 to 3 times US).
As to taxis, after a couple hours of driving customers, the taxis will have to be plugged in to recharge for 45 minutes. Not a good business model. it also increases costs for uber drivers.

"We have the power to regulate . . . "

Just because they have the power doesn't mean they should.

That's a simple concept that most politicians do not understand.

Electric cars are like going back to horses.
After several hours of travel, a horse needs several hours of eating, drinking, and sleeping, just like an electric car needs several hours of charging. You can pump 600 miles worth of gas in the time it took me to type this comment.

Yes, it's about control. It's much easier for the surveillance state to keep track of your movements in an electric car.