California Introduces Bill to Require ANNUAL Emission Tests for Vehicles 15 Years Old

[RON98]

http://www.semasan.com/main/main.aspx?id=62246

URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT
California Introduces Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions Tests for Vehicles 15-Years Old and Older

Here we go again! Legislation (A.B. 616) has been introduced in the California Assembly by Assemblyman Dave Jones to require annual Smog check inspections for vehicles 15-years old and older. The bill would also require that funds generated through the additional inspection fees be deposited into an account which can be used to scrap older cars. You may recall that in 2004 a new law was enacted in California to require the lifetime testing of all 1976 and newer model-year vehicles. Pre-1976 motor vehicles would remain exempt under A.B. 616. The bill has been referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee.

We Urge You to Contact Assemblyman Jones and members of the Assembly Transportation Committee (List Below) Immediately to Oppose A.B. 616
A.B. 616 ignores the minimal impact vintage cars have on air quality.

A.B. 616 could entice vintage car owners into allowing these vehicles to be scrapped.

A.B. 616 ignores the fact that vehicles 15-years old and older still constitute a small portion of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to look for emissions reduction.

A.B. 616 ignores the fact that classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained and infrequently driven.

A.B. 616 would increase costs by creating an annual inspection fee for owners of these vehicles.

A.B. 616 represents another attempt by California legislators and regulators to scapegoat older cars.

Please contact members of the California Assembly Transportation Committee immediately by phone, fax or e-mail to request their opposition to A.B. 616.

Please e-mail a copy of your letter to [email protected]. Thank you for your assistance.


Assembly Transportation Committee

Pedro Nava, Chair
Telephone: (916) 319-2035
Fax: (916) 319-2135
Email: [email protected]

Michael D. Duvall, Vice-Chair
Telephone: (916) 319-2072
Fax: (916) 319-2172
Email: [email protected]

Wilma Amina Carter
Telephone: (916) 319-2062
Fax: (916) 319-2162
Email: [email protected]

Mike DeSaulnier
Telephone: (916) 319-2011
Fax: (916) 319-2111
Email: [email protected]

Cathleen Galgiani
Tel: (916) 319-2017
Fax: (916) 319-2117
Email: [email protected]

Martin Garrick
Telephone: (916) 319-2074
Fax: (916) 319-2174
Email: [email protected]

Shirley Horton
Telephone: (916) 319-2078
Email: [email protected]

Guy S. Houston
Telephone: (916) 319-2015
Fax: (916) 319-2115
Email: [email protected]

Bob Huff
Telephone: (916) 319-2060
Fax: (916) 319-2160
Email: [email protected]

Betty Karnette
Telephone: (916) 319-2054
Email: [email protected]

Anthony J. Portantino
Telephone: (916) 319-2044
Fax: (916) 319-2144
Email: [email protected]

Ira Ruskin
Telephone: (916) 319 - 2021
Fax: (916) 319 – 2121
Email: [email protected]

Jose Solorio
Telephone: (916) 319-2069
Fax: (916) 319-2169

Nell Soto
Telephone: (916) 319-2061
Fax: (916) 319-2161
Email: [email protected]

 

[Autophile]

I'm a little confused. Does this apply only to vehicles made between 1976 and [today minus 15 years], i.e., 1976 to 1992? Or, does this affect all vehicles >/= 15 years old?

 

[NSXGMS]

I'm a little confused. Does this apply only to vehicles made between 1976 and [today minus 15 years], i.e., 1976 to 1992? Or, does this affect all vehicles >/= 15 years old?

That is correct. Any car 15 years or older made after 1975 would require annual smog testing rather than semi-annual as it would remain for cars newer than 15 years obviously built after 1976. As of this post it would affect cars bulit from 1976-1992. Pre-1976 cars are exempt from emissions testing in CA. The new law refered to above means that any car built prior to 1976 will never get an exemption, ever. My 1991 NSX will be required to get tested 100 years from now. I'm sure gasoline will cost $200/gallon by then considering the future scarcity of it by the inevitable move to alternative fuels and inflation. :biggrin:

I think all this accomplishes is to generate revenue for the smog shops. 1 year, 2 year--it just results in more financial hardship requests from lower-income people with older cars who can't afford a $500 catalytic converter.

 

[LJSB]

Is the weather really worth all the other nonsense that goes with living in California?

 

[jond]

The energy and polution required to build a new car vs driving an older one a few years longer?
Has anyone done the math?

 

[Da Hapa]

Is the weather really worth all the other nonsense that goes with living in California?

Well... it was sunny and 67 degrees here in Dana Point yesterday. I talked to my inlaws in NYC... not so much.:biggrin:

 

[zahntech]

I dunno....It is sunny and nice here in Seattle...however our state government has gotten into bed with CARB and is putting the same type of programs and laws in place here too

 

[drew]

Is there any information on the effectiveness of the current smog check program?

I've never seen any issues and they might as well be checking to see if your tires are round. Apparently, in some states they just check the OBDII for any errors.....

??

Drew

 

[Gansan]

Is the weather really worth all the other nonsense that goes with living in California?

Yes, it is. Growing up in SoCal, I've seen the huge improvement in air quality over the past 25+ years. There used to be days when it hurt to breathe and they would keep the kids indoors at school during recess. Nowadays, I don't remember when the last smog alert day was, and I don't recall the last time it hurt to breathe either.

However, that doesn't mean I think this legislation is a good idea. I don't think there are enough 15 year old cars for this to have any meaningful effect. The clean-air laws that regulate all the new cars are doing a good job. The old cars will continue to reduce in number through attrition until you're left with just the well maintained collector cars.

 

[drew]

Is the weather really worth all the other nonsense that goes with living in California?

While I too used to grow unable to play outside in Los Angeles because smog would fill your lungs...it was painful, caused your eyes to water and decreased your ability to take more than a half-breath without doubling over in pain. It was AWFUL and it was most days of the week.

I attribute the much better air quality to the catalytic converters and emission controls implemented by California onto vehicle manufacturers. However, I wonder what the effectiveness of the Smog Check program is on the actual current situation. I suspect: not much. Probably just need a visual and an OBDII check and that would cover 99.99% of any problems.

***

I AM beginning to doubt the other nonsense is worth it:
--dense traffic 18/7. Weekends are now worse than weekdays.
--average tract houses costing >$1M
--long commutes
--ugly charmless city, the whole idea of LA is to make enough money to leave
--English is now a second language here, people don't even bother learning in most areas of the City
--running a business either requires you to severely underbid your time OR huge amounts of cash to get leverage
--HUGE income disparity...you either make a whole lot, just getting by or going under. Of course, you *do* have a chance of getting rich here, but the extreme vast majority do not win.

The good side of LA is that people come here to make money. Which means if you are trying to make money: you come to Los Angeles. This cycle feeds on itself endlessly. Once you get locked into an +$8K/month house you are driven to succeed at all costs (your family, your health, 30 years of your life disappears seemingly overnight, the low quality of living, etc...) which brings in all kinds of business, because of the willing work force. People here tend to work extremely hard long hours at the cost of EVERYTHING else.

Most people in the US do not consider living here worth it, but they don't have the chance to play the "get rich lottery" either.

 

[DDankew]

These politicians have nothing better to do. I am definitely opposed to this. Will pass this info along. Post this in the NW forum too.

 

[Floyd]

Yes, its worth it to live in SoCal. I moved here from Dallas and would never go back. Speaking of, Last time I went to see my parents, the air seemed worse there than here.
Last time a buddy of mine got a full pull exam, the doctor asked him how long he had been a smoker. He never has. Turns out he has similar damage to his longs due to riding his mt. bike in the hills just north of LA.
I love cars as much as the next guy, but it seems that anything that can be done, no matter how small, is a step in the right direction.
Will this really be an issue for classics that are well maintained?

 

[RON98]

Spread the word on this. Some day nsx will be a classic and i dont think we want to be jumping through hoops of fire to keep the right to drive our cars. :smile:

 

[LJSB]

Spread the word on this. Some day nsx will be a classic and i dont think we want to be jumping through hoops of fire to keep the right to drive our cars. :smile:

+1

Wow. You guys have problems just breathing the air? I'll take the snow and rain, it passes.

 

[Tom239]

Spread the word on this. Some day nsx will be a classic and i dont think we want to be jumping through hoops of fire to keep the right to drive our cars. :smile:

AB 616 would make the inspections twice as frequent (annually instead of biannually). It's not like there's some new hoop to jump through, you just have to jump twice as often. (And if you live in a county that doesn't require periodic inspections, twice zero is still zero.)

I agree that many classic cars are well maintained, and driven infrequently, and don't contribute much to smog. But not all older cars are classics. One old car in poor repair can put out 10x the emissions of a new car.

 

[drew]

One old car in poor repair can put out 10x the emissions of a new car.

Old is very relative....from last years "old" model to something built from the 1891.

The question that is not being answered: How effective is the current Smog Check program?

OR has the problem solved itself with cars made in the last 20 years with EFI and catalytic converters?

OR is this some bureaucratic entrenchment.

My case in point is the State of California was going to do your taxes for you as it is simply based on what you pay to the Federal IRS. They dropped the program under pressure from Tax Preparers Association (H&R Block etc...) The CA legislators decided that "maybe government shouldn't be all that efficient" and that they didn't want to put any business out of business---even though they are now completely unnecessary.

I suspect it makes no sense to have 100% of all cars go through the Smog Check, if the program only starts becoming effective when cars start becoming aged and/or only certain models.

And believe me: I am all for draconian smog controls on cars...the air out here is so much better because of the CARB folks. I just think 95% of the Smog Check program as implemented is a way to make business where none is needed.

 

[Tom239]

I suspect it makes no sense to have 100% of all cars go through the Smog Check, if the program only starts becoming effective when cars start becoming aged and/or only certain models.

That's already the policy; cars less than six years old don't need to be checked.

I just think 95% of the Smog Check program as implemented is a way to make business where none is needed.

What do you base that 95% number on? This chart shows what percentage of cars from various model years failed checks in 2002:

The chart somes from p.32 of this report. 15 years of age was suggested as the time to do more frequent inspections because that is the point at which vehicles start failing at a rate twice the fleet average.

 

[drew]

Excellent information, let me read.

I'm thinking that I had to drag my wife's M3 when it was 4 years old, which meant they waive your first inspection.

I've been living in CA all my life and have had quite the collection of cars. Absolutely ZERO have failed. I was being generous at 95%

Drew

 

[Airwolf AE86]

While I too used to grow unable to play outside in Los Angeles because smog would fill your lungs...it was painful, caused your eyes to water and decreased your ability to take more than a half-breath without doubling over in pain. It was AWFUL and it was most days of the week.

I attribute the much better air quality to the catalytic converters and emission controls implemented by California onto vehicle manufacturers. However, I wonder what the effectiveness of the Smog Check program is on the actual current situation. I suspect: not much. Probably just need a visual and an OBDII check and that would cover 99.99% of any problems.

***

I AM beginning to doubt the other nonsense is worth it:
--dense traffic 18/7. Weekends are now worse than weekdays.
--average tract houses costing >$1M
--long commutes
--ugly charmless city, the whole idea of LA is to make enough money to leave
--English is now a second language here, people don't even bother learning in most areas of the City
--running a business either requires you to severely underbid your time OR huge amounts of cash to get leverage
--HUGE income disparity...you either make a whole lot, just getting by or going under. Of course, you *do* have a chance of getting rich here, but the extreme vast majority do not win.

The good side of LA is that people come here to make money. Which means if you are trying to make money: you come to Los Angeles. This cycle feeds on itself endlessly. Once you get locked into an +$8K/month house you are driven to succeed at all costs (your family, your health, 30 years of your life disappears seemingly overnight, the low quality of living, etc...) which brings in all kinds of business, because of the willing work force. People here tend to work extremely hard long hours at the cost of EVERYTHING else.

Most people in the US do not consider living here worth it, but they don't have the chance to play the "get rich lottery" either.

bravo.. this is the BEST explanation i've read... very very well thought out... *clap clap* (standing ovation) seriously, what a good explanation.

 

[RON98]

im sure stock nsx's would do just fine at the smog test... but honestly, how many of us are driving smog legal cars?

if i had to swap back my cats, take off all the upgrades 1x a year, i would reconcider.

im sure it would be a needless hassle or everyone. 1/2 the cars that pass smog wont pass the next day.

lots of tricks a mechanic can use to get a beater to pass smog.
:smile:

once every 2 years is enough for me. If it becomes once a year, im opening up a smog shop. :biggrin:

 

[Tom239]

im sure stock nsx's would do just fine at the smog test... but honestly, how many of us are driving smog legal cars?

if i had to swap back my cats, take off all the upgrades 1x a year, i would reconcider.

So the real issue comes out: you just want to ignore the rules. If everyone did what you're doing, the air would suffer.

lots of tricks a mechanic can use to get a beater to pass smog.
:smile:

once every 2 years is enough for me. If it becomes once a year, im opening up a smog shop. :biggrin:

It's not funny to me.

Count me with the other posters who like the improvements to the air in California over the past few decades.

 

[Diablo360]

I should be able to do whatever I want to my car as long as it doesn't put anybody in danger (ie: flames out the exhaust, etc....) or cause excessive noise in residential areas. Most people wouldn't remove their cats or mufflers because they wouldn't be able to stand the noise, so the whole argument of "if everybody did it then......." is irrelevant. In fact the most "illegal" our cars can really get is by not running cats. Can anyone honestly tell me that a pair of Comptech or DC headers spews out less emissions than a pair of, oh lets say, Fujitsubo or Taitec headers? Or that one exhaust is better than another? Or that a short ram intake with a cone filter is bad for the air? All a bunch of BS.


In the end I see nothing wrong with tweaking a car to get it to pass or paying somebody a few hundred bucks to sign it off. I've payed enough $$$ in BS tickets over the last few months to compensate for the excess amount of pollution that my car puts out. I don't feel one bit of guilt. Enjoy California for the other things it has to offer, not the air.

Quite honestly, the air in CA sucks. If you want clean air the Pacific Northwest is good.

 

[LJSB]

 

[lrsudog]

Another form of regressive taxation. I would bet that there are far more "Non-collectable" type 15 year old cars on California's roads than collecter cars.

I'm not all about protecting the little guy, but this is the kind of thing that people who can only afford a 15 year old car are going to foot the majority of the bill on.

And there are quite a few of them.

 

[Diablo360]

That seems to be your favorite response as of late :smile:

I don't think anybody's whining, just saying what's what.