ajmarton

Please write and complain ....

Subject: SEMA Legislative Alert: California Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions Tests...



To view this email as a web page, please follow this link




California Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions
Tests for Vehicles 15-Years Old Moves to Senate Appropriations Committee

Legislation (A.B. 616) to require annual Smog check inspections for vehicles 15-years old and older has been approved by the California Assembly and the Senate Transportation Committee. The bill now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee for consideration on August 20th. A.B. 616 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.

We Urge You to Contact Members of the Senate Appropriations 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.

• A.B. 616 would dramatically impact the ability of fixed and low income motorists from owning and driving their older vehicles.

Please contact members of the California Senate Appropriations 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 stevem@sema.org. Thank you for your assistance.

Senate Appropriations Committee

Senator Tom Torlakson (Chair)
Phone: (916) 651-4007
Email: Senator.Torlakson@senate.ca.gov

Senator Dave *** (Vice Chair)
Phone: (916) 651-4001
Email: Senator.***@senate.ca.gov

Senator Samuel Aanestad
Phone: (916) 651-4004
Email: Senator.Aanestad@senate.cagov

Senator Roy Ashburn
Phone: (916) 651-4018
Email: Senator.Ashburn@senate.ca.gov

Senator Jim Battin
Phone: (916) 651-4037
Email: Senator.Battin@senate.ca.gov

Senator Gilbert Cedillo
Phone: (916) 651-4022
Email: Senator.Cedillo@senate.ca.gov

Senator Ellen Corbett
Phone: (916) 651-4010
Email: Senator.Corbett@senate.ca.gov

Senator Robert Dutton
Phone: (916) 651-4031
Email: Senator.Dutton@senate.ca.gov

Senator Dean Florez
Phone: (916) 651-4016
Email: Senator.Florez@senate.ca.gov

Senator Sheila Kuehl
Phone: (916) 651-4023
Email: Senator.Kuehl@senate.ca.gov

Senator Jenny Oropeza
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Email: Senator.Oropeza@senate.ca.gov

Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas
Phone: (916) 651-4026
Email: Senator.Ridley-Thomas@senate.ca.gov

Senator George Runner
Phone: (916) 651-4017
Email: Senator.Runner@senate.ca.gov

Senator Joe Simitian
Phone: (916) 651-4011
Email: Senator.Simitian@senate.cagov

Senator Darrell Steinberg
Phone: (916) 651-4006
Email: Senator.Steinberg@senate.ca.gov

Senator Mark Wyland
Phone: (916) 651-4038
Email: Senator.Wyland@senate.ca.gov

Senator Leland Yee
Phone: (916) 651-4008
Email: Senator.Yee@senate.ca.gov

Edward

Oh, yet another hideous attempt at feel-good political solutions. thanks for the links!

Edward

Peter Zimmermann

I will spend a good part of tomorrow writing to these people - not that they listen, mind you. We tried calling Barbara Boxer about an issue not long ago, and were told that she would be doing as we asked. That night on the news she did the exact opposite, not even her staff understands her or her motives. If you call or write, try to be sure that your communication actually reaches the ear of the person that you're trying to contact. My fear is that, even though California has no budget, as yet, most of these guys/gals are on vacation. Sheeeesh... Like going to the post office just before Christmas, the line might be 100 people long, but when it's break time...

lfe132

I may get grap for this from some of you, but all I have to say is: DEMOCRATS. They say let clean the air but they drive SUVs. Example the Clintons against foreign oil but had tons of stock in oil companys. I'll stop now, I know this is the wrong board for this.

theiceman

Many other countries use Californias rules to set our laws when it comes to emisions, if this bill is successfull there it will come here next.....

SUCKS man .. that being said, I have no idea if i would actually pass.... but with no cat and no air pump , i would doubt it.

lfe132

ice, what i've done is fine a smog tech that will "pass" your car regardless of emission, just slip him a few extra bucks.

Conekiller

If your lucky your car might pass with no emisions devices. Mine just passed this spring with none in CT.

Peter Zimmermann

Not in CA! Ice, your car would never make it past smog here, there is a pretty wide spread in tailpipe emissions when you take the pump, or the cat, out of the picture. Remove both, forget it, the car wouldn't even make it past the visual!

UberXY

I was reading a book that dealt with life in LA about 30 years from now. The hero talked about taking his old motorcycle to one of the three gas stations left in LA...

Steve
84 Carrera

BlackPearl

Actuallly: the "Three-Big" auto mfgr's in the US all backed Republicans in both the Presidential and House/Senate elections. Do they have any incentive to get the old cars off the road and sell more new ones?

Not always the dem's fault. Most likely some "Independent" was Pork-Barrelling for attention.

FYI: I voted for Swartzenegger.

Sorry to go off-topic. I'll shut up now.

Peter Zimmermann

For the record, since '99 Ford Motor company gave $306,000 in campaign contributions to Republicans, during the same period they gave $351,000 to Democrats...

Edward

Since we're already off inot OT-land, it is the "feel-good" legislators and public that are to blame. You know the ones: Hummers cause global warming, too much trans fats, school food is killing children, save the owl/screw the human groups ..all in their mis-guided attempt at "saving" the universe ...as if they really could. Blah blah blah. They make me sick AND angry, regardless of party (though there is an obvious proliferation on one side of the aisle), because they operate on voodo-science, self-serving stats, and **emotion** as opposed to a real-world approach to identifying and addressing a stated problem. Rant off. I need a cup of joe. Peace, and have a good day, all

Edward

Peter Zimmermann

Enuf said. Now, about this testing process, do any states already have a test requirement such as the one proposed in CA? Does anyone know how many states test with a dyno, like CA, in order to test at idle and at 2500 rpm? Does anyone know if an initial visual inspection, on a car with a missing or disconnected pollution control system, will immediately flunk that car, like CA?

dvkk

Up north in BC we have had annual smog testing for all cars regardless of age for the last 15 years. I remember talking to a guy with a 1947 Chev at a car show and he passed smog. They couldn't drive his car on the dyno, so they let him. I have heard of one guy with a Model T who complained they didn't know about smog 75 years ago so he shouldn't be tested, but he was.
It is not a big deal, tune your car right, it will pass. If you don't know how to setup a carb, you will fail.

Whenever there's a hint of including old cars in annual testing, this always gets said:

"• 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. "

What a load of CRAP. Every time I'm at a cruise-in, I get gassed out by all the cars that are adjusted so badly.
Sure old cars are a small % of the cars on the road, but they are a SIGNIFICANT source of pollution. All you need to do is look at your smog test report for the numbers. An old carb'd engine with poor compression adjusted too rich can easily pump out 2-3000 ppm of HC. A modern FI engine with a CAT (including those big-*** SUVs) will put out 2-3 ppm of HC. What that means is the old car pukes out the same amount of smog as the next 1000 new cars that pass the same point on the freeway. By forcing you to fix and tune your old car properly, it is the same as removing hundreds of new cars from the road.

Peter Zimmermann

This is actually a very strange debate, because the cars proposed for annual testing in CA are 1976-1993 models ('75 and earlier cars are already exempt) - all very easy to bring into compliance, unless they do something like backdate NOx levels. Not a carb among them, unless somebody has converted an SC to Webers, in which case they would have a lot of work ahead to pass an annual test. So, the worst Porsche offenders, MFI and carbed cars, will remain exempt...