California SB 712 smog exemption

[vinceg101]

I thought we cynics were united, Mike

I do agree in that CA has come a LONG way since the '60's & '70's all due to a strict SMOG program (and other industrial restrictions as well) and that it has improved the lives of everyone in the state. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the program or it's continued enforcement; I'm thrilled that they are seeing they can make modifications to the program to allow certain classes of vehicles to be exempt and still be able to meet their mandates.

Perhaps my cynicism got the better of me, but you can't deny that the current program doesn't generate money (SMOG fees, testing licenses, equipment leases, higher registration fees & taxes, etc.) and is tilted toward new car ownership vs. older fleets. Yes newer vehicles are more efficient and do a better job of meeting the state's goals of cleaner air, that is undeniable. I just hold the belief that there is a mindset in CARB and other agencies that would do just about anything to rid the state of older cars and hence the need for these exemptions in the first place.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe not.

[Mike W.]

No, I have plenty of cynicism about the program. I think it's totally unreasonable to require cars to be cleaner and cleaner as they age. I think the "Test Only" program is outrageous, it's a circular arguement, they have found test only stations fail cars more often so use that as justification for sending certain cars to test only stations. They set the standards so X percentage fail. If too many cars pass, they ratchet the standards tighter. I'm uncertain however if they loosen the standards if too many fail, I doubt it. Given that so few stations even want to test pre 2000 cars anymore I can even see that as a reasonable cutoff date, I mean that's now 26 model years.

I do have a slightly different view of those at CARB, for the most part, they're just going to work and doing their job as instructed. However the directors at CARB likely get pretty direct influence and pressure from the state legislature, and they in turn are the ones really setting policy, as directed by their bosses.

But I don't think the state directly profits from the program. Shops yes, equipment manufactures, yes, software companies, yes.

And I have no idea what to do about vehicles like those up the street that make my eyes water a block away. I mean that level of pollution is not reasonable or even needed from a performance perspective, they're just too lazy to set it up right. But how many hundreds of thousands or millions of cars do you test every year, at what total cost, to get the super polluters in line? I think the only answer is life is imperfect, there is no fair answer.

[vinceg101]

No, I have plenty of cynicism about the program. I think it's totally unreasonable to require cars to be cleaner and cleaner as they age. I think the "Test Only" program is outrageous, it's a circular arguement, they have found test only stations fail cars more often so use that as justification for sending certain cars to test only stations. They set the standards so X percentage fail. If too many cars pass, they ratchet the standards tighter. I'm uncertain however if they loosen the standards if too many fail, I doubt it. Given that so few stations even want to test pre 2000 cars anymore I can even see that as a reasonable cutoff date, I mean that's now 26 model years.

Given that under the Star Program they went so far as to fine the test stations that didn't meet the failure quotas for their areas, I am as dubious as you on this program and what their real motives are. I talked to several operators who sold their businesses and/or were forced out under this policy. It further reinforces your circular argument statement.

I do have a slightly different view of those at CARB, for the most part, they're just going to work and doing their job as instructed. However the directors at CARB likely get pretty direct influence and pressure from the state legislature, and they in turn are the ones really setting policy, as directed by their bosses.

Yes, no argument. I guess I'm not saying CARB is 'evil' but they certainly are mission-specific and seem to follow the "ends justifying the means" mentality. So they will do whatever it takes to meet their directives; without that dedication we wouldn't be enjoying the cleaner environment we have today.

But I don't think the state directly profits from the program. Shops yes, equipment manufactures, yes, software companies, yes.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this point; I don't have the empirical evidence to prove my point so I'll stay neutral for the time being.

And I have no idea what to do about vehicles like those up the street that make my eyes water a block away. I mean that level of pollution is not reasonable or even needed from a performance perspective, they're just too lazy to set it up right. But how many hundreds of thousands or millions of cars do you test every year, at what total cost, to get the super polluters in line? I think the only answer is life is imperfect, there is no fair answer.

I'm with you on this; I can't tell you how many beat up pick-ups, work trucks, and other beaters I've been behind that have me turning green. Even perfectly restored '60's-'70's muscle cars that are spewing un-spent hydrocarbons from unleaded fuel are noxious beyond tolerance sometimes. (And yes, the irony of this is not lost on me as I sit there in traffic with my un-catalyzed M30 in the M535i behind them).