Third reading was delayed again - to Monday 8/16.
If you are a California resident and have not contacted your state senator about AB 2683, please do so today.
Even if you are not affected by this specific bill, you will be in the future. If this passes, future attempts to roll back emisson testing will occur as they have virtually every year since the 30 year exemption was established by SB 42 in 1997.
We need every vintage car owner and enthusiast in the state to contact their state senator and urge them to vote against AB 2683: www.senate.ca.gov
There is more info at: http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=879825
or email me if you want the Word file with other links and information.
Following is the text of my e-mail to my state senator:
"Dear Senator Bowen,
I urge you to vote against AB 2683 when it reaches the Senate floor.
AB 2683 was hastily prepared using unsubstantiated claims and data,
analyses, and comparisons from a "draft report" (April 2004 draft report
to the IMRC) that is highly biased in its presentation, and the bill was
prepared two months before the report was made public. If the "savings"
of six tons per day ozone precursors in the year 2010, which may well be
overstated, are compared to total vehicle emissions, it is less than
one-half of one percent, and if compared to emissions from all sources
it is a very small fraction of one percent.
Meanwhile, hundreds of tons per day of ozone precursors are emitted by
other sources, many of which have no emission controls and are not
subject of any form of emission testing.
Legislative analyses claim that 1976 model year cars emit 2.5 times the
aggregate emissions of 2004 model year cars, but this claim was made
early in the model year when few 2004 models were on the road. The data
and calculations used to reach this "conclusion" are not specified, but
is this even a fair and reasonable comparison given the small population
of 2004 models when the claim was made? Model year 1976 to 1982 cars
were certified to standards that reduced emissions 90 percent from
uncontrolled cars, and 2004 model year cars achieve on the order of 99+
percent reduction and have no degradation from mileage accumulation and
aging. New cars have virtually zero emissions at operating temperature,
which are so low that current testing technology is being pushed to the
limit of its sensitivity. Dividing any number by a very small number
yields a high number. Dividing by zero yields infinity!
Vintage car enthusiasts worked long and hard to win the rolling 30-year
emission test exemption that was passed into law (SB 42) in 1997. Ever
since, anti-car forces in both the legislature and state staff agencies
continue to beat-up vintage car owners by publishing and promoting
intentionally rigged data, analyses, and comparisons that overstate the
case against vintage cars.
The April, 2004 draft report to the IMRC prepared by the BAR and ARB
must be rewritten using all available data and unbiased, objective
analyses and comparisons that place older car emissions in a fair and
reasonable context. Then a period of time must be granted for the
public to submit questions and comments, which the authors must address
in the spirit of open and democratic public policy discussion.
Last year I contacted you requesting that you help defeat SB 708. This
was effectively the final outcome as all the emission test change
provisions were removed prior to its passing. Your letter to me, dated
May 23, 2003, includes the following paragraph:
"During my 10+ years in the Legislature, I've consistently opposed
efforts to extend the state's smog check laws to classic cars because I
don't think requiring cars that are driven a few hundred to a few
thousand miles a year to meet smog check standards will significantly
improve California's air quality. Furthermore, whatever improvements
are made are likely to be very expensive for classic car owners and I
have little doubt there are other places where California can get much
bigger air pollution reductions for a lot less money."
I hope you will use this argument with other senators to assist in
defeating AB 2683.
Sincerely,...
Duke
If you are a California resident and have not contacted your state senator about AB 2683, please do so today.
Even if you are not affected by this specific bill, you will be in the future. If this passes, future attempts to roll back emisson testing will occur as they have virtually every year since the 30 year exemption was established by SB 42 in 1997.
We need every vintage car owner and enthusiast in the state to contact their state senator and urge them to vote against AB 2683: www.senate.ca.gov
There is more info at: http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=879825
or email me if you want the Word file with other links and information.
Following is the text of my e-mail to my state senator:
"Dear Senator Bowen,
I urge you to vote against AB 2683 when it reaches the Senate floor.
AB 2683 was hastily prepared using unsubstantiated claims and data,
analyses, and comparisons from a "draft report" (April 2004 draft report
to the IMRC) that is highly biased in its presentation, and the bill was
prepared two months before the report was made public. If the "savings"
of six tons per day ozone precursors in the year 2010, which may well be
overstated, are compared to total vehicle emissions, it is less than
one-half of one percent, and if compared to emissions from all sources
it is a very small fraction of one percent.
Meanwhile, hundreds of tons per day of ozone precursors are emitted by
other sources, many of which have no emission controls and are not
subject of any form of emission testing.
Legislative analyses claim that 1976 model year cars emit 2.5 times the
aggregate emissions of 2004 model year cars, but this claim was made
early in the model year when few 2004 models were on the road. The data
and calculations used to reach this "conclusion" are not specified, but
is this even a fair and reasonable comparison given the small population
of 2004 models when the claim was made? Model year 1976 to 1982 cars
were certified to standards that reduced emissions 90 percent from
uncontrolled cars, and 2004 model year cars achieve on the order of 99+
percent reduction and have no degradation from mileage accumulation and
aging. New cars have virtually zero emissions at operating temperature,
which are so low that current testing technology is being pushed to the
limit of its sensitivity. Dividing any number by a very small number
yields a high number. Dividing by zero yields infinity!
Vintage car enthusiasts worked long and hard to win the rolling 30-year
emission test exemption that was passed into law (SB 42) in 1997. Ever
since, anti-car forces in both the legislature and state staff agencies
continue to beat-up vintage car owners by publishing and promoting
intentionally rigged data, analyses, and comparisons that overstate the
case against vintage cars.
The April, 2004 draft report to the IMRC prepared by the BAR and ARB
must be rewritten using all available data and unbiased, objective
analyses and comparisons that place older car emissions in a fair and
reasonable context. Then a period of time must be granted for the
public to submit questions and comments, which the authors must address
in the spirit of open and democratic public policy discussion.
Last year I contacted you requesting that you help defeat SB 708. This
was effectively the final outcome as all the emission test change
provisions were removed prior to its passing. Your letter to me, dated
May 23, 2003, includes the following paragraph:
"During my 10+ years in the Legislature, I've consistently opposed
efforts to extend the state's smog check laws to classic cars because I
don't think requiring cars that are driven a few hundred to a few
thousand miles a year to meet smog check standards will significantly
improve California's air quality. Furthermore, whatever improvements
are made are likely to be very expensive for classic car owners and I
have little doubt there are other places where California can get much
bigger air pollution reductions for a lot less money."
I hope you will use this argument with other senators to assist in
defeating AB 2683.
Sincerely,...
Duke
Comment