• Hi Guest!
    If you appreciate British Car Forum and our 25 years of supporting British car enthusiasts with technical and anicdotal information, collected from our thousands of great members, please support us with a low-cost subscription. You can become a supporting member for less than the dues of most car clubs.

    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

California listers - we're under attack again!

Whoa - go slow here:

In my past life, I was a Legislative Advocate for a large manufacturing industry in California. As such I paticipated in numerous public-record fact-finding sessions with Members and I negotiated at least 6 contracts with the State Dept. of Industrial Relations (Labor Dept.) and Organized Labor.

At one point in a particularly contentious 3 week anti-industry legislative barrage, my colleagues and I came up with a proactive plan to head off further negative legislation. We agreed to voluntarily submit our industry to additional annual registration fees. The fees would be used to clean up the bad actors and help the State enforce labor laws. We agreed to a laddered fee schedule ranging from $200 - $2500 annually. Of course the State jumped at the chance to score more money and the new regulations were enacted with my industry's blessing.

For the past five years those fees have been collected,most at the highest ladder level, and most of the funds have been transferred into the State's General Fund or used for top-heavy administrative salaries. The industry was not cleaned up by stepped up enforcement but the coffers of the State were enriched by nearly $5 mil yr. Further, hundreds of small businesses that could barely afford the old regulatory environment and fees were now forced to pay quadrupled registration fees, putting many out of business or forcing them underground.

Yes, we looked good as an industry stepping up to the plate - and, we shot ourselves in the foot. It's the law of unintended consequences. Please be very careful what you offer lawmakers - they are by nature greedy and not to be trusted!

Randy
'66 BJ8, '68 E-type OTS
 
Dave -

Done. I respectfully retracted my statements out of respect to you.

Frankly, I initially avoided this discussion entirely, but it was Ed_K's rather insulting post that prompted me to cross the line.

As you are asking that I not cross the line, I would expect in all fairness that you should ask Ed_K to retract his statement as well, as it also has crossed the line... comparing my views in the matter to a "sky is falling" mania or misguided religion. This type of statement is frankly insulting.

I have my beliefs and you have yours. The fact that I've studied this issue for over 20 years (starting when I was getting my mechanical engineering degree in the 1980's) seems to count for nothing here.
 
Just a brief reminder from your Moderator, who is dedicated to enforcing Basil's policies, that we're skirting the edge with some of the content in this thread.

Please just be sure to keep it factual and positive, with no ranting (we lost one post in this thread that way already), and keep it topical ("Austin-Healeys" and closely related matters).

Thanks.
 
Healeynut,

I apologize to you as I was not directing my " ire " at you
personally. I had just heard about all I could stand in the last few days about this subject and this topic set me off. You didn't set me off ! I will respectfully agree with you to disagree.
I was discussing the chemical reactions that take place with
automobile exhaust in the upper atmosphere in the presence of energy from sunlight in one of my college chemistry courses in the mid 1970s. That probably doesn't count for much in my case either as I was not a chemistry major. I will leave this topic alone out of respect for Basil's rules. No personal attack on you was intended.

Ed
 
GregW said:
I recently read somewhere that Jupiter, Mars and Venus are also experiencing global warming. I wonder what kind of cars they drive there? Maybe Saturns? /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/jester.gif

Naw Greg, they like British cars there too, so they be driving Jowett Jupiter Cars.---Keoke- /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/angel.gif
 
Don't people exhale co2? Wonder what we could do there?

Bruce
 
Hi Randy (and all the other California listers out there):

Len on the team.net list was kind enough to pass this on to me. This is direct from Assemblymember Dave Jones, and this is an official state release on the matter (looks like we are ok). I will post another email with the direct response to Len, to keep this post short:



ASSEMBLYMEMBER DAVE JONES

State Capitol Room 3146, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 319-2009, Fax (916) 319-2109


FACT SHEET

Assembly Bill 616 (Jones)


Summary

AB 616 requires that all vehicles 15 years and older undergo an annual smog check, while maintaining existing smog check exemptions for pre-1976 model year vehicles, diesel-powered vehicles, newer vehicles and collector cars. The bill also increases the eligibility cap for the Consumer Assistance Program to 300% of the Federal Poverty Line and requires the Bureau of Automotive Repair to fully fund necessary repairs for eligible consumers.


Background

California’s Smog Check Program was created in 1982 to comply with Federal Clean Air Act quality standards. The program calls for vehicles more than 6 years old to undergo a biennial inspection to measure vehicle emissions. Vehicles must also be inspected upon a change in registration. When a vehicle produces higher emissions than permitted, it must be repaired before it can be re-registered.


On average, vehicles fifteen years and older fail smog check inspection 27% of the time, more than three times the average fail rate of newer vehicles. Research conducted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) found that about 50% of the 1976-1995 model year vehicles that failed a smog check inspection and were subsequently repaired, failed a future roadside inspection within six months.

The ARB and BAR estimate that annual testing of older vehicles will reduce emissions by at least 20.6 tons of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides per day.


In its November 2006 report, the Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee, which was created by the Legislature to evaluate the effectiveness of the Smog Check program and recommend improvements, recommended that the State institute annual inspections for older vehicles, arguing that failure rates increase significantly as vehicles age, with some 1980s models failing at a 40% rate.


The Consumer Assistance Program helps consumers to repair or retire polluting vehicles through its Repair Assistance and Vehicle Retirement Programs. Income-eligible consumers or those directed to a test-only station qualify for up to $500 in repair assistance. If a consumer decides it is more cost-effective to retire a vehicle, they may be eligible for $1,000 through the Vehicle Retirement Program. This program strives to remove polluting vehicles from the road.


This Bill

AB 616 would require that all vehicles aged 15 or older undergo an annual smog check. Vehicles excluded from the Smog Check Program under current law remain exempt from the program. AB 616 also directs BAR, which administers the Smog Check Program, to develop a methodology to exempt from the annual inspection requirement vehicles or classes of vehicles with historically high pass rates. It is estimated that 12-15% of California’s vehicles will be required to undergo an annual inspection.


AB 616 increases the income eligibility cap for the Consumer Assistance Program (CAP) to 300% of the Federal Poverty Line. The bill also requires BAR to fully fund necessary repairs for eligible individuals participating in the Repair Assistance Program. In addition, AB 616 closes the loop-hole in the CAP Repair Assistance Program which allows non-income eligible consumers who are directed to test only stations to qualify for repair assistance. All additional funds generated from annual inspection fees will fund CAP, which assists low-income individuals in paying for the cost of vehicle repairs.


Support

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (sponsor)

American Lung Association of California

Automotive Service Council of California (ASCCA)

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee (IMRC)

Sierra Club


Contacts

Sonja Palladino, Office of Assemblymember Dave Jones, (916)319-2009

Chris Morfas, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, (916)874-2876

Will Gonzalez, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, (916)473-3373
 
Bruce Bowker said:
Don't people exhale co2? Wonder what we could do there?

Bruce


I can't answer that Bruce they will put me off the forum---Keoke- /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif
 
Ok, here's the direct response to Len from the Assemblyman's office and the link to the bill:


https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0601-0650/ab_616_bill_20070409_amended_asm_v98.pdf

Dear Mr. [Len]:



Attached is the fact sheet for AB 616. I have also included a link to the amended version of the bill below. AB 616 has always maintained, including in its introduced version, the exemptions in current law for the Smog Check Program. This includes the exemption for pre-1976 vehicles. We have tried to make this clearer in the amended version of the bill by listing the section of code (Section 44011) in which many of these exemptions can be found.



I appreciate you contacting our office. I hope you find this information helpful and will share it with other members of the car collector community to let them know about the true elements of this bill.



Sincerely,



Sonja Palladino

Office of Assemblymember Dave Jones
 
Back
Top