SWCDuke

It's getting down to the wire, folks!

AB 2683, the bill that if passed into law will freeze the current
rolling 30-year emission test exemption at the 1975 model year and
require all '76-up models to be biennially tested in perpetuity passed
the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 4, 7-3 with three members not voting.

It is scheduled for a second reading on the Senate floor, tomorrow,
Monday, August 9, and it may be voted on this week. Now is the time to contact your state senators and urge them to vote against this bill.
You may easily obtain their e-mail address at www.senate.ca.gov and they are listed in the front of your phone book white pages under "state government offices". I also suggest you also write a note to the governor: www.govmail.ca.gov

Use the following talking points:

- AB 2683 was hastily prepared using biased information from a "draft report" - the April 2004 draft report to the IMRC

- This report is inherently biased by using selective data rather than all available data

- Likewise, comparisons are intentionally biased that overstate the proportional contributions to emissions by older cars

- There was no opportunity for public questions, comments, and discussion of this report

- Its biased data and analysis are being force fed to legislators before its true bias can be revealed.

- Political forces continue to beat up vintage car owners blaming them for air quality problems while large sources remain uncontrolled and/or not subject to periodic testing.

- Voting for AB 2683 reneges on a promise that was made to vintage car owners by the legislature seven years ago

If you think you are off the hook because your car is currently exempt, THINK AGAIN! I guarantee you that if AB 2683 passes, an attempt to roll back emission testing to currently exempt models years will happen in the next legislative session. Such attempts have occurred nearly every year since the 30-year rolling emission test was passed into law (SB 42) in 1997.

Here is the text of the note I just sent to the governor at the above web site:

"Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,

AB 2683 appears to be on the verge of passage by the Senate and go to you for consideration. I urge you to veto AB 2683!

This bill was ramrodded through the legislature based on a “draft report” (April 2004 draft report to the IMRC) by your BAR and ARB that is highly biased. It uses selective data and analyses to claim that repealing the current 30-year emission test exemption will yield “significant” reductions in emissions. No time for public questions, comments, and discussion has been allocated while anti-vintage-car political forces shove this bill through the legislative process on false pretenses.

Vintage car enthusiasts worked long and hard to gain this exemption that was passed into law (SB 42) in 1997. Now the legislature, aided and abetted by your own staff organizations, are reneging on their promise and using biased data and analyses to continue beating up on vintage car owners.

We sent you to Sacramento as the “people’s governor” to reign in a legislature and state bureaucracy that is out of control! AB 2683 proves that much work needs to be done.

Please veto AB 2683 and order your staff agencies to present all data and analyses of older car emissions in a fair and unbiased context, not selected data in a biased context. Have them finalize the “draft report” in an equitable manner, then allow time for public questions (which the authors must answer), comments, and discussion.

Such underhanded methods that are being used to support AB 2683 are symptomatic of what is wrong with California’s government. Please veto AB 2683 and send a message to the legislature and your own staff agencies that they must represent the best interests of all Californians, not just the special interests including the anti-vintage-car gang."


I will draft a note to my state senator this evening, and it will be in her inbox tomorrow moring.

I have also updated the "war plan" - a two page MS Word document that contains additional background information and links. I received numerous requests for it, so email me if you want the updated version.

dukewilliams at netzero dot net

PRNDL

Duke, good luck with your efforts. I guess I am a bit cynical in that your points are so blatantly obvious I can't imagine that the recipients are unaware of these points. Personally, I would NOT object to emissions testing on any vehicle regardless of age that is used as a daily driver. I do think there should be an exemption for hobbyist vehicles and it is wasteful to spend money on testing vehicles that are only driven less than 3000 miles per year. I am a little surprised that the "hobby lobby" isn't stronger in California.

SWCDuke

Here is the text of my e-mail I just posted to Debra Bowen, my state senator for the 28th district:

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)

SWCDuke

As of this morning, "status" at www.senate.ca.gov indicates that the third reading was delayed from Tuesday to today.

If you have not contacted your state senator asking them to vote against AB 2683, please do so this morning.

You can obtain contact information for your state senator from the above listed web site or look in the front of your white pages under "state government".

Duke

SanDiegoPaul

Thanks for this reminder. My 2 cents has been submitted!

77Dream

Several people got emails from me. Let's cross our fingers!

SWCDuke

The third reading on the senate floor was delayed again - now scheduled for today, 8/12.

If you have not already done so, please contact your state senator and register your oppostion.

Contact info at www.senate.ca.gov or in the front of your phone book white pages under state government offices.

Duke

SWCDuke

Third reading was delayed again - to Monday 8/16.

If you are a CA 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

Duke

cchristo

I've got my two cents in, for what it's worth. Looking at the vote history though, it doesn't look good. This is gonna suck.