One sign read, "U.S.A. not U.S.S.R." Another got more specific: "First you came for our guns, now you come for our cars!" Responding to a rallying cry from San Francisco radio talk- show hosts, an estimated 3,000 Californians showed up on August 22 in Sacramento to protest the state's new smog check program.
The demonstration was the tip of the iceberg. In August, 12,840 callers had deluged the state's hotline with queries about the program. Some feared their cars would be confiscated and scrapped--a fear provoked by talk-show rumors. Some complained about month-long waits to get mandatory retests of cars that had been deemed "gross polluters" by previous smog tests. Others fussed about the price tag of repairs.
Just months after the rollout of its program, California joined the growing list of states to experience public ire about more stringent smog check procedures crafted to satisfy federal Clean Air Act requirements. Some of the brouhaha over the program resulted from simple misunderstanding--the state was not, for example, seizing people's vehicles. Some of it came from the inevitable resentment of any program--however wisely planned and implemented--that would hit people directly in their own pocketbooks. And some of it resulted from procedural problems that left motorists on hold, in lines, or on waiting lists to get their cars tested. Frustrating though these problems may be for motorists, the program is no mere "boondoggle" or further testament to government excess. It is what happens when the public gets what it says it wants. In poll after poll, Americans say they put a high value on environmental cleanup. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds, for instance, that 62 percent of Americans agree that "protection of the environment should be given priority even at the risk of curbing economic growth." Such sentiments run particularly strong in California, where even conservative politicians take care to cultivate a pro-environment image.
But if people really want further improvements in air quality, automobiles--their automobiles- -are going to be affected. Cars are among the last targets from which significant additional reductions in air emissions can be wrung. There are, of course, better and worse ways to accomplish this end. But just about no way to accomplish these reductions comes without some pain to someone. There just ain't no free lunch.
Automobiles in general now account for as much as half of total air-pollution emissions in many U.S. cities. But these aggregate figures obscure a critical detail. Only a fraction of cars-- around 10 percent--account for more than half of all vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. It is these so-called gross polluters that California and other states are trying to target with their new smog check programs. The idea is to identify, through vehicle inspections, those cars that are really dirty and then require that they be repaired to reduce their emissions. It's a politically appealing idea since most motorists think the gross polluter is someone else--the neighbor's car with the plume of black smoke.
Targeting gross polluters sounds like a simple and sensible idea. The challenge lies in implementing it. Gross polluters are not just all those smoking old junkers easily identified by make, model, and year. Stephanie Deason of Torrance, California, told the Los Angeles Times that her 1994 Chevy Blazer, with a hitherto undiscovered broken fuel injector, flunked the smog test as a gross polluter. So did Redondo Beach attorney Jason Schlossberg's 1989 Nissan 240SX. As University of Denver researcher Donald Stedman and others have pointed out, older cars are not always gross polluters, and newer cars sometimes are. Moreover, new cars typically are driven more miles. Pollution effects result from how much stuff cars emit and how many miles they are driven. So just targeting all old cars--and leaving newer cars alone--won't suffice. This situation presents regulators with their first big dilemma. How can they identify the gross polluters? One way is to test every single car on the road periodically. That's what many states do already, but testing every car is like trying to find drunk drivers by stopping every car on the road--and with the same results: lots of inconvenience to everyone just to find a few offenders. Next comes the repair dilemma. Old smog check programs managed to identify polluting cars (though fraud sometimes plagued these programs). But achieving emission reductions requires repairing polluting vehicles.
Real-world observations of California's smog check program from 1985 to 1992 suggest that the program fell far short of achieving predicted emission reductions. The old program simply failed to ensure that motorists invested in enduring repairs. Instead, what resulted was a "clean for a day" phenomenon. Motorists paid for just enough repairs to pass the test.
With tests scheduled only every two years, a quick (but temporary) fix was all that mattered. The average price tag for repairs under the old program was a modest $65. And state law even set repair-cost limits. Any car that could not be fixed--even temporarily--for below the limit got a special waiver.
The new program has no waivers for "gross polluters." Moreover, under the new program, repairs can be costly and, sometimes, even impossible. It cost Schlossberg $420 to fix his Nissan. Cindy Weidner of Folsom, California, told the Sacramento Bee it cost her $1,100 to fix her company truck. A pilot project conducted by California officials showed repair costs averaging $350 per vehicle.
Schlossberg generously conceded to the Los Angeles Times that "it doesn't bother me to pay to help with smog." Others are less sanguine about the tab. Even state officials have conceded that, for some people, the program might create hardships.
This is no minor matter. The city of Los Angeles evaluated car ownership and found that 32 percent of those driving gross polluters had family incomes of less than $10,000 per year. A senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council tried to sweep this issue under the rug by telling one reporter that repair costs would be minimal. The numbers belie this claim-- and underscore that tradeoffs are real. Just how willing are people to pursue cleaner air at the expense of other values--for example, a desire by rich and poor alike for personal mobility?
California legislators have acknowledged the cost--and its potentially devastating impact on low-income families--by creating an "economic hardship extension." A poor person with a gross- polluting vehicle can, under this program, register the vehicle immediately without passing a smog check inspection. The owner then has up to 12 months to bring the car into compliance with state and federal emission standards. Motorists can also get a special one-time, two-year smog certificate waiver, after making certain repairs up to certain cost limit that vary by location. The waiver, according to the Bureau of Automotive Repairs, "may not be used for two consecutive Smog Check inspections." Both of these programs provide some flexibility and temporary "cost" relief to motorists. Unlike the old program, however, gross polluters cannot obtain repeated waivers.
The real test of Californians' commitment to cleaner air will come as more and more motorists--especially low-income motorists--find themselves shelling out hundreds of dollars to get repairs, sometimes for cars barely worth the cost of those repairs. Reestablishing repair cost limits and permanent waivers can overcome potential financial distress; such measures also weaken the potential effectiveness of the program.
Beyond this central tradeoff, most of the current problems with the smog check program involve more tractable--though politically charged--implementation details. Already, for example, California has reduced from 30 days to just five days the time it takes to get an appointment for a retest of a gross polluter at special test-only centers. And the wait at these centers has been substantially shortened.
But these quick fixes don't alter some program fundamentals. The new program still requires most cars to undergo periodic scheduled emission testing. New car buyers can opt out of the program for a couple of years--for a fee. Everyone else must spend time and money for a test that most cars will end up passing. Clean cars are punished along with the dirty few.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
Trackback| 1.11.10 @ 10:27PM
credit repair ca, on credit repair ca, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
nfl jerseys|11.16.10 @ 8:22PM|#
r68