Re: Smog Cops at it again in California...

[Steve Richards <stever@domain.elided>]

James,

  Ok here ya go....

Section 1: Has been completely discounted by the people of California
overwhelmingly. It is also utter garbage.  Be happy to debate it with you
anytime.

Section 2: Designates the start of programs. Programs = bureaucracies & need
money. Where do you think the money is going to come from.  It also starts
the smog police.

Section 3: Extension of a pollution credit system, more state govt.
bureaucracies = more money and where do you think this money is going to
come from?

 Then my favorite section of the whole thing...

(i) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
   (1) "Greenhouse gases" means those gases listed in subdivision (g)
of Section 42801.1.

 You should read this section as it will surprise you what it includes!


   (2) "Maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions" means the greenhouse gas emission reductions that the
state board determines meet both of the following criteria:
   (A) Capable of being successfully accomplished within the time
provided by this section, taking into account environmental,
economic, social, and technological factors.

  The State of California has already done this. It's a * P A Y *  as you
pollute system.

   (B) Economical to an owner or operator of a vehicle, taking into
account the full life-cycle costs of a vehicle.

 If there are no cost/tax/fees/assessments to the public why would this
provision be in there? You also might want to think about all those old
Alfa's and ones that will be old out there.

   (3) "Motor vehicle" means a passenger vehicle, light-duty truck,
or any other vehicle determined by the state board to be a vehicle
whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation.

  This is pretty inclusive. In other words, any thing that has any kind of a
combustion engine like lawnmower, ATV, scooter, truck, car, etc etc etc...

 For an example, lets say an individual purchases a vehicle in 2010. The
vehicles does not meet the green house emissions gas standards set down.
Since it cannot be eliminated, then how can it operate on California roads?
Who will pay for the costs associated with getting the vehicle on the road?
I will give you my interpretation of the answer based on has already
happened in California.  The consumer, joe blow, you and I will pay. Sounds
like a tax/fee/assessment.

  I will also pass this on to you.  Currently Alfa's v6 engine does not meet
California standards, it does meet Japan's though.  That9s right, the
current v6 in a current 156 & 166 do not pass Somg Check 2 with the best,
most efficient, factory & aftermarket catalysts put on them.  Wanna guess
how much it would add to the sticker price???  How about $9000.00  Wanna pay
$37+k for a base model v6 156?

  Don9t think you older cars will be covered. You should look how the
current smog laws are being applied to older vehicles.  There are few
exemptions.  Smog Check II dyno coming to you soon and your older Alfa.
Here in the valley where I live and breathe, I have a friend that just spent
a whole lot of money rebuilding his Verde. It's totally stock, new sensors
and just about everything.  He cannot pass the Dyno test.  He can pass the
old test just fine but not the new one. After spending approx $600 in fees,
and purchasing 2 high flow more efficient cats plus having them installed,
to get it passed he has moved his registration to a county that has only the
old test.  He had the option to pay for a waiver from the state. That's
right a fee, a tax, a assessment to get his vehicle registered. You ready to
give up your Alfa or pay that tax ???  The attrition rate of older cars
(1990 and earlier) is 1 in 10, and the older you get the worse it gets.

  James I am sure your your an intelligent person.  Maybe you should do a
little research in history in what State and Federal Govt. has done with
these kind of laws.  They are never good and always make us pay for them.

  It is also never about cleaner air or water or other resources, it's
always about money.  If it was about the environment then why are all the
State vehicles, some 300,000+ exempt from all smog laws?  Last time I got
some simple figures they pollute 5 times more. Oh yes and I will also now
include the States alternative vehicles that make up less than 1/10 of 1% to
the total fleet. That does not sound like the State is interested in cleaner
air at least where its vehicles operations are at?

  I should also mention that this also supercedes current federal guidelines
unless the Bush or some other president signs the Kyoto protocols which are
in the simplest form a transfer of wealth.

  Anyhow I see what looks like 10's of millions of dollars out of our future
paychecks to support the legislation.

  I believe I covered the question pretty well.  If your really interested
in a debate, please let me know and we can go over the whole bill point by
point as I have time.  I enjoy a good argument.

Regards,
  Steve


On 8/23/02 11:22 PM, "James Montebello" <jamesm@domain.elided> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Steve Richards wrote:
>>   What is AB1493?  The bill the our current Governor, Gray Davis, signed
>> allows for CARB (California Air Resources Board) to designate
>> fees/assessments to any California Vehicle that produces 3Green House
>> Gasses2 ie: Carbon Dioxide.  As the bill is written, any vehicle
registered
>> or not, used on public road or not, is covered.
>
> Either the bill number above is incorrect, or this statement doesn't
> jibe with my reading of the same bill.  The full text of the bill as
> signed is available on the web (http://www.assembly.ca.gov).
>
> It's a short bill, and the thrust appears to be aimed at reducing the
> greenhouse gas emissions of *future* vehicles.  It won't take effect
> until 2006, and will only affect motor vehicles made for or after the 2009
> model year.  Not a lot of Alfas in California will be covered by that. :-)
>
> My reading is the bill doesn't involve applying fees to any existing
> motor vehicles.  Indeed, it says exactly the opposite:
>
> (a) No later than January 1, 2005, the state board shall
> develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and
> cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor
> vehicles.
> [...]
>  (d) The regulations adopted by the state board pursuant to
> subdivision (a) shall not require any of the following:
>  (1) The imposition of additional fees and taxes on any motor
> vehicle, fuel, or vehicle miles traveled, pursuant to this section or
> any other provision of law.
> [from SEC 3]
>
> It's late, I read the bill quickly, I'm not a lawyer or a legislator,
> I may be completely wrong.
>
> james montebello
> san mateo, ca
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided