Ca. Smog Law Changes, Another amendment Options

[Allan]

Any politicos here that can interpret this stuff? What happens now that it's been amended or if it dosn't get finalized before the Senate adjourns next month?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquer...arch_type=email

[lapuwali]

I have to disagree that the admendment is worthless, but not because of 914s (this really has little to do with 914s). The point that it doesn't change things for cars already exempt is also irrelevant. The bill, btw, still sets the total exemption at 1976, it doesn't move it back to 1966, nor does it set it to 35 years old from 1 April 2005 (when the bill would be in force, if passed). It says, 1976 OR 35 years old (so the 35 year rolling exemption wouldn't start until 2010 the way the DMV does this), with the additional restriction for 1976 and newer cars from 2010 forward that they must be "collector" cars, as defined outside this statute. What it does is open a previously firmly closed door.

The way I see it, even if this bill dies (which now seems likely), the tree-hugger crowd will continue to try and kill the 30-year rolling exemption somehow. They'll not give up, and will continue to refine their approach until a bill DOES pass. What I want to see is a replacement I can live with.

This amendment opens the door for providing a replacement for the 30 year exemption I'd agree with: remove the visual component of the smog test for all cars. If you pass the tailpipe test, and meet some minimum "visual" standards (the amendment specifically mentions a fuel cap test and requires you aren't "leaking liquid fuel"), you pass the smog test. I'd support such a bill, even if it pushed the date back to 1966, since it would now be possible for owners to update their cars to keep them clean, and not have to continue to use OEM emissions parts that are increasingly unavailable or very expensive, and which didn't work very well in the first place. The aftermarket would be able to provide generic emissions parts for a wide® range of cars w/o having to run the odious and expensive CARB testing regime, so they'd benefit. The owners could continue to legally tinker with and drive their cars at a reasonable cost, so they'd benefit. The air would be cleaner, so we'd all benefit. The only losers would be people who insist on using concours correct cars on the road, which is a small fraction of the number of car owners, even owners of "classics".

The way this bill has been amended shows me that it's very unlikely that what's happened so far (moving the exemption year from 1965 to 1975) will be undone. This doesn't appear to be politically viable, even to the people who support the idea of removing the exemption. The early amendments only strengthened the position that this exemption would stand, and this latest amendment doesn't change that. I think the position of all but 1976 914s is secure (and if this bill dies, it's likely 1976 would be the new cutoff for any more attempts, so ALL 914s would be exempt).

btw, another bill to pay attention to is AB1615, which is referenced in this amendment. The bills reference each other, each saying they won't take effect if the other passes. I haven't read it in detail, but it appears to be a measure intended to close a loophole involving out-of-state registration.