A.B. 859 Reintroduces Cash For Clunkers... AGAIN!

Steve Simmons · **Posted:** Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:03 pm

This just in from SEMA:

Quote:

URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT

California Reintroduces Bill to Require ANNUAL Emissions Tests for Vehicles 15-Years Old and Older

Here we go again! Legislation (A.B. 859) has been reintroduced in the California Assembly by Assemblyman Dave Jones (Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov) to require annual Smog check inspections for vehicles 15-years old and older. The bill would also require that funds generated through the additional inspection fees be deposited into an account which can be used to scrap older cars. You may recall that in 2004 a new law was enacted in California to require the lifetime testing of all 1976 and newer model-year vehicles. Pre-1976 motor vehicles would remain exempt under A.B. 859. The bill has been referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee.

We Urge You to Contact Assemblyman Jones and Members of the Assembly Transportation Committee (List Below) Immediately to Oppose A.B. 859

* A.B. 859 ignores the minimal impact vintage cars have on air quality.

* A.B. 859 could entice vintage car owners into allowing these vehicles to be scrapped.

* A.B. 859 ignores the fact that vehicles 15-years old and older still constitute a small portion of the overall vehicle population and are a poor source from which to look for emissions reduction.

* A.B. 859 ignores the fact that classic vehicles are overwhelmingly well-maintained and infrequently driven.

* A.B. 859 would increase costs by creating an annual inspection fee for owners of these vehicles.

* A.B. 859 represents another attempt by California legislators and regulators to scapegoat older cars.

Please contact members of the California Assembly Transportation Committee immediately by phone, fax or e-mail to request their opposition to A.B. 859.

Please e-mail a copy of your letter to stevem@sema.org. Thank you for your assistance.

Assembly Transportation Committee

Assemblymember Mike Eng – Chair
Phone: 916/319-2049
Email: Assemblymember.Eng@asm.ca.gov

Assemblymember Kevin Jeffries
Phone: 916/319-2066
Email: Assemblymember.Jeffries@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Bob Blumenfield
Phone: 916/319-2040
Email: Assemblymember.Blumenfield@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Joan Buchanan
Phone: 916/319-2015
Email: Assemblymember.Buchanan@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Connie Conway
Phone: 916/319-2034
Email: Assemblymember.Conway@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Warren Furutani
Phone: 916/319-2055
Email: Assemblymember.Furutani@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani
Phone: 916/319-2017
Email: Assemblymember.Galgiani@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Martin Garrick
Phone: 916/319-2074
Email: Assemblymember.Garrick@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal
Phone: 916/319-2054
Email: Assemblymember.Lowenthal@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Jeff Miller
Phone: 916/319-2071
Email: Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Roger Niello
Phone: 916/319-2005
Email: Assemblymember.niello@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember John Perez
Phone: 916/319-2046
Email: Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Jose Solorio
Phone: 916/319-2069
Email: Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov

Assemblymember Tom Torlakson
Phone: 916/319-2011
Email: Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov

spitfire · **Posted:** Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:59 pm

And it sounds like Obama wants to try this again on a federal level. I can't believe they keep trying to push this piece of crap.

MoPho · **Posted:** Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:57 am

I have to say I am not sure I have a problem with this. If I understand correctly, this would only effect cars that were built from 1974-1994, which should have come from the factory with some sort of emissions control anyway. These cars are not exactly vintage and I would venture to say that cars of this time period are being used more as transportation than as weekend collector vehicles. I see tons of POS 80's and early 90's vehicles all over the road, many that are clearly running poorly and polluting. I wish they would instill a safety check along with it, scary to think of the condition the brakes, suspension, tires, etc that some of these cars are in.

Are they thinking to hold these cars to current standards, or to adjust given the technology of the period?

Steve Simmons · **Posted:** Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:21 am

I don't know the exact level of emissions that will be required under this new bill, but the scary thing is that every time these bills come around, they are a precursor to worse ones. The same people keep pushing them, and once you let them get their foot in the door it's all over. There are already emissions testing laws in place for these vehicles, but they are trying to make it every year which will cost people money and time, making more in taxes for the state.

Putting tougher restrictions on vehicles that are a little older will also push people to crush their cars and buy new ones, which does more damage to the environment than driving a gross polluter for a decade. These are just a couple problems I have with this new bill, but mainly it's a matter of keeping these misleading politicians out of our hobby.

spitfire · **Posted:** Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:26 am

One of the other problems is that it will inflate the value of those cars. To a level that they are not worth, so it will be a little more difficult to find cars for a young enthusiast to start tinkering with at a low cost.

Steve Simmons · **Posted:** Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:00 pm

...and when they start crushing all those older cars, the aftermarket parts business will go to the dumps, costing us thousands of jobs.

HealeyBN7 · **Posted:** Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:30 pm

MoPho wrote:

...If I understand correctly, this would only effect cars that were built from 1974-1994, which should have come from the factory with some sort of emissions control anyway. These cars are not exactly vintage and I would venture to say that cars of this time period are being used more as transportation than as weekend collector vehicles. I see tons of POS 80's and early 90's vehicles all over the road, many that are clearly running poorly and polluting. I wish they would instill a safety check along with it, scary to think of the condition the brakes, suspension, tires, etc that some of these cars are in.

I think you are correct. For me this means that our "black" '88 M5, which is already a "smog only-gross polluter" would forever be tested annually. I guess technically I don't really care as it blows clean every time. But, I do hate the process of testing it.

These bills always seem so short sighted. Doesn't anyone in the legislation ever put a value on anything other than filling the dump to generate more consumer demand. Makes one think these bill are all sponsored by auto makers.

Once the masses start failing inspections, we will need to extend credit so they can buy new cars. I thought over-consumption was part of our current economic problems. Did you notice there is never a reward for acting responsible and properly maintaining your assets? How about a discount for keeping your car in top running condition.

Dean

MoPho · **Posted:** Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:02 pm

The problem is Dean, you are the exception, not the rule. I think there are far more improperly maintained cars of this time frame than well maintained ones.
When I lived in MA, I had to have my cars inspected once a year (safety every year, smog every other), so I guess I don't see this as such a big deal. If you want the car bad enough, you'll do what it takes to keep it.

Personally, knowing that all these cars are possibly putting me in danger angers me more than the Govt. making arbitrary rules against them. (again, i would prefer to safety checks along with smog)

But yeah, don't want the Govt messing with our hobby.
I wouldn't be surprised to see in our lifetime that we can't run gasoline powered cars at all

MGBJockey · **Posted:** Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:42 pm

The dog lovers of the world have organized an incredible "rescue" network. Think there is any way classic car groups and clubs can establish a "point of scrappage" rescue organization, working with the authorized scrappage points?

Steve Simmons · **Posted:** Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:53 pm

I think that would be a tall order, but certainly not impossible. There are a lot of scrap yards in North America, and I would think the cars they get are usually more valuable as scrap! Certainly an idea worth pursuing however...

Steve Simmons · **Posted:** Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:55 pm

UPDATES: (source: SFV Model T Club)

AB859: Passed the Assembly Trans Committee 8 to 6 on 4/13 along party lines. Sent to Assembly Appropriations Committee to be heard on 4/29.

AB986: This bill is currently in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. The hearing has been cancelled by the author.

AB1342: This bill passed the Assembly Local Government Committee 5 to 2 on 4/22. It will be heard in the Assembly Revenue and Taxiation Committee on 4/27

AB1135: This bill passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 8 to 5 on 4/20 and will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on 4/29.

HealeyBN7 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:50 pm

Looks like a federal version is on it's way for final presidential approval. Provides $3,500 to $4,500 per car from the future hyper-inflation fund (i.e., current stimulus package) if you turn in and crush your 1984 gas guzzler and buy a slightly improved new version.

I told my wife her 1995 Range Rover just tripled in value...she didn't laugh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02811.html

Steve Simmons · **Posted:** Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:52 pm

Quote:

Auto state senators said the program would help hard-pressed car dealers and automakers by bringing buyers into showrooms

Quote:

"This is an emergency for families and small businesses - for an industry that has been the backbone of our economy for a generation," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., who sponsored the proposal.

Quote:

Obama has encouraged Congress to approve the consumer incentives for new car purchases as part of the government's efforts to restructure General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group LLC. The bill provides $1 billion for the program from July through November.

Quote:

The auto industry and its union lobbied heavily for passage of the cash for clunkers plan as GM and Chrysler have received billions of dollars in government-led bankruptcies and the entire auto industry has dealt with plummeting car sales.

'Nuff said. This is not about saving the planet, it's about getting people to spend money on new cars. The reality is that this will cost the environment dearly in resources and industrial pollution. And while the BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM may help a very small amount to keep dying automobile companies alive, it will hurt companies that supply repair parts for older vehicles as well as smaller auto parts stores - the very businesses that are in the biggest jeopardy in America.

And then there's...

Quote:

Owners of sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks or minivans that get 18 mpg or less could receive a voucher for $3,500 if their new truck or SUV got at least 2 mpg higher than their old vehicle.

Jimmy · **Posted:** Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:15 pm

As Steve wrote: 'Nuff said. This is not about saving the planet, it's about getting people to spend money on new cars. The reality is that this will cost the environment dearly in resources and industrial pollution. And while the BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM may help a very small amount to keep dying automobile companies alive, it will hurt companies that supply repair parts for older vehicles as well as smaller auto parts stores - the very businesses that are in the biggest jeopardy in America."

Right on the money, Steve. I wish I had the brains and resources to prove that, say a '64 Buick Electra, in decent shape, would pollute less and use less resources overall over a 15-year time period than would a new Prius.
After all, a car that is already existing would be hard pressed to screw up the planet more than what building, shipping, and driving a new one would.
If only they would let Chrysler and GM file for a real bankruptcy, once out from below the unions they'd probably do just fine. After all, things tend to self-regulate rather well if left alone.

spitfire · **Posted:** Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:01 pm

Keep in mind that there is a limit to the year of make. Which is 1985. Anything older cannot be used for this program. It's still stupid, and it will possibly get rid of some decent cars that some would be happy to still own, or restore. It is a plan to try and push sales. The owners have to own the car for 12 months in order to qualify. So even if there are a run on cars in those years to try and get this to happen. Those people will end up with inventory of cars they don't want and can't get rid of in this program.

Vintage Motoring

A.B. 859 Reintroduces Cash For Clunkers... AGAIN!

Who is online