California Assembly member Jones has introduced AB 859 in Feb 2009 to amend and add to sections of the Health and Safety Code to provide for annual testing of motor vehicles, model years 15 years old and older, which are already subject to smog check inspection(1976 model year-current) and also have been determined by statistics, gathered during the last nearly 40 years of testing, to be types of vehicles which are most likely to fail a smog check inspection due to the emissions configuration of the vehicle. As you may know, not all vehicles are required to have the same smog reduction equipment installed on the vehicle and the lack of such equipment makes older and under equiped vehicles far more likely fail a smog check and to emit higher levels of pollution into the air.

The proposed legislation would become effective in 2010 and the fees generated by the sales of certificates to passing vehicles (currently $8.25) would be added to the fund which now contributes up to $500 toward the repair or $1000 to scrap failing vehicles. The repair maximum is proposed to increase to $750 per vehicle repair for "low income" vehicle owners and calculate their qualification based on 300% of the Federal Poverty Level which is recalculated on a yearly basis. The current percentage in use is 225%,and thus many more vehicle owners would qualify for the repair assistance. Apparently, the repair assistance would be removed for vehicles referred to "Test Only Centers" for their inspections. I am unsure of the reasoning for this provision, given that vehicles so referred are generally on a State list of vehicles called the HEP List (high emitter profile list) which have historically had a higher incidence of test failure.

As a daily practicing smog check technician, I am all to aware of the much higher test fail rate of vehicles which would undergo increased scrutiny under this proposal and feel that the added burden of the inspection cost (around $40 per year) would be more than made up by the anticipated fuel savings of a now repaired and properly operating vehicle, not to mention the health benefits for all our citizens. Detecting a polluting vehicle sooner would also help immensely to clean the air of harmful pollutants which cause and contribute to so many deaths and illnesses each year in the most polluted areas of California.From emphyzema to asthma, the youngest and oldest of our state's population suffers the often irreversable effects of air pollution daily.

Curious to determine the reasoning of the opposition to this proposal, I consulted the internet to see if there were postings on this matter and discovered several sites for car enthusiasts which were not in favor of the proposed legislation on the following grounds. The commentator identifies the vehicles most likely to be negatively effected to be "vintage" in nature and decries the "minimal impact that these vehicles have on air quality given their "minimal" use. As of this writing, the last year effected would be 1994. The writer repeatedly refers to "vintage" vehicles as if we were speaking of "classics". I may be mistaken here, but I don't consider a 1994 Honda Civic to be in the generally accepted category. The vast majority of 1990 era vehicles that I see day in and out are driven daily, have high miles, and, if less than vigorously maintained,frequently fail the tailpipe emission aspects of emission testing. They simply have reached the point where closer scrutiny is warranted. This is not a mandatory scrappage situation and the owners would qualify for repair assistance automatically if they were in need. On the contrary, would you not prefer to have the State contribute $750 to the repair by highly trained and state monitored repair establishments of your malfunctioning, frequently gas guzzling vehicle  and avoid the scrap heap? Perhaps some owners would be hoping their vehicle fails so they might devote the money the state will give you to scrap it to the down payment on that new vehicle you have had your eye on. It's still your choice, no one is prying the key from your hand and leading your old faithful off to the heap.Those yearly contributions of $8.50 by motorists with passing vehicles would allow, in my opinion, many more vehicles in need of emission repairs to receive them in a timely fashion, often saving that very same consumer in the hundreds of dollars of excess fuel expense and the rest of us untold sums now devoted to the health care of our most vulnerable citizens, young and old. I'd rather have my car in the hospital than my grandmother or kids. How about you, what do you think about it and feel free to email me at smogger4free@yahoo.com with your opinion on the matter, pro or con.