Over the years, the SEMA Action Network has been remarkably successful at repelling both legislation and regulations that would cause harm to the motoring hobby. We've prevented scrappage programs from becoming widespread and have successfully lobbied in California to allow parts sales and require consumer notification of vehicles that participate in such programs. We've also been proactive in getting many hobbyist-friendly laws enacted. Does this stop the other side from trying? Unfortunately, no. The battle continues for some time.

Recently, I found myself testifying again before the California Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee on behalf of SEMA and the hobbyist community. Ironically, I was giving the same testimony I had presented 11 years ago to this very same group. While the faces in the Committee had changed, the issues remained eerily the same: how to "improve" California's Smog Check program to further reduce pollution from "mobile sources" (i.e., the vehicles you and I drive).

While SEMA has always agreed with the goal of reducing excessive emissions in order to improve air quality, we diagree with the regulatory agencies on the best method to achieve emissions reductions from mobile sources. Armed with faulty assumptions, regulators such as the California Air Resources Board take an overly simplistic view that all old cars are the problem and should be eliminated regardless of cost, harm to car collectors or even to those of lower incomes.

CARB, the EPA and many so-called "environmental" groups simply don't care if rare old cars and parts are forever lost due to such government-sponsored programs. Ideally, they would like to see the whole vehicle fleet converted over to battery-powered cars or those using hydroen fuel cells. (No cost, range or other problems there, right?) They don't seem to mind the fact that people with low and/or fixed incomes will be disproportionately harmed. (These regulations will tend to drive up the cost of older vehicles and their parts by making them even more rare and thus unaffordable to many.)

These groups are on a mission of "vehicular euthanasia" to eliminate as many older vehicles as possible, regardless of who gets hurt. They use data generated by faulty and biased computer models to make their case, alll in the name of cleaner air. For over 11 years, SEMA has been exposinng the flaws in this approach.

So what are the latest assaults on the older vehicles? The following are some of the proposals made during the recent IMRC meeting and a public workshop on the California State Implementation Plan:

1. Repeal the rolling 30-year emissions exemption: Despite the fact that the SEMA Action Network, and others have shown the emissions attributable to such older vehicles are negligible, the regulators continue to assert otherwise. The would like to replace the rolling 30-year exemption with one that is fixed for 1975 and older model year vehicles. They have even considered bringing 1966-1975 vehicles back into the program despite howls of protest. SEMA will continue to fight such effort. We intend to sponsor legislation that wil, among other things, help reform the computer models used by CARB so that they more accurately reflect the true emissions contribution and usage of older vehicles.
2. More stringent emissions standards for older and/or higher mileage vehicles: By establishing stricter emission standards or "cut points", the regulators hope to achieve their goal of eliminating older vehicles by making it more expensive to keep them running. If more vehicles fail their emissions tests and it costs more to repair them to achieve lower test results, some people most likely will be unable to pay for the repairs, scrapping their older vehicles instead. While SEMA supports repairing older vehicles, we do not support lowering cut points to an unreasonable level. SEMA believes(and indeed the law requires) that cut points must be reasonable and allow for cost effective repairs for the majority of vehicles, including those that are older.
3. Annual versus biennial inspection of vehicles more than 15 years old. SEMA does not agree with the assumption that gross emitters are older vehicles, in this case 15 years or older. We believe (and the data shows) that gross emitters can be of any age. Targeting older vehicles is unfair and discriminatory, especially when they are generally driven less ard there are fewer of them. SEMA supports the repair of gross emitters, not a flawed approach that unfairly taints older vehicles.
4. Use of roadside remote sensing: Remote sensing systems are still inaccurate and unreliable. Also, it is unclear how such systems would be deployed without introducing further errors. More likely, such systems would be placed in locations where vehicle operating conditions are in the extreme and not the norm. It would be far too easy to bias the the gross emitter identification thresholds against older vehicles. While SEMA understands the intended goal of identifying true gross emitters under actual operating conditions, we hesitate to support remote sensing devices because of technical problems and the risk that they could be used in a biased manner.
5. Expand emissions testing to currently exempted areas and/or vehicles: Introducing more stingent emissions testing into low population ares or for exempted vehicles such as diesels is a poor option since the costs are high for a relatively small gain. Instead, the regulators would be better served by using the funds for proper repair of those vehicles in already covered locations. Ideally these funds could be used to promote voluntary vehicle upgrades, which have reduced emissions while improving vehicle performance and fuel efficiency.
6. Expanded vehicle retirement/scrappage programs: Vehicle scrappage programs are not the way to go. Not only do they result in the permanent and unnecessary loss of valuable vehicles and parts, but they also fail to achieve the claimed emissions reductions due to faulty assumptions. Any expansion of such programs would cause only more harm and at greater cost. Yet, many advocate scrappage not only because they want to get rid of all the old cars, but also because doing so allows them to save money by not having to make expensive modifications to smoke stacks and other stationary-source emissions. These groups don't care about the "environmental justice" and "hot spot" issues caused by these flawed programs; they only want to protect their bottom line, even if it means losing our heritage and taking poor people out of their cars.

SEMA is on guard to fight these actions. We will be actively pursuing legislation that exposes the suspect numbers supporting flawed arguments. As always, we encourage our SAN contacts to persuade their state legislators to enact reforms.