It's getting down to the wire, folks!

AB 2683, the bill that if passed into law will freeze the current
rolling 30-year emission test exemption at the 1975 model year and
require all '76-up models to be biennially tested in perpetuity passed
the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 4, 7-3 with three members not voting.

It is scheduled for a third reading on the Senate floor,
Monday, August 16, and it may be voted on at that time. Now is the time to contact your state senators and urge them to vote against this bill.
You may easily obtain their e-mail address at www.senate.ca.gov and they are listed in the front of your phone book white pages under "state government offices". I also suggest you also write a note to the governor: www.govmail.ca.gov

Use the following talking points:

- AB 2683 was hastily prepared using biased information from a "draft report" - the April 2004 draft report to the IMRC

- This report is inherently biased by using selective data rather than all available data

- Likewise, comparisons are intentionally biased that overstate the proportional contributions to emissions by older cars

- There was no opportunity for public questions, comments, and discussion of this report

- Its biased data and analysis are being force fed to legislators before its true bias can be revealed.

- Political forces continue to beat up vintage car owners blaming them for air quality problems while large sources remain uncontrolled and/or not subject to periodic testing.

- Voting for AB 2683 reneges on a promise that was made to vintage car owners by the legislature seven years ago

If you think you are off the hook because your car is currently exempt, THINK AGAIN! I guarantee you that if AB 2683 passes, an attempt to roll back emission testing to currently exempt models years will happen in the next legislative session. Such attempts have occurred nearly every year since the 30-year rolling emission test was passed into law (SB 42) in 1997.

I have a MS Word file with additonal links, info, and talking points, so shoot me an e-mail if you want additional info: dukewilliams at netzero dot net.

The following is the text of my letter to my state senator:

Dear Senator Bowen,

I urge you to vote against AB 2683 when it reaches the Senate floor.

AB 2683 was hastily prepared using unsubstantiated claims and data,
analyses, and comparisons from a "draft report" (April 2004 draft report
to the IMRC) that is highly biased in its presentation, and the bill was
prepared two months before the report was made public. If the "savings"
of six tons per day ozone precursors in the year 2010, which may well be
overstated, are compared to total vehicle emissions, it is less than
one-half of one percent, and if compared to emissions from all sources
it is a very small fraction of one percent.

Meanwhile, hundreds of tons per day of ozone precursors are emitted by
other sources, many of which have no emission controls and are not
subject of any form of emission testing.

Legislative analyses claim that 1976 model year cars emit 2.5 times the
aggregate emissions of 2004 model year cars, but this claim was made
early in the model year when few 2004 models were on the road. The data
and calculations used to reach this "conclusion" are not specified, but
is this even a fair and reasonable comparison given the small population
of 2004 models when the claim was made? Model year 1976 to 1982 cars
were certified to standards that reduced emissions 90 percent from
uncontrolled cars, and 2004 model year cars achieve on the order of 99+
percent reduction and have no degradation from mileage accumulation and
aging. New cars have virtually zero emissions at operating temperature,
which are so low that current testing technology is being pushed to the
limit of its sensitivity. Dividing any number by a very small number
yields a high number. Dividing by zero yields infinity!

Vintage car enthusiasts worked long and hard to win the rolling 30-year
emission test exemption that was passed into law (SB 42) in 1997. Ever
since, anti-car forces in both the legislature and state staff agencies
continue to beat-up vintage car owners by publishing and promoting
intentionally rigged data, analyses, and comparisons that overstate the
case against vintage cars.

The April, 2004 draft report to the IMRC prepared by the BAR and ARB
must be rewritten using all available data and unbiased, objective
analyses and comparisons that place older car emissions in a fair and
reasonable context. Then a period of time must be granted for the
public to submit questions and comments, which the authors must address
in the spirit of open and democratic public policy discussion.

Last year I contacted you requesting that you help defeat SB 708. This
was effectively the final outcome as all the emission test change
provisions were removed prior to its passing. Your letter to me, dated
May 23, 2003, includes the following paragraph:

"During my 10+ years in the Legislature, I've consistently opposed
efforts to extend the state's smog check laws to classic cars because I
don't think requiring cars that are driven a few hundred to a few
thousand miles a year to meet smog check standards will significantly
improve California's air quality. Furthermore, whatever improvements
are made are likely to be very expensive for classic car owners and I
have little doubt there are other places where California can get much
bigger air pollution reductions for a lot less money."

I hope you will use this argument with other senators to assist in
defeating AB 2683.

Sincerely,...

Duke