Tracking code caldwell guardian

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Time to Kill Vehicle Emissions Testing

There is a significant push back from citizens to dismantle vehicle emissions testing this year and the rationale is not opinion based but fact/data based. 

The evidence put together to support VET in the first place was based on outdated data over ten years old.  As older cars with carburetors hit the scrap pile virtually all emissions data are trending downward or away from any non-atainment conclusion. 

Our friend Al Freeman in Nampa and his helpers in submitting data have found it difficult to get anyone in the legislature to pay attention to what he has discovered and the DEQ's flawed data to support VET in the first place.  However,  year there may be enough of a headcount in the legislature to dismantle VET in this valley.  It has been a dismal failure and has done nothing but inconvenience people in every way imaginable and costs vehicle owners have had to endure to get their cars checked by their mechanics when nothing was wrong in the first place is more than a minor inconvenience. 

Example, if you replace your car battery you will fail the test.  If you let your car battery go dead and head in for a test your car will fail.  If your gas cap gets put on incorrectly and the check engine light comes on you will fail the test.  The list goes on and on and the goofy waste of time people have to spend on this along with expensive trips to their mechanics for no good reason continue. 

Add to this most of us are not getting a two year cycle due to some goofy decision by DEQ that has resulted in a lot of folks having to go in again in a little over one year for another check. (had this very thing happen to me) 

Also, in the world of screwing up your cars computer; I took my trusty 98 Chevy pickup in for a early mandated VET and passed the test but not more than a mile down the road my check engine light came on right after the test.  Luckily, my mechanic did take the time to do more than a casual read of the codes and with some expertise was able to restore the system to normal function.  It is time for this waste of taxpayer time and money to simply go away.  We can only hope the Legislature makes it happen this year.

I would gladly pay the $10 to the DEQ every year for all their good works but the waste of time and lack of evidence this program is doing anything to improve air quality remains suspect from both a data and opinion view of vehicle owners.

15 comments:

  1. While I agree with your basic statement that v.e.t's are nothing more than a way for DEQ employees to pretend to have validity, people should learn how to properly replace their fuel caps since this allows hydrocarbon vapors to enter the atmosphere. Maybe DEQ can train folks on the screwing process.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If VET is such a great deal for citizens I would love to see the DEQ publish data in support of the effacy of this program.

    Today, I complied with the notice I received last week and it took about 1.5 hours from the time I left the house to the time I returned along with the requisite $10 charge for the test. Probably a resaonable time most drivers experience to comply. Again, I would like to think the DEQ is responsible to citizens, car owners and the Legislature to report "the good news" of VET to one and all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wouldn't it be nice if the Dynamis plant was approved and we could have the lingering oder of burning tires and burning baby diapers making expensive "green" energy added to the inversion?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The comment about gas caps and hydrocarbon vapors is an interesting comment. I have noticed the gas nozzles that go into car gas tanks are equipped with a vapor recovery system that prevents any vapors from filling gas tanks to escape into the atnosphere.

    This might be way more productive if Idaho had the same requirement on gas stations. The amount of vapor displaced by filling a gas tank has to be significant when you consider all the cars and all the vapors displaced each time people fill their gas tanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I should have made it clear that Idaho does not have vapor recovery systems on gas nozzles and California does have this feature at their gas stations.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yippi Kai Yay! Another great idea from California that will save us poor unenlightened folks in Idaho. Keep um commin. We won't mind paying for um.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You miss the point Mr. Kai Yay, why have the recovery system on cars and not on the delivery systems up stream from car gas tanks if vapor control is the issue. I fear your unenlightened mind has missed this important point.

      Delete
    2. After you choke on the fumes purged from the local Idaho gas stations have a nice trip back to Kalifornia Mr An Onymous.

      Delete
  7. It doesn't seem to make sense for cars to have had on board vapor recovery systems, known as charcoal canisters and purge valves, since the early 70's but not the same system at fueling stations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with Paul on the issue of the DEQ not presenting any data to support the need for continuation of emissions testing for all of our cars and trucks. It is just one more way to waste our time and money in the absence of a data based need to do VET's.

    The DEQ owes motorists a report on tests with respect to how many cars fail or pass the test and just exactly what the numbers are on our air quality in this valley.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I find it so very interesting how all the lefty libs, after destroying their own state of California, can come here to our pristine state and tell us all how we should live. Keep your lefty agenda to yourselves. Idaho does just fine without them thank you very much. When you show us some solid real data, then we will talk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to clarify this comment...VET is not a lefty lib issue. It has to do with "potential non attainment" of air quality mandated by the Feds aka the EPA. The data used to put this in place with the Idaho Legislature's help was both flawed and more than 10 years old. The Idaho DEQ grossly misrepresented the data and the Idaho Legislature bought it hook line and sinker. So, now ADA and Canyon Counties enjoy the hassels and wasted time and money exercise of VET.

      Delete
    2. They have been empowered such that they don't have to talk to the citizens and certainly don't have to achieve our approval or agreement with their "findings".

      Delete
  10. What I find peculiar about this thread, is the initial discussion was about the elimination of VET because it is not required by the standards and/or they were applied incorrectly. It doesn't take long for the discussion to migrate onto additional actions like requiring fume sucking gas pumps because they looked so hip in California. We need less regulation, not more, especially when the need has not been established. I thought that was the point of the the original discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very good point you have made. The real issues are the fradulent data set used to justify VET, the waste of time by vehicle ownerd getting the tests done, the unnecessary trips to mechanics to check out problems that are non-existant and at additional costs, another trip back for the test. And finally, all of this has zero impact on our local air quality. The big deal for our air quality is the times we are experiencing an inversion condition.

      Delete

A public discourse on the issues of the day makes the world a better place.

We welcome comments but they will be moderated and edited if too long or do not have anything to do with the post.
Agree or disagree just do it without profanity or it won't get posted. Try to keep your comments to no more than 300 words. Too long and I will try to edit it down or simply delete the comment. The whole idea is to get people to read your comment. Don't use 10 words when one will do the job.

It's OK to have a difference of opinion but keep it civil. I have used the "delete" feature on myself at times.

The ANONYMOUS feature for comments seems to be the most user friendly. People have commented they have difficulty with the other methods of posting comments.