June 10, 2008

 

TO:     Honorable Members, Budget Conference Committee

RE:      May Revise proposal--$65 million in fees from Bureau of Automotive Repair
             gross polluter programs as “loan” to the General Fund

 

“In 2010, about 30% of vehicles [being driven in California]
will be at least 13 years old and older. Those vehicles account
for 25% of miles driven by cars, but they account for 75% of the car pollution.”                                            
– California Air Resources Board 1

 

On behalf of the organizations listed above, we urge the Conferees to reject the
May Revise proposal to divert $65 million in funds earmarked for the Bureau of Automotive
Repair for the purpose of repairing and/or retiring gross polluter vehicles that fail to pass
smog.  This raid on the BAR’s funds comes on top of earlier raids totaling at least $114 million
that have never been repaid.

Air pollution is a serious problem for California. Nearly 90% of Californians live in
areas that have unhealthy air at times. Children exposed to unhealthful levels of ozone,
or smog, suffer decreased lung function growth and increased asthma. Vehicle-related
pollution also contributes significantly to higher incidences of heart attacks, strokes,
and other life-threatening conditions, and is a major factor in global warming.

The Governor’s  proposal would seriously harm our environment and adversely
impact public health. It would also hamper the progress being made to implement AB 32
and call into question California’s commitment to addressing global warming and cleaning our air.

Conflicts with California’s Policies

In his 2004 Action Plan for California’s Environment, Governor Schwarzenegger
highlighted the need to address the problem of high-polluting vehicles, pledging
to “expand innovative market-based mechanisms such as ‘scrappage’ systems.”
He promised that California “will lead by example – identifying and permanently
retiring those heavily used vehicles that do the greatest harm to our air quality.”

Similarly, the Legislature has recognized that a small percentage of older light-duty
vehicles contribute disproportionately to the on-road emissions inventory, and that retirement
programs would provide “equivalent or superior environmental benefits when compared to
existing controls at a lower cost to the citizens of California than traditional emission control
requirements.” (Health & Safety Code § 44100 et. seq.)

Conflicts with the Air Resource Board’s Findings

In July, 2004, the Air Resources Board (ARB) submitted the attached report to
the Legislature, as required by Health and Safety Code 44104.5 (c).  Among the ARB’s findings:

• Older vehicles contribute a disproportionate amount of air pollution.
  Because new cars are extraordinarily low-emitting, older cars contribute a significant
  portion of emissions from cars. For example, in 2010, about 30 percent of cars will be
  13 years old and older. These cars account for 25 percent of the miles driven by cars,
  but they are responsible for 75 percent of the pollution from cars.

• A large-scale scrap program is still a viable, cost-effective clean air strategy today.
  In fact, older vehicles will continue to be a significant and increasing portion of the total
  motor vehicle emissions problem, and a voluntary scrap program is one of the few available methods of obtaining emissions benefits from these vehicles.

• Scrap is an important component of California’s clean air program.
  California’s current clean air plan, known as the State Implementation Plan (SIP),
  acknowledges the need to continue pursuing funding for future car scrap programs.

• Enhancing voluntary scrap programs would clean the air.
  California should build on our existing voluntary scrap programs to obtain the maximum
  possible clean air benefits….A program of $35 million per year for three years would provide
  reductions of 7-10 tons per day of smog-forming pollutants.

While we realize that the current budget environment necessitates making extremely
hard choices, we believe that diversion of the funds is not a good answer to the current fiscal
crisis. California simply cannot afford to turn its back on one of the most cost-effective ways
to remove gross polluters from our highways.

Thank you for your consideration of our views. Should you or your staff wish to discuss
this further, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bonnie Holmes-Gen
Senior Policy Director
American Lung Association of California
1029 J Street, Suite 450
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-554-5864, ext. 222

 

V. John White
Executive Director
Clean Power Campaign
1100 11^th Street, Suite 311
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-442-7785

 

Tim Carmichael
Senior Policy Director
Coalition for Clean Air
1107 9^th Street, Suite 620
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-498-1560

 

Rosemary Shahan
President
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
1303 J Street, Suite 270
Sacramento, CA 95814
530-759-9440

 

Kathryn Phillips
Manager, California Clean Air for Life Campaign
Environmental Defense Fund
|1107 9^th Street, Suite 540
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-492-7072

 

Bill Magavern
Director
Sierra Club California
801 K Street, Suite 2700
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-557-1100, ext. 102

 

Dan Kalb
California Policy Director
Union of Concerned Scientists
West Coast Office
2397 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704
510-809-1569

 

Cc:      Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

            California State Legislature

            Mary Nichols, Director, California Air Resources Board

 

Attachments:

Accelerated Light-Duty Vehicle Retirement Program, Report to the California Legislature,
California Air Resources Board, July, 2004

"State making move on funds; Loans called danger to programs that protect public,"
Sacramento Bee, Sunday, June 8, 2008.