Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 15:55:00 -0500
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: Bostig, CARB EO,
the reasons why not WAS: [WetWesties] Washington state...changes
in vehicle licensing rules..
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinN30TfVAyeJa+PfO0p_w-jBCYgPd8j0yMHmDYq@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Well that's just it. I should have backed up with a better conclusion.
I believe that the CARB and current policy is the best bang for the buck
when it comes to mobile source emissions.
Much of this is simply the reality that they are actually dealing with the
unknown, and are learning as they go, leaning to
fairly substantial misunderstandings/estimations from inception of the clean
air act all the way through to the late 90's after they had some enhanced
I/M testing areas functioning. Bottom line seems to be that they've figured
out that they can test all they want at tailpipes, but bang for the
buck, focusing on fleet turnover is better for total emissions than trying
to fight tooth and nail at the individual level. The high emitters are the
real culprits, with something like 10% of the fleet causing 50%+ of the
emissions. The new trend is to spend to identify, plan, and to remove them,
at the expense of more rigorous testing of the fleet at large.
Here in Massachusetts, which was trying to follow CA as part of the 5 that
always do when it comes to emissions, they were using I/M 240 rolling road
(dyno) testing like many enhanced I/M programs. They stumbled across the
reality that the rolling road dyno testing system + enforced repairs for
high emitters was corruptible and ineffective. Most of it had to do with
problems with shops. For starters it caused a backlash from test stations in
forcing a purchase of a 30k dyno... then on top of that, once they had the
enhanced I/M testing capability in place they realized that the actual
estimation models (MOBILE/Federal and EMFAC/CARB) themselves were flawed.
So from all sides they found failure. They overestimated badly the emissions
reductions that could be had which of course means right out of the gate it
was a problem. Add on top of that, that on the flip side... even once a high
emitter was identified, and repairs were made, the range of the life of the
repairs was poor or unknown, and that even worse the frequency of poor,
fraudulent, pretest and incomplete repairs was much higher than they
estimated as well. They realized that ultimately they could not accomplish
the enforcement goals they were after and had to refactor the system.
So what we have now is, no emissions testing for newer vehicles at all, just
plugin OBDII mode 6 and DTC checks. They DUMPED tailpipe testing completely
for 96+. Sounds insane, but here in MA the proportion of high emitters is
lower than in CA because the cars rot off the road anyhow and along with
lower grade emissions testing, safety/rust can pull them out of the fleet...
and avoid the repair/testing failures completely by looking at something
much easier/less resource intensive but likely even more effective (it
should start to sound like the shakken in Japan that is the source of all
the "JDM" parts you see on the market here... because it is).
The other thing that's happening is on-road testing/drive by testing.
Colorado folks are seeing this starting to proliferate. This should help
with removing some of the error of the station based testing/repair debacle,
but again, nobody knows for sure it's just a best guess that will be
studied.
CA has an extreme case of the problem, and is the worst case scenario, the
oldest fleet/high emitters + failed existing system + bad estimates +
neighboring state sources + no money. So they are taking rather drastic
measures to force fleet overturn with the best bang for the buck. I *think*
they are doing the right thing, even though it screws many of us here.
Jim Akiba
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Don Hanson <dhanson928@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Jake de Villiers <
> crescentbeachguitar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Great essay Jim, as usual!
> >
> > I'm happy to be living in BC where tailpipe emissions are what matter,
> > rather than the Republic of California where governmental (emphasis on
> > 'mental') decree holds sway.
> >
> > It absolutely amazes me that it is okay to drive an inefficient WBX but
> not
> > okay to replace it with a newer and much more efficient 2.5 Subaru or 2.0
> > Ford Zetec engine.
> >
> > Jake
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Jim Akiba <syncrolist@bostig.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
>
> Yes, the actual amount of emissions does seem like the most important
> thing for helping the air quality. But it seems that California isn't
> really that concerned with simple stuff like that with many of their regs.
>
> The amazing thing is that the citizens 'buy into it' and go along with
> really nutty rules and regulations without a question... but no politics on
> this list is the rule so ....shhhhh!
>
> Don Hanson
>
| 
