Bimmerfest BMW banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Bimmerfest Founder
Joined
·
15,265 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
AB 1058, sponsored by Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, is a vague piece of legislation sponsored by an environmental group called the Bluewater Network. AB 1058 would require the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to create regulations to achieve the "maximum feasible, cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gases" emitted by cars and light trucks in California.

AB 1058 provides no detail as to how CARB would achieve maximum reductions, but a March, 2002, staff report from CARB and the California Energy Commission provides extensive details on the various options for reducing carbon dioxide that are being considered actively, including:

* Raising fees (up to $3500) and taxes on sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans in an attempt to discourage consumers from purchasing those vehicles
* Imposing a tax of two cents for every vehicle mile traveled
* Imposing a tax of fifty cents per gallon on gasoline

Such drastic measures, which will be imposed by unelected bureaucrats, will be bad for the economy, our business, the business of our dealers and, most significantly, our customers.

How you can help

AB 1058 is moving very quickly through the California senate. We need your support and we need it now. Here's what you can do:

1. Contact Governor Gray Davis. The best thing you can do is to call or write Governor Davis and express your concerns about AB1058, including the fact that AB1058 will severely limit consumer choice and that it will have an extremely negative impact on the California economy. Tell him in your own words that this proposed law is bad public policy, and ask him to veto the bill when it comes before him in the near future.

Governor Gray Davis
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916/445-2841
Fax: 916/445-4633
Email: [email protected]

2. Call a toll-free number set up by the coalition to defeat AB1058 and express your concerns about the bill to --the Governor's office. That toll-free number is 1-800-988-2588.

3. Visit the website of the coalition organized to defeat AB1058, www.wedrive.org <http://www.wedrive.org>. There you will find information about the bill and its potential impact on California. The site also includes links to the government studies that suggest the tax and fee increases.


Regards,

Vic Doolan
Premier Automotive Group
 

·
•••••••
Joined
·
16,118 Posts
Sorry Jon, to me, it sounds reasonable, with the exception of the $.50 gas tax, which would never make it through anyway.

Those of us who pollute more than others should be accountable... I don't want to ban anything, but lets be fair. It's in this way that market forces can be brought to bear upon the environmental issues at hand -- and that will be a good thing for everyone, despite some initial pain.
 

·
Bimmerfest Founder
Joined
·
15,265 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Plaz said:
Sorry Jon, to me, it sounds reasonable...
I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the legislation personally, just sharing the message...

:dunno:
 

·
King of Rear Clunks
Joined
·
12,903 Posts
Jon Shafer said:

* Raising fees (up to $3500) and taxes on sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans in an attempt to discourage consumers from purchasing those vehicles
* Imposing a tax of two cents for every vehicle mile traveled
* Imposing a tax of fifty cents per gallon on gasoline
I heard bits and pieces of this on the news over the weekend. As much as I hate the way the bureaucrats are going about this, unfortunately, its not something I can be totally against.

1. IIRC, SUVs at least in California, fall under the same registration and taxes as passenger cars, which I believe are less than for trucks.

2. I don't see how this is going to be enforced.

3. this isn't as huge an increase as it sounds, since California's current tax on gas is something like 20c for excise tax and the usual state sales tax (like 14c on 91c at what I'm paying now).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
I am going to read the whole legislation before I made up my mind.

I am quite happy with the way the California regulations have worked out. People like to scare me with the word bureaucrat. I would rather trust a public bureaucrat than an accountant from a car company.

Without California's leadership, air pollution in this country would be much higher today. Anyone gone to big cities like Bangkok, Jakarta, Mexico City? Los Angeles is quite clean in comparison.

So... I'll read the whole thing before passing judgment.
 

·
King of Rear Clunks
Joined
·
12,903 Posts
I agree that a lot has been done to clean up the air here in LA. In grade school, I remember many days when we weren't allowed to go outside for recess because of Stage I smog alerts. I don't think we've had a Stage I alert in almost a decade.

OTOH, I think LA took back the title of Smoggiest City in the US this year from Houston or someplace.
 

·
TMS
Joined
·
9,288 Posts
Re: Re: An email message I just received from Mr. Vic Doolan (former Pres., BMWNA)

Originally posted by Kaz
1. IIRC, SUVs at least in California, fall under the same registration and taxes as passenger cars, which I believe are less than for trucks.
My understanding is that SUV's and minivans are governed by the same standards as light trucks. These cover crashworthiness and emmissions and are much more relaxed than those dealing with passenger cars. FWIW, I'm selling my smallish SUV (4Runner) in favor of a 330Ci. The ULEV status and good mileage numbers for the Bimmer were factors in my decision.

I think I read something recently about this proposed legislation adding CO2 and other naturally occuring gases to the California emission requirements. That is definitely not desirable for anyone who drives in this state. Unfortunately, the Federal government seems unwilling to do anything except appease certain interests (big oil, Detroit, unions) who have a stake in the status quo. I'm sure it's frustration with the impasse at the Federal level that is behind this legislation.

However, the answer is not to be found in California doing its own thing. Thanks for reminding us Jon, and providing the Gov's email addy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
Re: Re: An email message I just received from Mr. Vic Doolan (former Pres., BMWNA)

Kaz said:


2. I don't see how this is going to be enforced.
Simple. They record the mileage of your vehicle when you renew your registration/inspection/emmissions sticker. Subtract the number of miles recorded the last time you renewed it, and charge you $0.02 for each mile in the difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
This is the way the legislation is today. Note that I only attached the comment from the California Legislature's own analysts.

NOTE: It requires the California State Air Resources Board to adopt by 2005 for vehicles produced beginning 2009.

BILL NUMBER: AB 1058 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 1, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 17, 2002
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 1, 2002
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 31, 2001
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 25, 2001

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Pavley
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Simitian)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Aroner , Chu, Cohn,
Firebaugh, Frommer, Jackson, Koretz, Nation, and Shelley
Kehoe, Koretz, Longville, Nation, Shelley, and
Strom-Martin )
(Coauthors: Senators Escutia, Kuehl, Perata, and
Romero)

FEBRUARY 23, 2001

An act to amend Section 42823 of, and to add Section 43018.5 to,
the Health and Safety Code, relating to air quality.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 1058, as amended, Pavley. Vehicular emissions: greenhouse
gases.
Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board to endeavor to achieve the maximum degree of emission reduction possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to accomplish the attainment of the state standards at the earliest practicable date.
This bill would require the state board to develop and adopt, by
January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve the maximum feasible
reduction of greenhouse gasses, gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and any other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the
state.
The bill would limit the application of those regulations to motor vehicles manufactured in the 2009 model year, or any model year thereafter, and would prohibit those regulations from taking effect prior to January 1, 2006.
The bill would require the regulations to provide flexibility, to
the maximum extent feasible, in the means by which a person may comply with those regulations, including, but not limited to,
authorization for a person to use alternative methods of compliance with the regulations. The bill would prohibit the state board from imposing a mandatory trip reduction measure or land use restriction in providing that compliance flexibility. The bill
would require the state board to ensure that any alternative methods of compliance achieve equivalent or greater reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases as the regulations. The bill would also require the state board to conduct public hearings regarding the regulations in specified communities with the most significant exposure to air contaminants. The bill would also require the state board to grant emission reduction credits for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions prior to the operative date of the regulations. The bill would require the California Climate Action Registry, in consultation with the state board, to adopt procedures and protocols for the reporting and certification of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources for use by the state board in granting the emission reduction credits. The bill would authorize the state board to elect
not to adopt a standard for a greenhouse gas, if the state board
determines that the federal government has adopted a standard
regulating that greenhouse gas, and the state board makes specified findings related to the similarity of the federal standard. The bill would also require the state board, by January 1, 2005, to provide a report to the Legislature on the contents of those regulations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
I don't see anywhere in the legislation what the letter said, that is:

* Raising fees (up to $3500) and taxes on sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans in an attempt to discourage consumers from purchasing those vehicles
* Imposing a tax of two cents for every vehicle mile traveled
* Imposing a tax of fifty cents per gallon on gasoline

No offense Jon, but I think the automobile manufacturers are over exaggerating. There may be discussion in the air resource board about this, but it has nothing to do with the legislation. I feel a bit cheated here.
 

·
Double Bimmers
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
DaveN323i said:
I don't see anywhere in the legislation what the letter said, that is:

* Raising fees (up to $3500) and taxes on sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans in an attempt to discourage consumers from purchasing those vehicles
* Imposing a tax of two cents for every vehicle mile traveled
* Imposing a tax of fifty cents per gallon on gasoline

No offense Jon, but I think the automobile manufacturers are over exaggerating. There may be discussion in the air resource board about this, but it has nothing to do with the legislation. I feel a bit cheated here.
BMW and other's played that same BS game against the CAFE legislation. I have not yet forgiven them for lobbying against CAFE!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
CD-55 said:


BMW and other's played that same BS game against the CAFE legislation. I have not yet forgiven them for lobbying against CAFE!
Yes. I am so disappointed now. THIS letter is so misleading. WHAT (I don't shout usually) Vic Doolan is trying to do (and I think all the manufacturers want) is to kill outright the legislation using scare tactics.

I am so ANGRY now that I am logging off and taking a walk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Don't believe the hype

The actual bill doesn't say anything about taxes or gas prices. It requires the air resources board to develop new standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The ad campaign you may have heard on the radio, which seems to be the basis of that letter, is financed by the california motor car dealers association.

One way to burn less fuel is to build lighter vehicles. That impacts SUVs and minivans, etc.

Contrary to the ad campaign, the bill says SUVS and the like will NOT be targeted. The tax claims come from an old draft report on reducing statewide petroleum consumption.

The bill's author says the ad campaign isn't truthful and that "it has nothing to do with the air resources board nor does it have the authoritiy to do anything mentioned in those ads."

Just the threat of taking away mini vans, suv's and trucks, real or not, has made this one of the most controversial bills in some time. It looks as if it will be up for a final vote Thursday.

Whether it passes depends on whether the lawmakers have read the actual bill or get their info from the ad campaign. I don't think it's anything to worry your pretty little heads about.
 

·
zeddy
Joined
·
7,668 Posts
Sorry Jon, I fully support items one and three.

In fact, I'd like to see gasoline cost even more than an additional 50 cents.

Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
DaveN323i said:
I don't see anywhere in the legislation what the letter said, that is:

* Raising fees (up to $3500) and taxes on sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans in an attempt to discourage consumers from purchasing those vehicles
* Imposing a tax of two cents for every vehicle mile traveled
* Imposing a tax of fifty cents per gallon on gasoline
Actually, the letter states that those proposals were not from the legislation but from a March, 2002, staff report from CARB and the California Energy Commission

I am all for less SUVs on the road. Tax the hell out of them and make 'em pay, I say.

An additional fifty cents a gallon is a lot, but its still cheaper than Europe.

A tax on every mile driven just doesn't seem right though. It would impose a tax on people with electric cars which seems to go against the purpose of the legislation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
pod13 said:


Actually, the letter states that those proposals were not from the legislation but from a March, 2002, staff report from CARB and the California Energy Commission

I am all for less SUVs on the road. Tax the hell out of them and make 'em pay, I say.

An additional fifty cents a gallon is a lot, but its still cheaper than Europe.

A tax on every mile driven just doesn't seem right though. It would impose a tax on people with electric cars which seems to go against the purpose of the legislation.
1) SUV's today, M3's tomorrow. The notion that it's alright to unfairly tax those whop choose to do things you don't care for is unfair and just plain asinine. What happens when some of these green freaks decide that them sporty German cars just aren't as green as a Geo Metro? Then it's your turn. Also, those who drive SUV's already pay more taxes. Over $0.40 of each gallon of gas is tax (state/federal). Therefore vehicles with poor gas mileage will be taxed at a higher rate per mile than more efficient vehicles. Insurance rates are also proportional to their safety rates so please no argument about SUV death traps.

2) "F" Europe. They are basically a bunch of socialist countries who have relied on the USA to protect them for the last century thereby allowing them to experiment with their failed social programs. Not to mention the fact that there's a tad more road here in the USA and people live in suburbs a lot more here in USA than in Europe. (By the way, I am a European immigrant to the USA so please no "arrogant American" flames). The fact that energy is cheaper here in America is one of the reasons our economy has always been at the head of the class.

3)After they track down how many miles you drive, maybe they can start keeping track of how much you drink, how much you eat, and how often you have sex. This is idea is socialism at its best. Please, protect me from myself.


And I am very happy that CAFE got shot down. A freaken Civic doesn't get 40 mpg and they expect an SUV to get that. We damn well now an M5 won't get it (worse mpg than most SUV's). Where is this magical research that the greenies claim the car companies are hiding keeping the mpg's low and willfully polluting the planet?

Yes, there is a place for government protection but it is not to protect us from the straw man that is "the dirty, filthy, SUV and the arrogant drivers who can't even drive stick and don't need a big assed truck for their kids. They don't even know that there's a lever for the 4WD." I sure as hell don't think we should leave it up to TD (no offense) to decide what one should drive. I'm sure he doesn't want the soccer mom committee deciding what he drives.

EOD
 

·
Double Bimmers
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
dasWolf said:

And I am very happy that CAFE got shot down. A freaken Civic doesn't get 40 mpg and they expect an SUV to get that. We damn well now an M5 won't get it (worse mpg than most SUV's). Where is this magical research that the greenies claim the car companies are hiding keeping the mpg's low and willfully polluting the planet?

EOD
The purpose of CAFÉ was to reduce the rate of which we are INCREASING our RATE of consuming fossil fuels. The reason for doing so is to <u>reduce our dependence on foreign oil.</u> I am all for reducing our dependence from countries such as: Saudi Arabia (double-talking terrorist sympathizers), Iran, and Iraq. To think otherwise would be unAmerican.

BTW, some CIVICs get over 50MPG.
 

·
•••••••
Joined
·
16,118 Posts
dasWolf said:
This is idea is socialism at its best. Please, protect me from myself.
While I am generally a proponent of libertarian philosophy, and generally agree with this type of outlook on most issues, I must differ on this one.

We NEED to adapt our free market forces to encourage and accelerate our move away from dependence on fossil fuels, for our own long-term survival. The only way I can see that happening is with government intervention, which will require strong leadership in order to build a public consensus.

Unfortunately, I see neither the leadership nor the consensus coming anytime soon, and that scares the shit out of me. By the time we get it, I fear it may be too late.

Yes, we can sit around and pick apart various proposals through cynical eyes, and find tremendous faults with them all. Meanwhile, we do nothing substantial to transition our society and economy away from an inherently self-destructive path.

As JFK once said, "When all is said and done, a lot more will be said than done." And that just may be our peril. :(
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top