| For Immediate Release | For more information contact: |
| March 26, 1999 | Eric Lochen (651-296-9895) |
It is the hope of every citizen that when it comes to government, they will do their best to make educated decisions about who they elect to office. Their hope for the people that they elect are that these individuals will inherit that good judgement and act in the best interest of the people. However, occasionally legislators will make mistakes and sign a bill into law that just doesn't make sense. Or perhaps even worse, this bill just doesn't accomplish what it sets out to accomplish.
A few years ago, members of the legislature made a mistake. They did all the research, held numerous meetings and even talked to a few experts. When all was said and done, they signed into law a bill that was designed to improve the air quality of the metropolitan area. Unfortunately, all this bill ended up accomplishing was depleting hard-working Minnesotans of their hard earned dollars. At least four other states have repealed their mandatory motor vehicle emission control equipment inspection programs and legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives to eliminate the vehicle emissions testing that is a source of frustration for many metro area residents.
Under the present law, cars older than five years are mandated to have their emissions checked annually. If a car does not pass a test, it is given a waiver for a year if the costs of repairs exceeds the "repair cost limit" (approximately $200). Many cars five years and older easily pass the test. However, continuing to drive a car that has failed an emissions test and will also cost the owner a large sum of money is faulty legislation at best.
Researchers from the University of Minnesota conducted an actual field study of the air with air pollution monitors over seven years. They discovered that even though it was estimated that a 25% to 30% pollution improvement would occur because of the inspection program, the change was hardly noticeable. The field study showed that carbon monoxide (CO) levels decreased steadily from 1987 (when the study began) and did not indicate a significant change in levels after the program began in 1991. Incidentally, the Twin Cities area has not violated EPA standards of CO levels since that year. It seems as though automobile technology and possibly cleaner gas should be given most of the credit for decrease of CO levels. And, based on 1995 and 1996 monitoring of CO levels, it appears that Minnesota is likely to meet those standards for at least the next 15 years.
The simple truth of the matter is that this program has not produced measurable results and has been nothing but a bureaucratic mess for citizens in the metro area. We clearly have a handle on the problem and there is no further need to extract money from citizens' pockets. It is my hope that as this legislative session continues, we can continue to take steps towards effective and responsible lawmaking.
-30-