Editor’s note: This commentary is by Casey Jennings, a forester who divides his time between Rutland and Lunenburg.
[I] am thankful to the Vermont Senate for passing S.84 to exempt vehicles older than 10 years from the onboard diagnostics test as part of the annual vehicle inspection. I hope that the House will concur and Gov. Phil Scott will allow this bill to become law.
This bill will save countless lower-income Vermonters from financial ruin and perhaps worse. Older vehicles are generally owned by those with the least ability to afford the purchase price of a new or newer vehicle. Working class individuals and retirees on fixed incomes frequently have incomes too low to run out and purchase a new vehicle because the state has failed their vehicle during its inspection.
We all know the issue of affordability in Vermont is a frequent topic of discussion these days. Wages are often not at livable levels and housing costs are high. Most of Vermont is a very rural state and most people must own a vehicle to commute to work. The loss of a vehicle can directly lead to a loss of a job for a worker and all that can come from that potentially including homelessness, and for an elderly retiree a harmful loss of mobility, impacting access to such things as shopping or medical care.
For many of these Vermonters the only affordable vehicle is an older vehicle. We all know new vehicles are increasingly higher priced and many people may not be able to borrow for them. It is entirely immoral in my view for the state to mandate by default, via failing inspections due to minor issues, that these people give up their only means of transportation.
I have been attempting for the previous week to help my elderly father get his car inspected in Rutland. His car is a 12-year-old Volkswagen Jetta. It might not be an impressive car but it gets him around town with my mother for groceries and to whatever appointments my parents may have. It is not driven much overall but it is a necessity for them. Recently the ignition switch had to be replaced. In the process of replacing this, the OBD (onboard diagnostic) system’s memory was wiped out. This leaves the OBD systems “not ready.” The only remedy for that is to drive the car. All systems are now, as I write this, ready except the secondary air system monitor.
Based on my research online, others have experienced significant trouble getting this system to run its test and be ready. It could require as many as thousand miles of driving before it decides to be ready. A VW dealer offered little help except the advice of driving it more. I have burned multiple tanks of gas going through the specified driving cycles in my unsuccessful efforts to get this vehicle ready for the OBD check. This is not reducing emissions. This is increasing emissions. I have burned as much gas in a week in this car as it normally will consume in a couple months of normal use.
I was under the impression that one or two systems can be not ready and it will pass. The DMV and our mechanic say otherwise in spite of a publication from the state saying two systems can be not ready. All systems must be ready. Therefore, if the car is not ready when the sticker expires, my parents lose legal use of their vehicle. They are in no financial shape to purchase a newer vehicle. A perfectly good, functional vehicle that would have served their needs will be worthless except as scrap.
The VTDigger reported on Feb. 8 (“Senate puts affordability before environment with emissions testing exemption“) that Vermont is required to conduct emissions testing because it is part of the area in the Northeast designated as having ozone pollution problems caused by sources of pollution upwind of us. The EPA states that those states included as part of the Nonattainment and Ozone Transport Zone must “submit a SIP and install a certain level of controls for the pollutants that form ozone, even if they meet the ozone standards.” This simply doesn’t pass the straight-face test. Our pollution problems stem primarily from states west of us, whose pollution follows the prevailing wind direction towards us. Yet we must suffer through the greater financial burden associated with compliance? This is illogical. The states that are the source for the pollution should be the ones implementing controls.
The levels of ozone pollution in Vermont are not, in my view, all that significant. If one looks at a chart produced by the EPA (available here) showing the number days by state in which the ozone pollution levels exceeded standards, Vermont for the years 2016 through 2018 had a single day each year in which the standards were exceeded. In 2014 and 2015 not a single day was recorded in which the levels exceeded standards. Compare these figures with those of Connecticut with 23 days exceeding standards in 2018 or with Massachusetts with 12 days exceeding standards. Vermont’s problems with ozone pollution are quite limited compared to other states. Vermont’s limited ozone issues are no excuse for an economic war being waged on lower-income Vermonters via the annual vehicle inspection.
I am a dedicated conservationist who has worked on public and private lands, in furtherance of my conservation oriented goals, since obtaining a master’s degree in forestry in 2015. I want clean air. But zeal for the environment must be tempered with the reality of how a law may impact the most vulnerable of our society. It’s easy for the financially well-to-do to say we must have these strict OBD checks to combat emissions. It’s not easy for people already on the edge financially to face complete financial ruin or worse as their ability to move about and function in society is taken from them by the state’s actions.
