(click on ads for more details)

The Burden of Proof on VET Testing

by Theresa Fritz Camoriano

I have been reading articles on both sides of the Vehicle Emissions Testing (VET) debate and find it interesting that people cite the same statistics as support for opposite positions on the issue.  For example, those opposed to the VET say that, since over 90% of the vehicles pass the test, the test doesn’t make any difference and should be abandoned, while those in favor of the VET say that, since over 90% of the vehicles pass, it proves the VET is doing its job.  Since my formal training is not in politics but rather in law and engineering, I prefer to take a practical approach to analyzing the issue and believe the voters should demand that our elected officials do the same.

First, before legislators vote to establish or maintain any program that taxes or restricts the freedom of the people, they should be required to meet the burden of proving that the taxes or restrictions of freedom are necessary.  Any politician who votes to restrict our freedoms without meeting such a burden of proof should be very concerned about keeping his job, because such an action shows an extreme lack of respect for the citizens.

In the case of the VET, before voting to maintain the program, legislators should demand proof that the VET program is necessary  to maintain the air at an acceptable level of cleanliness.  That means, first, establishing what level of cleanliness is acceptable, second, determining the sources of unacceptable pollution, and, third, determining the most cost efficient and least burdensome way of eliminating the unacceptable pollution.  Only after making those determinations can anyone even begin to prove the need for or benefits of any kind of program.  Such an analysis has not been presented in the case of the VET program in Kentucky.

Legislators should demand to know what type of and how much pollution the VET program reduces, at what cost, and then compare the these results with other options, including the option of doing nothing.  In the case of the VET, since the state has so much hard test data, we should use it (and not use computer modeling) to establish the necessary evidence.  For the 10% of cars that fail the test each year, how much less do they pollute when they come back to be tested a second time, and, based on the previous year’s mileage on the cars compared with the current year’s mileage, how much pollution was eliminated due to the cleaner operation of the cars?  Also, considering the average number of miles driven to the VET and the time spent in line with the engine running for all cars that take the test, given the test results of each car, the amount of pollution that was created by driving the cars to the VET can be determined.  By calculating the pollution saved by the few cars that failed the test the first time and improved upon retesting, and subtracting the additional pollution created by all cars having to make an extra trip to take the test, we will have a pretty reliable number for the reduction (or increase) in pollution due to the VET.  For the cost of the testing, we must count not only the dollar cost of the test but also include the lost time of the car owners at the average wage rate in the area that was required to take the cars to the VET to be tested.  Again, this should be a relatively simple matter to determine.  No computer models or voodoo is required – just plain factual data.  Then, once that data is furnished, we should be able to compare it with similar data for other options that could be used to reduce pollution.  No legislator should vote to curtail our liberty or take our money without having that plain data and without making it available to the voters.

If the data supports the VET, then the legislators should be pleased to provide the data to us.  If it does not support the VET, then the legislators should vote against the program.  This is not rocket science – it’s pretty simple.  And it is very revealing that this data has not been presented, despite the fact that it is readily available to the local authorities.

Unfortunately, our politicians frequently take just the opposite approach.  Instead of requiring somebody to meet a burden of proof that the VET or any other curtailment of our freedom is necessary, our politicians only need to hear some verbal assurance from Art Williams (or some other biased source) that the program is beneficial in order to vote to impose burdens on the public.  None of us, at any point along the political spectrum, should be willing to allow our freedoms to be taken away on the basis of verbal promises and “feel good” talk.  We should demand the facts, and we should demand that our elected officials present the facts to us before voting to reduce our freedom. 

Furthermore, any new program that is going to be established should also include a mechanism to measure its success.  If the program does not include a method to measure the effectiveness of the program, our legislators should refuse to vote for it.

If we could achieve greater reduction in air pollution at a lower cost in some other manner than the VET, we should all recognize that it is foolish to waste our resources on the VET.  Or, if we find that the VET achieves a miniscule amount of pollution per dollar spent or even creates more pollution than it prevents, then we know that the program should be discontinued.  But anyone who votes to continue burdening the public simply on the basis of a verbal assurance from a biased source, without being able to show the public a hard-number analysis on which to base his vote, ought to be very worried about being re-elected the next time around.