Editorial: EPA, emissions changes have to make sense | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Editorial: EPA, emissions changes have to make sense

1294653_web1_gtr-cmns-Servidio-060919

Pennsylvania doesn’t have the same earthquake building code requirements as California.

The state doesn’t demand you inspect your home for dinosaurs before you sell it.

It makes sense that things that aren’t a problem aren’t regulated. Even if there was an earthquake in Central Pennsylvania this week, it’s not the kind of thing that swallowed homes and broke bridges. No special building standards required.

So it makes perfect sense that the Legislature has proposed eliminating vehicle emissions testing in more counties.

There was a reason to monitor and lower the filth belched out by cars and trucks when the rules were passed, but now all it does is take money away from vehicle owners. The money doesn’t even go to the state, but just covers the cost of the test itself. The garages that perform it, however, have to invest money in expensive, specialized equipment.

For all of that, only 4% of vehicles fail a test that is only administered to those least likely to fail. Older vehicles and those that use diesel are exempt. It’s already not required in 42 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties.

On Wednesday, the Senate Transportation Committee passed a bill that would remove counties — including Westmoreland — that meet or exceed air quality and allow testing only every two years for other counties.

That makes sense. If the air quality is good, why keep making people pay to test newer cars that pose less problem?

What is more concerning that there are several things happening at the state and national level at the same time for the same reason that might individually make sense but together could be a problem.

Like the summer gas requirement. The more expensive, lower-polluting blend has been waived until July 1 because of a damaged pipeline, but Allegheny County is no longer required by the state and the Environmental Protection Agency to use the pricier fuel. A final decision on removing it is pending.

The reason for the change? Newer cars cause less pollution. The regulation isn’t necessary.

But last year, the federal government was talking about rolling back emissions standards for new cars, saying they were too high. This month, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board voted to review the science on the agency’s recommendations.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the math there doesn’t add up to something good. We can’t say the cars don’t need inspection because they are better and the gas doesn’t need to be as good because the cars are more efficient and then take away the rules that make the better, efficient cars.

That just doesn’t make sense.

Categories: Opinion | Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.