The great screwing of the metro motorist

Across metro Atlanta, cars are failing their emissions tests in record numbers. Drivers are cursing. And air quality experts are doubting claims that the new emissions test will help clean up Atlanta's air.

In fact, says Doug Lawson, a scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, "I can tell you with absolute certainty that Atlanta's air will get worse because of OBD II testing."

OBD II stands for on-board diagnostics. It refers to the new test that went into effect May 1 in 13 metro Atlanta counties. Unlike the previous test, which took a reading from your car's tailpipe (and is still used in 1995 model year vehicles and older), the OBD test hooks up to your car's "on-board" computer and takes a reading from the computer's memory.

As such, the test doesn't directly test the fumes that come out of your tailpipe, but instead trusts the computer to give an accurate assessment of the car's emissions. It's kind of like turning on CNN to see what the weather's like outside your window.

That reliance on a middleman has introduced a whole new set of complications to emissions testing, and contributed to a dramatic spike in failures. Monthly failure rates, as reported last month by CL, are now four times what they were a year earlier when the old tailpipe test was used, according to Georgia Environmental Protection Division data. For instance, in August 2001, about 2,000 cars failed the tailpipe test. But this August, after the introduction of the new test, the failure rate soared to more than 9,000 cars.

Metro Atlanta drivers, who need emission certificates to renew their tags, are then forced to pay for often expensive repairs to pass the test — repairs whose benefits are dubious at best and do more harm than good.

The state's goal is a noble one: to keep pollution levels down. Atlanta's chronically polluted air has resulted in severe penalties from Washington, most notably a late '90s freeze of federal highway funds. State officials are willing to do almost anything to prevent that from happening again, including adopting the federal Environmental Protection Agency's suggestions on testing cars' emissions. But, even before being adopted in Georgia, the EPA-approved test had garnered widespread criticism.

Last year, Lawson co-authored a National Research Council report commissioned by Congress that strongly criticized OBD II. Currently, under the new rules, a mechanic is required to fail your car's emissions test if your "check engine" light is on. Why? Because that light is designed to go on only when your car's emissions are at 1.5 times the levels they're supposed to be.

But Lawson questions whether that light works as it's supposed to. In his studies, 70 percent of the cars with a check engine light on actually had emissions within acceptable standards.

Such statistics may indicate that clean cars can fail the test, while polluting cars can pass. "The check engine light is proving to be ineffective in detecting emission problems," Lawson says.

What's more, OBD II casts such a wide net that it's catching the wrong fish. Cars that are "marginal emitters" — those whose emissions are just above the threshold — are required to go through repairs similar to those for other failed vehicles. Those repairs often result in "only a small reduction in overall emissions ... or, in some cases, an increase in emissions after repairs."

Meanwhile, a mere 10 percent of all vehicles — the clunkers — is responsible for 50 percent of the pollution. The fact that many of those cars are owned by low-income residents who are then forced to shell out for repairs — a regressive tax if ever there was one — is blissfully ignored by state and federal policymakers.

The report concludes that emissions testing "programs have been less effective than anticipated." It goes on to advise states to "expect lower emissions-reduction benefits from [emissions] programs."

The gloomy predictions of the National Research Council report run counter to the EPA's expectations for the test. In regulations issued last year, the EPA said it expected failure rates to climb only zero to 4 percent. But, in Georgia at least, monthly failure rates have jumped by as much as 400 percent.

Despite Lawson's studies, the EPA has done very little to improve the test. In the report, the committee asked the EPA to employ independent researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of OBD. "They haven't done what the committee asked," Lawson said. "And that's incredibly frustrating as a scientist and as a taxpayer when the data is so clear."

The EPA defends the test with a simple declaration: It's an "accurate evaluation of a car's emission control system," says Edward Gardetto, an author of many OBD studies for the EPA. But he bases his evidence on studies that Lawson and other critics have refuted.

Criticism isn't limited to Lawson. Donald Stedman, a professor at the University of Denver who reviewed the National Research Council report, calls the new test "very flawed." His own studies have convinced him that OBD II doesn't evaluate emissions at all. He says dirty cars are passing, and clean cars are failing.

In Colorado, state officials are so skeptical of OBD II that it uses the new test only as an "advisory," which essentially means it doesn't count. Even if a car fails the OBD test, it's not necessarily a problem; the tailpipe test is the final arbiter.

Why would Colorado waste the time and money on a test it doesn't even use? Because at the federal level, the EPA is forcing metropolitan areas such as Denver and Atlanta to use the new test in their emissions programs.

So where does the blame fall in the ongoing emission saga? Both state and federal officials claim the software had glitches. "The results reflect a refining of the software," Gardetto says.

Jessica Chartier of Environmental Systems Products, one of the suppliers of the software, says she heard of a few problems when the test first began. "The state is in charge of training technicians on how to use the software. But whenever there have been problems, we've worked with the state to fix them," she says.

Michael Rodgers, the director of Georgia Tech's air quality laboratory, sees the new test causing a number of problems in the future. "No one has looked at an OBD II vehicle that's 15 years old," he says. "There will be serious political issues to deal with in the foreseeable future because of this."

Georgia EPD officials say they're not even reconsidering the test. And state legislators who have battled the EPD over emissions testing in the past aren't focusing on the OBD problem; they're more concerned with returning to testing cars every two years rather with than the test itself.

While OBD II may be confusing to government officials, it's causing nothing but consternation for drivers. Waivers are available to those who can prove they've spent $648 on repairs and are still failing the test. Yet the state remains stingy with waivers; while failures may have gone up 400 percent, the number of waivers given out has gone up only 8 percent, leaving drivers with few options and Atlanta's air with, perhaps, more pollution.

steven.sloan@creativeloafing.com??