The future of I/M programs

Although I/M programs have never been proven to provide anywhere near the reduction in emissions predicted by their supporters, the governments of Canada, British Columbia and Ontario continue to support and implement I/M programs. On March 12, 1997, it was reported that the Quebec government will soon launch a voluntary I/M program and plans to implement a mandatory I/M program in the coming years (Montreal Gazette, March 12, 1997). Would this be rational policy, even if I/M programs did perform as promised?

It would not, in fact, be rational policy because the potential environmental benefit of I/M programs is continually declining, largely because average vehicle emissions have decreased dramatically over the last two decades and will continue to decrease as older vehicles with primitive emission control systems (or none at all) are retired and replaced by superior technology. Figure 10 represents data from a California computer model that predicts the combined future emission levels of VOCs and NOx, from on-road vehicles without any I/M program and with the IM240 program recommended by the EPA.

The model clearly shows that, at best--that is, if the program works as predicted (and no I/M program has yet)--the great cost and inconvenience it imposes on the population would only accelerate the reduction of emissions levels by a couple of years. The magnitude of emissions of VOCs and NOx by vehicles and the predicted incremental benefit of I/M programs are both rapidly declining as older vehicles are replaced by newer ones with much better emission-control systems (see appendix 3). Already the cost-benefit ratio is extremely high, and it will get higher as potential benefits of I/M programs decline over time. Even with the expected increase in vehicle travel, the GVRD also predicts a reduction in vehicle emissions without AirCare (see figure 11).

Click Here to View Figure 11

The Greater Vancouver Regional District predicts in Let's Clear the Air, GVRD Air Quality Management Plan (December 1994: 7-11-7-17) that it will not be I/M programs but rather controls on area and point source emissions, such as those from large smoke stacks and heavy industry, that are predicted to provide by far the greatest reductions in VOCs and NOx. I/M programs will have virtually no effect in reducing sulfur oxides or particulate emissions. I/M programs were, however, predicted to accelerate considerably the reduction of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, which are relatively unimportant in the Greater Vancouver Regional District and are already dropping rapidly due to better technology. Because gasoline-powered vehicles are the major source for CO and levels of CO emissions are from 5 to 40 times that of the four pollutants (VOCs, NOx, SOx, and particulates). When the predicted reductions in the emissions for all five are combined,38 AirCare's contribution to cleaner air appears deceptively impressive (figure 12a).

Click Here to View Figure 12a

However, when the environmental and public-health values of the five emission reductions are calculated, the predicted beneficial contribution of AirCare approaches insignificance (see figure 12b).

Click Here to View Figure 12b

Financial and political risk

I/M programs involve a substantial investment in equipment, real estate, and training, and require many years to produce the anticipated return on investment. AirCare's 7-year contract with Envirotest, its testing contractor, is of typical length. Committing the population, on the basis of predictions that have been so inaccurate in the past, to such a long-term I/M program in which real benefits have been so elusive, borders on reckless. As many American states have learned, getting out of such contracts can be difficult and expensive. For example, Pennsylvania had to agree to pay Envirotest $145 million to settle a $350 million lawsuit it brought against the state when the state canceled its I/M program (Harrisburg Patriot, December 7, 1995).

There are, however, two sides to the I/M coin and not everybody loses when an I/M program is implemented. Additional costs and inconvenience for motorists produce revenue for testing contractors, additional profits for repair garages, and additional government positions for bureaucrats. For them, the important question is not whether an I/M program works but whether it exists. These stakeholders will fight to promote and preserve I/M programs that give them so much. Until enough voters become aware of the long history of the failure of I/M programs to improve air quality, politicians will find it safer to accommodate the special interests of stakeholders than to advocate more effective but controversial environmental protection.

---

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.