77th (2013) Session
Opinions
View all submitted comments for each bill by the most recent, by votes for, or by votes against.
| SB147 | ||
| - | ||
| Against | Apr-07-2013 | |
| For | I completely agree that the current smog requirements need to be revised. Modern cars are made well and should not be subject to a smog inspection on an annual basis. I have yet to meet/talk to anyone with a modern car that has ever failed a smog check. Here’s my example of a smog requirement: a “brand new” vehicle would require its 1st smog test at 4 years old; every 2 years thereafter. All others would simply require a check every 2 years. Older “Classic” vehicles would be exempt, as the current requirements are for 1967 vehicles an older. The 1967 requirements should be raised to accommodate all vehicles that are older than 25 years and only driven less than a certain amount of miles annually, e.g. 3,000 miles or less. | Mar-25-2013 |
| Against | I am against this bill. | Mar-20-2013 |
| Against | Not sure why someone would want to pass this bill and open our state to loss of highway funds and sanctions. Not to mention that it will take longer and cost more for dirty air. Seems like a no brainer to me. | Mar-20-2013 |
| For | Mar-20-2013 | |
| For | It is about time for a bill instituting a more reasonable car smog requirement for Nevadans. Even in extremely environmentally conscious, cars are required to be smog every two years. Please give us hard working Nevadans some help here in a tough economy and end the requirement for new cars to be smogged and lessen the older car smog requirement to once every two years or more. The excessive current smog requirements benefit nobody but the few who run smog businesses. Time to give some monetary relief to the rest of us. | Mar-18-2013 |
| For | exempt new vehicles for 5 years because of factory warranty; every 2 year emission check; check only vehicles 25 years or newer. not necessary to check 48 year old vehicles. do not automatically fail a vehicle because of malfunction of "check engine light" instead do tail pipe check to make sure there is a problem. Replacing a burned out bulb can be very expensive. Compliance dollars for waiver too high for most drivers. All repair shops should be allowed to do waiver repairs. financial loss to emission stations should not be a factor in the aforementioned recommendations. if the losses are too great for the state then have all counties of Nevada do an emission program. | Mar-18-2013 |
| For | Mar-18-2013 | |
| Against | This bill is ridiculous! Not only is it going To lose jobs for hundreds of Nevadans, it will let polluters pollute for two years!! awesome job guys! And now unemployment will go up air-quality will get worse and Smog prices will double DMV fees will double. Mr. Gustavson is either too lazy to get his car smog every year or too stupid to see the ramifications of this program if it ever did pass. | Mar-15-2013 |
| Against | Mar-14-2013 | |
| Against | Mar-14-2013 | |
| For | Having a smog check every year is pointless and a waste of money. | Mar-13-2013 |
| Against | Bad for the environment and financiallybad for the state and emission inspectors and shop owners who will half to close up half the shops in town (and who have leases with landlords and other financial commitments) | Mar-13-2013 |
| Against | if you are so concerned about the environment, why are you trying to ruin something that works to make the environment better, not to mention that all the people who will loose their businesses, and their employment thus pushing up the unemployment percentage. we are suppose to be helping nevada, not hurting it and its people.it will hurt, and even maybe demolish our business we have going now. | Mar-12-2013 |
| Against | This bill will kill jobs and hurt our local economies. Please don pass this bill!! | Mar-12-2013 |
| For | Mar-12-2013 | |
| Against | This bill is a job killer and will hurt the quality of air in our community. | Mar-12-2013 |
| Against | As an employee of a smog station I am against this bill. I will lose my job, that will not only affect me but also my kids. This will cause 90% of smog stations to go out of business. Thank you | Mar-12-2013 |
| Against | As an employee of a smog station I am against this bill. I will lose my job, that will not only affect me but also my family. I feel that emissions are under control in Nevada. There is no need to make any changes. Thank you | Mar-12-2013 |
| Against | The air quality in Nevada is under control due to our annual emission testing. If this bill passes it will affect our air quality not to mention being a business owner myself, and emisson industry as a whole, repair shops, 2G stations, etc. This will cause businesses to close and a major increase in unemployment. Why would we cause harm to our clean air? Thank you for considering my comment as business owner. | Mar-12-2013 |
| Against | Mar-12-2013 | |
| Against | Mar-12-2013 | |
| Against | This bill would reduce my business to only about 43% of it's current level. I believe that it would put many of the businesses currently serving nevada's emission program out of business and cause the loss of hundreds of emission testing related jobs. I believe that it has not been coordinated with the EPA and as a result would cause noncompliance issues with the Clean Air laws which would cause financial loss to Nevada and potentially more expensive test and repair impositions for Nevada's vehicle owners as well as a requirement for the DMV to completely revamp it's emission program to meet EPA requirements. | Mar-12-2013 |
| Against | I think this bill is a bad idea because it will put half of the smog shops out of business and hurt the repair shop business as well. This will put a lot of pepole back into the ueemployent line resulting in higher unemployment. Also our air quailty will go down causeing more polution and lower standard of living. Please, for our jobs and our air, do not pass this bill!! | Mar-12-2013 |
| Against | This bill is so poorly worded not only will is the cost the state money as the newer vehicle won't tested as often but it will also cost JOBS. Most importantly the system works and the whole point of the system is to keep automobiles from polluting. Once a year to make certain they operate properly is a service to both the consumer and the public. The final point I wish to make; the private industry will loose their livelihoods and the ability to stay open and serve. They should have a voice in any legislation that is proposed. | Mar-12-2013 |
| Against | Passage of this bill would put Nevada out of compliance with EPA requirements, as well as its own SIP. Air pollution in the greater Las Vegas Valley is already at unacceptable levels, and reducing the frequency of testing will assuredly make conditions worse. Furthermore, going to biannual testing will reduce testing fee income to the State by some $2 million per year, not to mention the impact it will have on local emissions testing businesses and their employees. | Mar-08-2013 |
| Against | Mar-08-2013 | |
| For | Mar-06-2013 | |
| For | Mar-05-2013 | |
| For | I support this legislation and believe it is a step forward in reducing the impact of the utterly useless smog check. These checks have nothing to do with reducing pollution and everything to do with revenue generation. Perhaps we could take this a step further and eliminate smog checks completely. I used the statement of another constituent in my comments because I feel the same way. | Mar-05-2013 |
| Against | Senate Bill 147 has NO benefits and if approved, Nevada will become LESS of a "Green" State... Please vote NO on SB 147 and consider introducing a Bill in the coming years that would make a positive difference for our air quality by requiring more motorists to own and operate vehicles that don't harm our air quality. | Mar-04-2013 |
| For | Mar-03-2013 | |
| For | A step forward in reducing the impact of the utterly useless smog check. These checks have nothing to do with reducing pollution and everything to do with revenue generation. Perhaps we could take this a step further and eliminate smog checks completely. This isn't California. | Feb-28-2013 |
| Against | I believe we should hold peoples feet to the fire and to take responsibility for their particular footprint on this planet.. To give back 20.00 every year is not that much to give back to my children or my granchildren considering what we have taken. Mexico City is a good example of pollution killing their children. Lets keep up the hard work we have invested into our community. I love to see the valley in the morning! | Feb-28-2013 |
| Against | Feb-26-2013 | |
| Against | I feel that at this time such a bill would only add to the unemployment figures. This bill would put many smog shops out of business. The shops that survive would have to considerably raise their rates to survive so there would be little savings to the consumers. | Feb-25-2013 |
| Against | Feb-25-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-25-2013 | |
| Against | I've lived in Las Vegas for 34 years and it is evident what the emissions program has done. Not more than 15 years ago you could not see across the valley because of the smog. The same in los Angeles. The smog program works. I'm sorry that people have to take 30 minutes and normally no more than $20 a year to ensure the qualitey of our air. I'm sorry but even your 2 year old Prius may have a problem with onboard computers and sensors and could be emitting toxic pollutants. Yes your precious Prius. The state wants to change it to every other year but are not about to lose a penny of revenue...so it will double the charge of the certificate. Do you think the smog stations can double their price? I think not. This will also cause several businesses to close and further increase our unemployment. Let's first think about the benefits of the program and worry less about the 30 minutes a year it's inconveniencing people. | Feb-25-2013 |
| Against | Feb-25-2013 | |
| Against | I am not sure why anyone would be for this bill. Once a year to have your car checked to prevent less pollution in our valley. Why would I want to pay more and have dirty air. | Feb-25-2013 |
| For | I am for this bill as long as motor vehicles frequency of inspections go down and most type of vehicles the rates decrease. | Feb-24-2013 |
| For | Feb-24-2013 | |
| Against | Clean air is so important for everyone. A smog check takes a couple minutes once a year. It is easy and inexpensive. Completely worth is for having less pollution in the valley. | Feb-23-2013 |
| Against | The people that are for this bill seem to be talking in what they would consider "common sense" logic instead of talking FACTS. Here is a FACT for you. If this bill passes and we do not meet the SIP set by the EPA then we could lose much needed $$$$$ for road and highway repair. If you think dirving around town is bad now just wait until funding gets cut. Happy Commuting. | Feb-23-2013 |
| Against | Feb-23-2013 | |
| For | This bill will make a cumbersome law having little value now days a little more sensible and tollerable. | Feb-23-2013 |
| For | Many of those opposed to this have a vested economic interest in the business of smog testing. Smog testing a passing car year after year is an unneeded burden out of the economic productivity of the PRODUCING class citizens and puts money into the hands of these CONSUMING smog testers. Additionally, many people complain about Vegas' air quality, yet they fail to acknowledge that a significant amount of particulates are not from vehicle emissions at all. I support this bill because it reduces government burden upon the working class and will have no material impact on air quality based on historical smog testing results. | Feb-22-2013 |
| For | This will save evreone money and time and will cause no increase in pollution. | Feb-22-2013 |
| Against | Smog checks are done because they are mandated by EPA because of our air quality in the valley. Nevada has an approved SIP (State Implementation Plan) which calls for annual testing to address how it is going to reduce and maintain emission levels below EPA set standards. The "professional Environmental Scientist" should know this and that even lower standards are coming on ozone at the end of this year and that Clark and Washoe have exceeded the current standards in the past year. We may even be looking at an even more enhanced smog program. It is certainly not the time to make radical changes to our program. Any change needs to be phased in as not to throw the smog shops under the bus. This bill is just one State Senator basically telling the EPA to pound sand and that Nevada is not going to follow it's SIP. This can in fact bring sanctions by the EPA (loss of highway funds, etc. which should set off alarms with the Resorts Association). I do not think this Senator knows more than the EPA or Nevada's air quality people. He certainly is not qualified or has the knowledge to set Nevada's air programs. If you are for this bill, you must also be ready to pay the same price as people in California, $45 and up. Plus you will be going to a repair shop (that should be fun). So in the end you will pay twice as much, take twice your time and this will really help our air quality! | Feb-21-2013 |
| Against | Im speaking on behalf of all smog station workers that this bill will kill the las vegas econemy as well as put people with families to take care out on the street. If law makers think that this would be good, i would encourage you all to take a good look at LA california, There air quality is so bad because they have cars that have all kinds of problems and don't have to take care of it until the time comes to re-register there car. with the smog program the way it is now is good for all parties including the air quality. I would say the if nevada is that hard for money that they would have to cut the smog program to every 2 years. Charge more for the smog check. instead of 6.00$ charge 10$ | Feb-21-2013 |
| Against | My brother is a smog technician working his way through college to get his BS in Civil Engineering @ UNLV. He always talks about the pollution problem in the world and in the valley. To me the only opinion for this bill that made any sense is the Environmental Scientist's. Though it made a little bit of sense, it still struck a chord with me. Though vehicles are getting better at self regulation and pollution control, they are now foul-proof. The purpose of smogging those oh-so realiable new cars is to catch any problems as they happen. A car can control it's emissions, but if something happens and one of the devices that allows it to do so is busted, the car isn't going to stop itself from polluting - but my brother will. He also makes the point that the problem will be caught in due time, but every little bit counts - 6 months of polluting sounds a lot better than 18 months. Also, just because a car passes emissions one year or ten years in a row, doesn't mean it will pass again the following years. Just because I got away with cutting people off on the freeway the last one-hundred times doesn't mean I won't crash the next time. | Feb-21-2013 |
| Against | Feb-21-2013 | |
| For | I have read the arguments of everyone before me. It seems the MAIN argument is the ECONOMIC SECURITY of a narrow population of the individuals who work on smog checks or who own smog businesses. The argument that it is bad for air quality is spurious correlation and propaganda. Newer cars WHICH HAVE ROUTINELY PASSED their ANNUAL smog checks are NOT the ones contributing the most to the overwhelming polution in Las Vegas. I have lived here my entire life (46 years)and am a professional Environmental Scientist (Not "Environmentalist"). GROWTH, topography, and weather patterns are the causes of the motor vehicle-related pollution. Vehicles themselves have become ever more efficient and pollution-reduced. The guy driving a Prius DOES NOT NEED an annual smog check just so fees can be collected each year and a business sustained. There are so many vehicles on the road in the Las Vegas Valley at any given time, pumping emissions into the bowl of the valley, becoming trapped, THAT is what the haze is. Annual versus bi-annual inspections will not alleviate this. Only complete removal of older vehicles from service will have ANY impact. One Year or Two Years...in the terms of a life of a vehicle, this is negligible. I imagine that the bureaucracy needed to administer this program is monstrous! The whole point is most vehicles can deal with a two-year inspection cycle. It causes less inconvenience for individuals and the dollars STILL FLOW into the businesses on an alternating schedule. If 100,000 vehicles are inspected a year at $6, and that is divided into 50,000 vehicles for $12 every two years, it reduces paperwork and bureaucracy. If you do the math, the shops are still making the same exact amount of income! And the vehicles that are high-emitters (except all exemptions) will be identified in a timely-enough manner. I consider this bill a win-win. The environment will be exactly the same and shops will still be making, on average, the same annual income. | Feb-21-2013 |
| Against | "If you think organic food is expensive, have you priced cancer lately" - Joel Salatin- That quote goes to the heart of this bill. Yeah, it's about food, but the principle is the same. Most people who oppose this bill (I assume) do so because they believe it's a waste of money to do an emissions check every year. They believe it's a waste of money because they beleive their car doesn't pollute, they think pollution is an urban legend, or they believe pollution doesn't and will never affect them. The sad truth is that it pollution controls do make a difference in our environment and in our health. Spending the little extra money, if you even really are spending extra, now will save us a lot more, monetarily and other, in the not so long run. | Feb-21-2013 |
| Against | This bill is nonsense if you really think about it. Firstly, this bill will NOT save anyone any money despite what most registerees might think - smog only shops will have to closed down, smogs will cost more, and only big companies and mechanics shops will be able to afford to smog cars. Secondly, due to only being able to do our smog checks at a lube/mechanic shop, our smogs will take longer and our fees will increase even more because of unecessay things mechanics push on consumers and things that are only necessary because a mechanic screwed something up in your car in order to get a sale. Secondly, this bill will increase pollution by allowing pollutors to stay on the streets longer. And finally, and this goes with my first point - even polluters won't be saved any money, because they'll still eventually have to get their car fixed, and the longer one waits the worst the problem gets, and the more money one has put into it. Oh, and there will be more unemployment! | Feb-21-2013 |
| Against | This bill will not only loosen the already lax controls we have on our pollution problem here in Nevada, but it will also take bread out of the mouths of many men, women and families who have trained and spent their lives patrolling our air quality. Atop of all of that, it won't even save residents (besides big polluters) any money due to the hike in the costs of the smogs that will have to be put in place. Also! Most likely, the only places that would be able to do smogs will be mechanics shops, which will mean for the residents more time and, in the end, more money due to unnecessary repairs pushed onto them by mechanics. | Feb-21-2013 |
| Against | im against it because all cars are a big pollution. and it would be a bigger pollution if the smog is done every 2 year.so it would be a lack of maintance on the cars.WE NEED SMOG EVERY YEAR! | Feb-20-2013 |
| For | I'm so sick of having to get smog checks every year for a 2007 Toyota Prius! What a racket. As if we don't pay too much already simply to renew our vehicle registrations...seems some of THAT is due to some taxes which were supposed to sunset and didn't... | Feb-20-2013 |
| Against | The price of smogs will go up becase of this bill and jods that people are doing smogs for can go down from this too. There are more cars out on the road every year. There have been cars that i have seen that ther check engine lights on that effects how the emissions runs in this vehicles. if this bill is aproved by the state we will have more cars out there that shouldnt be on the road. pluse in trun this can rase the tax bracket on smogs and what you pay for at dmv. | Feb-20-2013 |
| Against | im totally against this so called law they are trying to pass i dont really think its such a great idea people need to realize that Las Vegas is a really big city and theres always traffic everywhere. we need emissions because it helps out alot by not killing us faster what cars emitt from there mufflers is the same thing u do when u smoke a cigarettes. Think about it people if we changed this to every two years imagine how many cars are throwing blue,grey, or black smoke it just gives them a longer time for them not to take care of there cars. i dont think we need to change the frequency of emission testing for our sake for the children and for clean air in this world. we dont want to live in a city full of smog it would be alot harder to breathe.i really dont think they should do that it just wouldnt work out there would be thousands out of jobs. | Feb-20-2013 |
| Against | This Bill going through will not only put my young family at risk of being destitute but it would very likely put us out on the street. Emissions testing as it sits is my families DIRECT source to being able to survive here in Vegas. Your change how things sit now and I can gurantee that not only will there be LAY-offs and store closures directly related to this , I can vouch for myself and many other Emmisions Inspectors....this will adversely effect us , our familes and our children . KEEP THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE . PLEASE!! | Feb-20-2013 |
| Against | Feb-19-2013 | |
| Against | Have you looked at the sky in las vegas? tons of emissions fill our city, filling our lungs from the mass population driving in our metropolitan area. giving any vehicle a whole extra year to pollute our air before failing a test is just wrong. Take that vehicle and multiply it by every vehicle that would have a whole year to add to our problem... its just not a good idea. We need to pay attention to whats important,our childrens air and our futures air. I dont understand how anyone can even try to pass this, ITS OUR AIR. if anything make testing MORE FREQUENT. Also not to mention a big part of our highway funding comes from emission testing, along with the taxes. Come on people seriously... give it some thought. | Feb-19-2013 |
| Against | bad for Nevada! bad for air quality! | Feb-19-2013 |
| Against | Feb-19-2013 | |
| Against | people are keeping cars longer driving more and do not maintain them properly, they only fix them when they have to I.E. smog test time. new or old every two years can leave a car running with a check engine ligth on and running well but polluting the air. when they run this way the computer does not manage the fuel at all. it just runs rich so it is smooth. thank you | Feb-19-2013 |
| Against | I'm against this bill being passed, for the main reason i'm a smog technician for the state of nevada for close to 2 years now and this bill will dramatically decrease the number of smogs in the valley. With that my job will be at risk because buisness will decrease, I depend on this job to pay all my bills and is the one true skill i have and have worked very hard to achieve. | Feb-19-2013 |
| Against | bad idea. This will put thousands out of work and reverse the progress made in cleaning up the air pollution in Nevada. Consumers will also have to pay a larger fee when getting an emissions test due to the increased state charge. On a further note, is this even approved with the E.P.A.? CAn they not come down on the state for this? | Feb-19-2013 |
| For | A common sense bill. | Feb-19-2013 |
| For | Feb-18-2013 | |
| For | Yes. | Feb-18-2013 |
| For | Feb-18-2013 | |
| For | Good idea, but do you really have to double the fee? | Feb-18-2013 |
 Session Info | NELIS | Interim Info | Law Library | General Info | Counsel Bureau | Research Library | Assembly | Senate | FAQs View Scheduled Meetings | Publications | Proposals | Career Opportunities | Gift Shop | Site Map | Contact Us © 2013 Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau |
|