relaxes its famously rigid emissions regulations for vintage automobiles. However, now that the photo opportunities have passed, “Leno’s Law” resembles less a significant triumph over onerous regulations and more a colossal missed chance.
California, one of 29 states mandating some type of emissions testing for vehicles, possesses the most stringent rules nationwide. Any gas-driven vehicle manufactured post-1975 and over eight years old must clear a biannual smog evaluation for registration. By design, the law compels countless older, inefficient vehicles off the roads yearly, as compliance costs rise and parts become increasingly scarce. A persistent check engine warning light may lead to failure, even if the vehicle operates perfectly.
The system has markedly enhanced air quality since the 1980s but has also made smog testing a source of humor and criticism, spawning numerous Commiefornia jokes. In California, where the climate is gentle and living expenses are disproportionately high, many residents are affected beyond just collectors and enthusiasts. Numerous individuals drive older cars not out of choice but because they cannot afford newer models or the costly emissions system upgrades mandated by the government.
What’s particularly disheartening is that, with over 36 million registered vehicles on the road — most of which are under 20 years old — the targeted vehicles from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s represent merely a minuscule fraction of total tailpipe emissions.
After various unsuccessful attempts to amend the law to keep more classic cars operational, a coalition supported by SEMA and Jay Leno finally achieved success, eliciting celebrations. Yet, there’s a caveat. The narrow exemptions created by Leno’s Law, which include a 1,000-mile-per-year limit, might assist wealthy collectors with their cherished classic cars but will do little for everyday drivers of older vehicles. And now that the excitement has dimmed and parties involved are congratulating themselves, it may take a significant duration before real change is pursued again.
In this week’s episode of The Drivecast, Joel and Kyle—a Los Angeles resident with an old truck that recently failed its smog test—delve beneath the surface to reveal the harsh reality about Leno’s Law that many prefer not to confront.
New here? The Drivecast is The Drive‘s weekly podcast that takes listeners behind the scenes of the major stories, controversies, and personalities shaping the automotive world and the current state of our roads. Backed by The Drive‘s unique access, original journalism, exclusives, and insights, The Drivecast seeks to make everyone feel like an insider.
Tune in to The Drivecast through Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, or right here on our website with our JamX player. Enjoying it? Disagree with it? Please leave a five-star rating on your platform of choice to help bring The Drivecast to a broader audience. Have suggestions, tips, questions, or feedback? Reach out at [email protected]. We promise to read all emails.
Full Transcript
Kyle: Joel, do you even have emissions testing in Minnesota?
Joel: Good question. No. However, we possess laws and regulations. I could list all the laws about the fish we keep and species in our lakes, but I could not recount the emissions regulations in Minnesota. Although I’m well informed about our automatic license plate reader laws in the state now, which is odd.
Kyle: Of course.
Joel: Nevertheless, I resided in Portland, Oregon for four and a half years, where they enforce similar regulations and checkups like in California. When I owned an E34 M5, I had to have someone evaluate its tailpipe emissions.
Kyle: With the sniffer.
Joel: It was unpleasant having the sniffer inspect my vehicle. Quite traumatic.
Kyle: It must be nice not to deal with that. By the way, how old is your Z? Because if it were in California, it wouldn’t be exempt. It would still require smog testing.
Joel: Correct. Our Z is from 1990, so it’s not exempt. Here, it’s over 25 years old, thus we have collector plates for it. There are various rules, including driving limits. I only average about four miles on it annually; I’m a caretaker, not a driver.
Kyle: As the caretaker of my family heirloom, my father-in-law’s 1988 K5 Blazer, which has just fallen victim to California’s smog law, I’m envious because passing smog tests is growing increasingly challenging—this law should assist, but in reality, it doesn’t.
Joel: The topic leads me to 99 questions for you, Kyle. Being the individual who did the video and residing in Commifornia, California, with Gavin Newsom as your supreme ruler.
Kyle: We’ll receive emails about that.
Joel: Indeed. First and foremost, why? We need context, right? Everyone ought to understand why this topic is essential. Why is smog testing such a contentious issue in California? Is the smog ruining your hair?
Kyle: No, that’s the dry air, but it relates because smog has historically been a significant challenge in California. The state’s geography, particularly cities like LA, is situated in a massive bowl surrounded by mountains with the ocean on one side, trapping smog in ways we didn’t foresee when we built LA and transformed it into America’s automotive hub. Thus, smog has troubled regulators for decades, though conditions have improved. Smog testing has effectively reduced harmful emissions from tailpipes, even with the dramatically increasing number of vehicles. However, the main issue is that because of a fixed cutoff, any vehicle made post-1976, which is 50 years ago, must undergo smog testing every two years to pass rigorous standards. This leads to many vehicles being taken off the road simply because they cannot register them if they fail.
Many vehicles in otherwise normal functioning condition are forced off the road. As referenced earlier, in California, it’s not solely car enthusiasts with unique collector vehicles affected by this. Numerous individuals drive older cars here because they last longer due to the mild weather. While some are choice enthusiasts, many drive older cars out of necessity, as it’s incredibly expensive to live here. Consequently, these residents may have to discard perfectly operational cars due to inability to pass smog tests or incur costs for repairs to meet standards.
A significant point of contention is the small number of vehicles from the mid-90s back to the mid-70s, representing only a fraction of the over 36 million cars on California roads. So when emissions testing is intended to reduce emissions, it’s a minuscule segment targeted, which many feel is unjust, asserting, “You driving your 1988 K5 Blazer is contributing too much pollution, so you can’t use it.” Meanwhile, the remaining 30 million cars on the road may collectively contribute a larger pollution load than just this one vehicle. Consequently, even though the law originated from good intentions and has worked in some respects, it unfairly vilifies enthusiasts.
Joel: You know, enthusiasts cherish their classic 911s. Yet, being in LA visiting those I love, I observe various old vehicles while running in neighborhoods. It’s excellent for spotting cars. Many old Tacomas, T100s, and Frontiers are encountering much sunlight and still look fine. You’d never see such vehicles in Detroit or Minneapolis due to harsh winters. However, there’s a downside: the traffic—great for spotting, but not for driving.
Kyle: Indeed, one benefits from car spotting, but the trade-off is sitting in traffic.
Joel: You’ve got a unique perspective on the traffic situation.
Kyle: We do what we can to maintain sanity here.
Joel: Can you outline how smog testing functioned in California before Leno’s Law came into effect? While it was recently signed by Gavin Newsom at Jay Leno’s garage—
Kyle: That guy certainly knows how to create a photo op.
Joel: Absolutely. Moreover, calling it a garage is a stretch; it’s more of an extensive car museum, like three warehouses combined. Regardless, nothing changed instantly with just a signature from a legislator; let’s be clear. How did smog testing operate in California prior to this law?
Kyle: California is not alone in emissions testing. There isn’t a federal emissions testing mandate, which is the overarching situation. Every state has been left to decide for themselves whether they need such testing. California ranks among the 29 states conducting some form of emissions testing, while others employ varied cutoffs; for example, some states avoid testing cars over 20 years. Every year, a new generation becomes exempt. Others have generous mileage exemptions or limit testing to specific metropolitan areas. California has distinct, strict mandates; any vehicle from 1976 onward is required to undergo smog testing every two years.
If a vehicle is under eight years old, it’s exempt as well; currently, we’re talking about anything from 1976 to 2018. The way it works is simply—every two years when you renew your registration with the DMV, there’s a notice accompanying it indicating it’s time for the smog test. You need to take that notice to a smog facility, of which many exist as it’s a booming industry here, get it tested and hopefully pass; then you are allowed to register. If it fails, as my Blazer did, you’re out of luck; you must get it repaired. They won’t specify why it failed. While they point out violations against emission standards, they won’t identify the precise cause.
You have to troubleshoot the problem or take it to a repair shop to diagnose it, which can be costly. Sadly, in numerous cases, the repair costs exceed the vehicle’s actual worth, prompting cars to appear on sales platforms like Marketplace or Craigslist. Listings often highlight “check engine light on, car can’t pass smog,” inviting buyers to gamble on repairs or end up being sold to out-of-state buyers unconcerned about such regulations. That’s how it worked.
Additionally, diesel vehicles have looser requirements; anything older than 1998 is exempt. Certain other exemptions exist, including diesel trucks weighing over 14,000 pounds, such as the massive Ford F-350 dually, which don’t need testing. Or, state fleet vehicles also bypass smog checks. There were plenty of exemptions previously, but they did not sufficiently assist those collecting or simply owning cherished older vehicles to maintain compliance and registration.
Joel: What’s different now? Once this law is fully enacted and not merely signed off on with social media presence, what changes?
Kyle: Beginning next January, the threshold for exemption rises to 1981, meaning that any vehicle from the 70s in California will no longer require smog testing. This is terrific, particularly since those 70s models had primitive emissions systems that are a nightmare to maintain to an arbitrary state standard. Thus, starting next year, vehicles from 1981 will be exempt, and the cutoff will continue to progress annually for at least the next six years. Thus, if no more amendments occur, by 2032, anything 1986 and older will qualify for exemption, which is fantastic news; unfortunately, my Blazer is an ’88.
However, stipulations exist that diminish its practical benefit. Vehicles cannot be used for daily commuting. Two ways of enforcing this will mean that—according to the law text—the vehicle must be “primarily used in shows, parades, charitable events, and historical exhibitions for display, preservation, and maintenance, without being employed as the primary means of transportation.” To ensure enforcement, vehicles must either possess collector vehicle insurance, which includes its own driving limits, or be driven under 1,000 miles a year, verified by the DMV through yet-to-be-established processes. The law permits until 2030 to write that process, implying that either the DMV or insurance companies will monitor mileage to ensure compliance.
In a vast state like California, 1,000 miles per year is scarcely feasible. A round trip from LA to San Francisco nearly exhausts that limit. Therefore, those using a vintage car daily will surpass this limit swiftly, meaning their vehicle will still require smog testing, thereby rendering this law ineffective for many.
Joel: So the bigger question remains: why did it take so long to enact this law? There was buzz in the news cycle last year, and even before that, but ultimately, it failed to pass.
Kyle: Perhaps inertia is too dismissive an answer, but it rings true. California’s bureaucracy is immense. It’s simply a fact; numerous rules regulate things, with substantial stakeholders involved. This law, when initially proposed last year, marked not the first effort to update these regulations. In fact, lobbying has occurred for at least a decade, albeit unsuccessfully, with some progress each time hindered by the reluctance to be the one to take ownership.
In California, few politicians desire their names attached to legislation that could be spun negatively as enabling more pollution. The perception of being environmentally conscious gains traction here politically; therefore, this bill might easily face backlash for being viewed as pollution-encouraging.
Consequently, politicians consistently ask, “Why involve myself in this? It’s not valuable. My constituents are not clamoring for this; thus, it’s more trouble than it’s worth.” Additionally, significant modifications must occur due to numerous preceding regulations. The prior year’s failure stemmed partly from a state report determining that updating DMV systems to accommodate this change and conducting environmental studies to monitor pollution levels would cost millions, making politicians wary of supporting potential costly initiatives with uncertain benefits.
In summary, various impediments prevented this topic from advancing until now due to its lack of significance for those in power.
Joel: Before we began recording, you mentioned this was a rich person’s law, not substantially benefiting average enthusiasts and typical drivers. For everyday individuals, like Betty with her 1988 Honda Accord, who cannot afford a new vehicle, if these adjustments don’t assist her, they may adversely affect her, leaving her situation unchanged.
Kyle: I would argue it doesn’t directly harm her at present. It doesn’t help either, and there’s potential long-term harm because now that this bill is enacted in its current form over the next six years, the motivation for further changes diminishes. It’s plausible that into the next decade, the state may conclude, “Oh, this isn’t problematic; we will maintain this.” Consequently, the ongoing exemptions will apply, allowing my Blazer to become exempt, which is beneficial, yet, limited to 1,000 miles annually, which I currently do not surpass due to already high fuel prices.
Nevertheless, the sentiment exists that the hard work is accomplished. The law was passed, emissions testing regulations are slacked, but equal effort or more will be necessary in years to come to modify the mileage limit or eliminate it for specific age range vehicles or allow exemptions based on demonstrated hardships. It took eight years to arrange a relatively narrow exception. If we seek to effect substantial shifts for those relying on vintage cars for daily travel, we may face a much longer wait. And as the next decade approaches, who knows how many more daily-use vehicles will be invalidated and forced off the road due to the mileage restriction or inability to afford collector car insurance.
Many will be content congratulating themselves in the coming years, proclaiming, “Great job, we did it,” which represents a much smaller demographic than those who could have genuinely benefitted from this bill.
Joel: What does this signify for the nationwide emissions testing landscape? For context and since not all podcast listeners are car enthusiasts, we previously witnessed Hellcats facing extinction, questioned whether V8s would remain in Mustangs, and observed the debut of an electric Mustang. Not long ago, it appeared the global industry was embracing full electrification, and America was onboard. Suddenly, a political shift saw a backlash against electrification and green energy initiatives. Unexpectedly, GM has unveiled a brand-new clean-sheet V8, while I can’t fathom proclaiming that was expected just a couple of years back, yet I find myself reviewing Hellcats again.
Given this backdrop of shifting timelines, it seems America is backtracking. I can’t imagine the global community views our new V8s positively while Europe and China advance in electrification. So what implications does this have for emissions testing across the nation and how evolution occurs moving forward?
Kyle: Initially, I understand the lack of a federal emissions testing policy as states are vastly different in demographics, needs, environment, and size, making a universal federal standard challenging. Thus, it’s appropriate that the states govern this. Often, California leads pollution regulations or air quality laws, notably given the size of its market, compelling companies to abide by California regulations. However, in this case, California is softer than before, whereas it had previously held the most stringent standards.
It remains stricter than other states. No state currently without emissions testing will react to this change and decide to implement testing. Only states that had previously adopted California’s model have already aligned with it, meaning relaxing regulations won’t impact others significantly. Moreover, this situation illustrates that collective support from those affected by the laws can prompt real change. Unlike the regulations surrounding zero-emission goals that are influenced by economic factors and consumer preferences, emissions testing primarily revolves around individual older vehicles devoid of a business element.
Importantly, this case demonstrates the potential for positive outcomes when individuals voice their concerns regarding compliance with a burdensome law. Many aspire to pass smog tests to ensure their vehicles are not overpolluting but find current processes excessively convoluted. Therefore, as demonstrated, there has been slight legislative progress.
While it may be premature to speculate further, we must wait to observe developments as they arise next year or begin unfolding next year.
Joel: As we’re in September, there’s something to anticipate in the new year after the holiday season for Californians.
Kyle: Regrettably, it cannot come quickly enough for my Blazer. I still need to replace the catalytic converter.
Joel: A weekend project for you.
Kyle: Or I might wait for someone to steal it, allowing insurance to take care of it. We shall see.
Joel: That’s unfortunate.
Kyle: No, actually, someone already attempted to steal it, and I scared them off. My wife appreciated that.
Joel: We’ll conclude with the image of you chasing a thief away. Great close, Kyle.
Kyle: Final advice: Avoid doing that. It’s imprudent to confront someone trying to steal your catalytic converter; you aren’t aware if they might be armed. Ultimately, I reacted instinctively and am somewhat proud of it. Stand up for your possessions. But… don’t.