Leno’s Law, formally known as Senate Bill 712, was recently struck down by the California Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 29 after a year of progress, amendments, and major support. The law would have exempted vehicles that are over thirty-five years old from California’s bi-annual emissions requirements. The bill passed the State Senate and earlier assembly committees, but was quietly held in the Suspense file, a holding place for bills deemed to have a large fiscal impact, with no clear reasoning by committee leadership. Officials expressed concerns about costs and environmental opposition, but the bill’s track record gives little indication for the abrupt termination. In doing so, California undermined car culture, affordability, and, along with it, democratic transparency.
On April 15, the Senate Transportation Committee passed the bill 12 to 2, followed by a 32 to 3 approval in the full Senate on June 5. The Assembly Transportation Committee later advanced it unanimously, 9 to 0, on July 14. Even the Senate Appropriations Committee cleared it with amendments on May 23. Despite this momentum and bipartisan support, the bill was given the axe, preventing it from reaching the Assembly floor. When asked why, Assemblyman Buffy Wicks admitted to reporters, “I’ll have to go back and look. I can’t remember.” It is frankly ridiculous that a proposal with such broad legislative support could be buried so quickly, and even more troubling that committee members can not recall why it happened.
Under California law, vehicles manufactured after 1976 must generally submit to smog checks every two years. Newer vehicles often pay a “smog abatement fee” instead of being tested. Some exceptions include electric vehicles, vehicles manufactured before 1976, and specialized vehicles. The intention of Leno’s Law was to extend full exemptions to cars older than thirty-five years designated as collector or historical.
New York emissions regulations take a fairly standard approach. Vehicles built after 2000 must undergo an on-board diagnostics emissions inspection. New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles states that unless exempt, vehicles must comply with emissions standards, with a blanket exemption to cars that are over twenty-five years old. To contrast further, there are seventeen states with no emissions laws at all. To be clear, this is not what I’m advocating for, just a reasonable middleground.
The failure of Leno’s Law is particularly difficult for low-income individuals. Older cars tend to be less expensive up front, easier to repair, and offer affordable yet widely available parts for the right make and model. When emissions rules become excessive and costly, it creates a clear disconnect between lawmakers and the public, with the burden falling hardest on those with limited means.
Some state officials implied the bill was dropped because it could cost the state revenue from smog tests. But California’s budget is immense, the revenue from exempting a small number of classic cars would be negligible relative to total tax revenue. The fact that no solid reasoning was publicly offered and that committee chairs simply “could not remember” is unacceptable in a democratic system.
Enforcing emissions standards uniformly is reasonable for modern fleet vehicles, but applying them rigidly to rare and historical cars imposes unjust costs. The fact that the state cannot even articulate their reasoning for rejection undermines the legitimacy of its legislative process. If California prides itself on acceptance and equality then the failure to justify the removal of this exemption demonstrates a disregard for enthusiast and low-income car owners alike.