Leno's Law (SB 712) due for a vote in the California senate very soon and help is still needed.

[Duke W.]

Leno's Law passed the California Senate Appropriations Committee last week, 5-1, and in order to get it through the "collector car" insurance requirement had to be added back in along with the requirement to have a Historical Vehicle license plate.

Here's a report from SEMA:

https://www.sema.org/news-media/enew...lector-car-law

and here is the actual test as amended by order of the Appropriations Committee

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...m=44012.&lawCo de=HSC

Since I'm not able no log on to the Corvette Forum (don't know why) I need volunteer(s) to help get the word out and ask for support of California vintage Corvette and other vintage car owners to contact their state senator with a brief email and phone call to request their support and yes vote when SB 712 reaches the floor for a vote, which may be as early as this week.

One NCRS member, a former CA resident who doesn't live in CA anymore, has lent a hand by posting to the C1/2, C3, and SoCal and NoCal regional forums, but I still need someone to post to the C4, C5, and C6 General forums. If SB 712 becomes law, effective January 1. 2027 1976 through 1992 vintage California-registered cars that currently have to be emission tested every two years will become exempt, and with each new year and beyond, the next 35 year old model will be exempt if they meet the insurance and HV plate requirement.

HV plates can also save a lot of money on annual registration fees, because the VLF (vehicle license fee) is TWO DOLLARS regardless on what DMV says the car is worth, and this "tax" is 0.65 percent of the DMV valuation on other plates.

There must be more than a few California NCRS members who have '76-up Corvettes or other vintage cars, and if SB 712 passes you will be positively affected. As I said, you don't even have to be a California resident to help out with getting the word out to Corvette Forum regulars on the C4, 5, and 6 forums, but if are do live in California and have an affected car you definitely have a dog in the fight.

I emailed the three California chapter chairs over the weekend. I assume they have chapter member mailing lists, and I requested they get the word out to their members to contact their state senator to request support and a yes vote for SB 712. I don't know if they did as I haven't received a response from any as of now.

I've prepared a title and "post" for the C4, C5, and C6.General CF forum new threads. All you have to do is copy and post the title and text to the three forums. It shouldn't take form than five minutes. Open the C4. C5. and C6 General forums, and click "start new thread". Copy the title and paste to each of the three new threads, then copy and paste the text. Hit send on all three and that's it.

Can anyone with a Corvette Forum login ID and password spend a few minutes to do the above?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thread title:
"Leno's Law", California SB 712 goes to the state Senate floor for a vote this week, help needed!

Text:
"Leno's Law", California SB 712, passed the California Senate Appropriations Committee with modifications last week 5-1 after passing the Transportation Committee, 12-2 last month. The bill appears to have strong bipartisan support, but opposing forces are gathering. In order to get past the Appropriations Committee the author had to add back the "collector car insurance" policy requirement and add the requirement for Historical Vehicle license plates.

Currently in California all 76-up models have to be emission tested every two years in order to be legally registered for road use with the exception of cars in some very remote areas. If SB 712 becomes law, a new 35-year old rolling exemption will become effective on January 1, 2027. Model years up to 1992 will then be exempt if they meet the requirements and the next model year, 1993 will be added on January 1, 2028, and so on. Initially the the last half of the C3 generation, the first half of the C4 generation will be included and the first C5s (1997) will be picked up in 2032.

Here are a couple of reference threads: The latest status report from SEMA, and the text of the amended bill that will go to the senate floor for a vote:

https://www.sema.org/news-media/enews/2025/22/lenos-law-gears-senate-floor-showdown-committee-gives-collector-car-law

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB712

There's a lot of misinformation about California Historical Vehicle License plates on the Web, so the best way to understand the actual facts is to download the form and spend the 30 seconds it takes to read Section E.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/uploads/2020/03/reg17a-1.pdf

Note that the operative restriction word is primarily. If you go to an informal cars and coffee gathering on Saturday morning that qualifies, but taking a Sunday afternoon pleasure drive is NOT precluded, and there is NO mileage limitation. CAUTION: There is an older form floating around on the Web that replaces primarily with only. This form, REG 17 A, revision 7/2011, is OBSOLETE! The current form on the DMV Web site is revision 11/2017! Don't download the form from any other Web site other than www.dmv.ca.gov Type reg 17a into the search box .

"Collector car insurance" policies usually do have annual mileage restrictions, but usually offer different "tiers" of annual mileage from a few hundred to thousands of miles per year, and since these policies are generally less expensive than regular policies most vintage car owners already have collector policies.

If you are a California resident we need your help. Please contact your California state senator, by email and phone and request their support and "yes" vote when SB 712 comes to the Senate floor. It's easy to do. Go to:

www.senate.ca.gov

Click on "senators" in the upper left side of the page below the red banner. Then click "find my Senator" from the drop down menu. Enter your address and that will lead you to your senator's home page, and contact information should be at the bottom of the page. Just write a simple one or two sentence email requesting their support and yes vote for SB 712 and follow it up with a phone call. Also, please get the word out to any other vintage car communities you belong to.

It's been a little over 20 years since the former 25-year rolling emission test exemption was frozen at 1975. There have been a few attempts to extend it since, but all went down in flames in the various committees and never made it to a floor vote of either the Assembly or Senate, but SB 712 has some real legs and a good chance of becoming law with a bipartisan group of sponsors and Jay Leno supporting the bill.

But there are strong apposing forces gathering, and we need a full court press grass roots effort by citizens to support the bill by contacting their state senator to request their support and yes vote. Even if you don't have a car that could be affected we need your support. It's no more than a five-minute job to find your California Senator, compose a short note asking for their support and follow up with a phone call.

If Leno's Law fails it will likely be years, if ever, until another bill to extend the emission test exemption appears. Please get involved and help your fellow vintage car enthusiasts.

Thanks for your help!

__________________________________________________ _

If you want to discuss with me, give me a call 310-372-five-five-two-seven.

Duke

[Duke W.]

SB 712 is scheduled for a third reading on the California Senate floor in Sacramento, today. So far there have been 31 views and zero replies from anyone to volunteer to spend a few minutes to help get the word out to the Corvette Forum C4, C5, and C6 general forums nor has anyone reported that they contacted their California state senator to solicit their support and yes vote.

It's my understanding that all senate bills introduced earlier this year that have made it through the various committees to the Senate floor will be voted on not later than Friday, June 6, and this includes SB 712 . So time is getting short.

Are there any California residents with '76-up Corvettes or any other make of such vintage reading this? If so you've got a dog in this fight.

If SB 712 becomes law, effective January 1, 2027 your 1976 Corvette or any other vintage car up to 1992 will be exempt from the biennial emission test requirement as long as it meets a couple of easy to comply requirements, and each New Year's Day beyond, the next model year will quality as they reach their 35th model year birthday.

Anyone on the TDB can volunteer to spend a few minutes to copy and paste my recommended post to the three Corvette Forum forums I mentioned in Post #1, and if you're a California resident, even if you do not own an affected car, please help out the thousands of other California vintage car owners to eliminate the onerous biennial emission test requirement where the car has to be run under load on a chassis dynamometer. (2000-up cars only require a check for engine codes using an OBD II scanner.)

Jay Leno has made a significant commitment to support this bill including traveling to Sacramento in April to testify before the Senate Transportation Committee. Jay, myself, and thousands of other '76-up vintage car owners need your support to help make SB 712 law.

Can anyone help out!

Duke

[Don H.]

OK Duke,
I did it, CF 4, 5 and 6.. It's in there.. Now relax and have a refreshment.
Good luck

[Duke W.]

Now that's what I call a STAND-UP GUY!

I know Don from when he was a SoCAL Chapter member, but he moved to the East Coast several years ago.

So where are all you other NCRS members, especially those who live in California?

I hope you're having a cold one, too, Don. You certainly deserve one!

I will report back on the fate of SB 712 in the California Senate, probably this weekend...and it's not too late for you California residents to contact you state senator, TODAY, to request their support and yes vote for SB 712.

If you do, let us know, and we'll let Jay Leno know.

Duke

[Dave B.]

Don't forget, this does not just impact Californians. There are 17 other states that have already adopted (including amendments as they occur) California's emissions laws, and therefore the fate of SB 712 will impact ALL of those states as well. The practical implication is that this is not a state issue, it's a national one.

[Michael J.]

Don't forget, this does not just impact Californians. There are 17 other states that have already adopted (including amendments as they occur) California's emissions laws, and therefore the fate of SB 712 will impact ALL of those states as well. The practical implication is that this is not a state issue, it's a national one.

Yes, but Congress has voted to remove California's waivers for emissions standards. This is very significant:

"The Congress recently passed three joint resolutions aimed at
nullifying California's ability to set vehicle emission standards stricter than national standards. These resolutions target specific California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, including the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) rule, the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule, and the Heavy-Duty Low NOx Omnibus rule.
Key Implications:

• Invalidation of EPA Waivers: The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions passed by the Senate effectively invalidate the EPA's waivers that allowed California to implement these stricter standards.
• Impact on California and Other States: This action aims to prevent California from enforcing these standards and also to preclude other states that have adopted California's regulations from doing so as well."

[Duke W.]

Don't forget, this does not just impact Californians. There are 17 other states that have already adopted (including amendments as they occur) California's emissions laws, and therefore the fate of SB 712 will impact ALL of those states as well. The practical implication is that this is not a state issue, it's a national one.

Michael told part of the story, but the history of California's "waiver" is important to understand. Tailpipe emission standards were first implemented by California for the 1966 model year. Federal tailpipe standards followed for the '68 model year, but were a little "looser" than the California standards, and the EPA gave California the "waiver" to implement their own standards. In the early days of tailpipe emission standards California's were usually "tighter" and required specific engine configurations for California cars.

For example, 1980 Corvettes sold in California had only ONE drivetrain available - a 305 CID small block, with a three speed torque converter automatic transmissions, and a 3.07:1 axle ratio. That's it... No other options.

By about the turn of the century the near universal implementation of EFI, O2 sensors, and three way catalysts (oxidize HC and CO and "reduce" NOx to N2 and O2) meant it was less expensive to configure engines to meet California emission standards for all states rather than having different configuartions for each. At this point "California emissions" just became a needless paperwork exercise for manufacturers and "virtual signaling" by the other states who claim to have adopted them.

As Michael said, Congress has passed "resolutions", but it's not clear to me what is required to rescind California's waiver. A bill passed by Congress and signed by the president? A presidential executive order? It's not clear to me.

Now, understand that the above applies to NEW cars. Cars in service, what we all drive is a whole different ballgame, and it goes something like this:

The EPA has identified so-called "non-attainment" areas... parts of the country that do not meet federal air quality standards. These states must develop and submit to the EPA a SIP... "state implementation plan" to improve air quality. Part of these SIPs is field emission testing of in-service vehicles, but states are free to develop their own tests.

There are three types of tests - two speed no load, idle and 2500 RPM tailpipe emission test, but this test can only test for HC and CO because NOX must be tested under load . The second type of test is IM (inspection/maintenance) 240, which is an abbreviated 240 second duration version of the full 45 minute EPA/CA certification test done on a chassis dynamometer under different speed and load conditions.

California uses the ASM (acceleration simulation mode) test that tests the car on a chassis dyno at 15 and 25 MPH using a higher load than required to maintain steady speed on a level road. Thus it "simulates acceleration". This is the test used on pre-2000 cars in California; 2000-up only require a check for OBD II codes and some visual inspections.

As I said, each state develops and implements their own SIP and I'm not familiar with all of them. I believe that most states offer "special plates" for vintage cars, and I recall at least one state just requires a one time fee for the plate, waives any emission or vehicle inspections, and you're essentially done with annual registration fees for as long as you own the car.

A useful project for chapters would be to research the options available to members of whatever states they live in.

Back in the day California used to have "smog alerts", and I recall there were three severity levels, stage 1, 2, and 3, but I forgot which one was the worst and which was the least. I recall the primary criterion was the ozone concentration, but we haven't had one since sometime in the 1990's, about 30 years ago!

Something else I've noticed is that the bureaucracies continually tighten the standards. As of now vehicle emissions are down 98-99 percent compared to fifties vintage vehicles that lacked both crankcase and exhaust emission controls of any kind, so further reductions of 50 percent or whatever would have little effect on aggregate emissions, but would cost an huge bundle and/or severely restrict the size of vehicles.

Then there are particle emissions, which are primarily an issue with diesel engines and coal fired power plants. (California has none.) For a while it was PM 10 (particles, 10 microns or less). Now the California the Air Resources Board is all in a tizzy over PM 2.5 (2.5 microns or smaller) citing "studies" that show them to be "unhealthful" over a certain concentrations, but I question their conclusions, if not data, because they have to keep justifying their existence.

I'll tell you what's "unhealthful". Genetic studies show that humanity was nearly wiped out about 70,000 years ago... "down to a few thousand mating pairs" the story goes. This date also corresponds to the estimated eruption date of a supervolcano about the same time that pumped enough ash and toxic gases like SO2 into the atmosphere to nearly wipe us out and probably wiped out some species. The crater this supervolcano left in now called Lake Toba. Located in Indonesia it can be seen with the naked eye by astronauts.

So I'm not too worried about PM 2.5. Toba could blow again and then there's Yellowstone, also a supervolcano. Geologists have identified two or three craters that have moved in a slightly curved line toward the west, southwest (as the continent has shifted in that direction) that they believe are the remnants of previous Yellowstone eruptions. The frequency is in the range of 600,000 to 1.2 million years and guess how long it's been since the last eruption?

About 600,000 years! And the next time Yellowstone blows it will very likely be a major extinction event, possibly including us!

Correct me If I'm wrong on any of the above, Michael.

Duke

[Michael J.]

As Michael said, Congress has passed "resolutions", but it's not clear to me what is required to rescind California's waiver. A bill passed by Congress and signed by the president? A presidential executive order? It's not clear to me.


Correct me If I'm wrong on any of the above, Michael.

Duke

The CRA resolutions require the signature of the President to become law, and California is prepared to take legal action if they are signed. The legal challenges are expected to focus on the applicability of the CRA to these waivers. So once these resolution become law, with the President's signature, a series of court actions will start to block it. I suspect SCOTUS will side with the President, but all this will have to play out, so stay tuned in the meantime....
States that had adopted California's emissions standards under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act will need to reconsider their strategies. Many manufacturers may also adopt a "wait and see" approach while the legal and regulatory landscape clarifies.
If the resolutions and law from them stand the court tests, some experts suggest that California and other states may explore implementing other strategies to reduce emissions, such as regulating indirectly through measures targeting facilities like warehouses and ports, or expanding zero-emission vehicle incentive programs, although the Big Beautiful Bill would remove any federal incentives for these vehicles.