California’s Smog Rules Are Forcing Me To Sell My Beloved 1985 Jeep J10, And The Improbable ‘Leno’s Law’ Is My Only Hope

My only hope for my 1985 Jeep J10 is “Leno’s Law,” Senate Bill 712. The state of California requires me to get my beloved old truck to pass emissions, which would involve me trying to find unobtainium parts, and then tuning my truck to run like garbage. Either those, or I’d have to go through the considerable trouble of trying to do an engine-swap. These are’t going to happen, meaning Leno’s Law — which seeks to extend California’s emissions relief from “all cars before 1976” to “all cars 35 years old and older” — is my only hope. But I think it’s doubtful that it’s going to pass.

I’ve owned my 1985 Jeep J10 for 10 years now, and I love it. It’s a truck’s truck, with a long bed, a manual transmission, 4×4, a bench seat, a regular cab, manual locking hubs, a gun rack, and a stamped tailgate — what more could anyone want in a pickup?

The problem is that my J10, which was legal to drive in Michigan despite missing emissions control devices (since they’re so failure-prone and hard to replace), is not legal to drive in California, where I now live. For me to get the vehicle back into compliance would cost me far too much money and time. To avoid this, I either have to sell the vehicle, register it elsewhere (California is cracking down on this, I’m told), or work with a California “referee” on an engine swap. And, with a new child in my home, I don’t have time for that.

Leno’s Law would exempt my truck, and any vehicle 35 years old or older.The upsides of the proposal would be preserved car culture, more money to the state in the form of taxes/consumer spending, less of a struggle finding specialized SMOG shops for folks who own older post-1975/pre-2000 cars, and just generally improved joy in this world.

Those who denounce the concept often cite emissions output and its deleterious effect on the climate and on human health. I recently read a story on Capitol Weekly, a news site about California politics, and in that article were a number of scary quotes about vehicle emissions. Like this one:

Will Barrett, national senior director for clean air advocacy at the American Lung Association, called SB 712 “one of the most problematic air quality bills of the year.”

“Older vehicles pollute a lot more than modern vehicles,” he told the Bay Area News Group earlier this month. “It’s that much more important to have them in the program to protect against millions of extra miles of smog emissions that would come as a result.”

Brendan Twohig, who spoke at the April 8 hearing on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [comprised of executive officers from all 35 local air districts] said California Air Resources data that shows that a 1982 passenger car that passes smog check emits approximately 123 times the Nox emissions of a 2025 car.

“So assuming a 1982 car has driven just 3,000 miles in a year, its Nox [nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide] emissions are equivalent of a 2025 car being driven 369,000 miles per year. And then for daily drivers, which would be allowed under this bill, at 11,000 miles a year, that’s the equivalent of 1,353,000 miles,” he said.

Twohig believes that without smog checks, emissions equipment can be tampered with or fail altogether, resulting in air pollution impacts that can be substantially high.

I haven’t confirmed any of these figures, but I buy it. I can totally see an old car like my J10 putting out hundreds of times as much NOx as a modern gas car, and so even if we consider mileage limits, it’s still going to be a significant net negative for pollution over a new car.

Of course, that’s assuming the person is replacing the old car with a new one, which is highly unlikely. These are collector vehicles, most likely with a mileage cap under Leno’s Law, so they’re clearly toys. And let’s be honest: There are lots of toys that aren’t the best for the environment, like, for example, pre 1976 cars! And older boats, and motorycles and, heck, private jets! A small number of people putting limited miles on their 1976-1990 (or whatever year they choose) isn’t really going to be that big of a deal for the environment, though per the quote above, it’s not going to be a positive one, and to some lawmakers, that makes Leno’s Law directionally-incorrect.

Leno’s Law Supporters suggest an emissions abatement fee, which they’d gladly pay.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by David Tracy (@davidntracy)

In my eyes, Leno’s Law is going to be a hard sell. “Let’s make it easier for polluting cars to drive legally” is how some people hear it, and emotional appeals like “let’s preserve car culture” aren’t enough. Economic incentives are there, but how significant are they? How do they compare to the potential increase in pollution? That’s a key question, as this clip from a Senate Appropriations Meeting makes clear.

Here’s what SEMA has to say about Leno’s Law:

The passage of SB 712 is expected to have positive economic and cultural impacts. California’s specialty automotive aftermarket industry supports more than 149,000 jobs and contributes $40.44 billion to the state’s economy.

The bill aims to keep these jobs and businesses thriving by reducing regulatory burdens on classic car owners.

“This bill ensures California remains a welcoming home for car culture—whether you’re restoring a ’76 Trans Am, cruising in a lowrider, or just visiting your local classic car show,” added Grove. “We’re embracing the history, innovation, and pride of these collector cars.”

If the economic benefits can be leveraged into environmental remediation, then maybe Leno’s Law won’t be such an environmental detriment. Otherwise I just don’t see how it’s going to move forward. I also have to wonder if there are other answers to this problem — As an example: Your car is emissions exempt and mileage-capped if and only if you daily-drive an EV and put at least 3x the miles on it.

Here’s more from the bill’s author, Senator Shannon Grove:

“These classic cars aren’t just hobby vehicles—they represent generations of craftsmanship, culture, and community pride,” said Senator Grove. “With this bill, we’re protecting small businesses, empowering car enthusiasts, and preserving a vital piece of California’s heritage.”

Right now, cars before the catalytic converter era are legal to drive in California without any SMOG checks. The idea that California will say “your car actually came with emissions equipment but we no longer care if it works” seems tough to me. But I’m still a proponent of the bill, because I think car culture matters. And also, come on: Who wouldn’t want to see this truck out on the road? Joy, folks — it’s the only emission that matters:

I did recently buy a 1989 Chevy K1500 five-speed extended cab. Maybe it’s time for this to just take the spot of the J10? It doesn’t have a spot of rust and it SMOGs nicely, even though it’s not quite as cool or “pure” as a pickup truck: