Carpokes Porsche Forum

There's still hope. This law sets a precedent for extending the cutoff year. Maybe in 5 years an amendment can be introduced to extend it another 5 years. Plus, in 5 years they will know a little more about how to implement it better, how the finances are actually affected, if there's any drawbacks or if there's any adjustments needed.

Dave W. wrote: Tue Jul 15, 2025 4:01 pm There's still hope. This law sets a precedent for extending the cutoff year. Maybe in 5 years an amendment can be introduced to extend it another 5 years. Plus, in 5 years they will know a little more about how to implement it better, how the finances are actually affected, if there's any drawbacks or if there's any adjustments needed.

I do agree with that, and picking up an additional 5 model years right now helps. Between now and 2099, they WILL stop requiring expensive smog dyno's to test the handful of running cars left in the state, especially if this law comes into effect since it will cut the number of dyno-requiring cars by 40%, plus attrition. At some point (now?) it won't be sustainable any more. The only problem is that none of us are getting any younger... I'm not even sure I'll take advantage of the new law -- I put a lot of work into making both my cars pass smog, so not sure it's worth all the restrictions and requirements to make them collector cars at this point. On the other hand, one could imagine all sorts of fun engines in an early 944...

If it needs to go back to the state senate to approve the amendments, maybe there’s hope for us to contact our state senator and urge them to reject this one.

Abandon all hope ye who enter here... SB712 was killed in committee. Just when they got our hopes up too.

https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/08 ... his%20year.

Urgh, sad to see this, getting the older cars through smog is becoming such a PITA.

Sorry to hear that - I was sincerely hoping that you would get some relief. And I don't understand the lack of an explanation. "... did not provide a reason for killing the bill during Friday’s hearing ...”

The silence seems a bit rude for a relatively innocuous bill that doesn't appear to be that controversial.

blueline wrote: Sat Aug 30, 2025 2:44 pm Sorry to hear that - I was sincerely hoping that you would get some relief. And I don't understand the lack of an explanation. "... did not provide a reason for killing the bill during Friday’s hearing ...”

The silence seems a bit rude for a relatively innocuous bill that doesn't appear to be that controversial.

Honestly, the most recent edits created a fairly nonsensical set of rules anyway. Typical legislative process. Started as a sensible and long overdue proposal. Then the committees got ahold of it and made a total nonsensical mess of it; then the legislature kills it because it is nonsensical. Youtube commentators said the conversation went south when they started talking about the costs to the DMV of confirming all the requirements previously tacked on by committees (checking for collector insurance, use limitations, etc.). The irony is that the whole system is outrageously expense to maintain -- I bet they could get 90% of the benefit for 10% of the cost with rational changes to the system. This one got further than most, and I continue to think it's just a matter of time before California updates the law. Every year that goes by, the whole antique car smog infrastructure will become more and more ludicrous...

We can't just dispose of a whole income-producing state bureaucracy and infrastructure on a whim! A kingdom's value is based on the number of victims/subjects. Why would anyone ever want to reduce that???

"Your highness, the peasants are revolting!" King: "You can say that again!"

-----

Have to say how pleasantly surprised we were when we moved here from Cali over a decade ago now. Just wandered into the local DMV office a few days in. 30 mins later, new driver's licenses, car registrations and ownership transferred, new plates issued. No transfer taxes, just a few low fees that totaled less than a single Cali "use tax" bill. No smog check. I'm mixed on the last item, as I sort of depended on that to get a feel for how healthy the car is. Plus the thousands of my closest driving friends here that think liberty means ripping emissions control stuff off the car is both a right and a duty.

Tom wrote: Sat Aug 30, 2025 3:31 pm
Honestly, the most recent edits created a fairly nonsensical set of rules anyway. Typical legislative process. Started as a sensible and long overdue proposal. Then the committees got ahold of it and made a total nonsensical mess of it; then the legislature kills it because it is nonsensical. Youtube commentators said the conversation went south when they started talking about the costs to the DMV of confirming all the requirements previously tacked on by committees (checking for collector insurance, use limitations, etc.)...

Again, I'll highlight the "collector insurance" thing. This was baked into the original version of the bill, then seemingly got taken away, but then tacked back on in committee. WHY? I suspect some lobbying by the Hagertys of the world, but have zero proof of this . . . .

OK, maybe someone drafting the bill figured the mileage and driving restrictions of such a collector car policy would serve to automatically police the usage of these cars and thus minimize air pollution---again, this is pure speculation. It would be interesting to hear from someone in one of these committees and what any other sticking points might have been.

Status quo it is!

cda951 wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2025 6:36 pm

Tom wrote: Sat Aug 30, 2025 3:31 pm
Honestly, the most recent edits created a fairly nonsensical set of rules anyway. Typical legislative process. Started as a sensible and long overdue proposal. Then the committees got ahold of it and made a total nonsensical mess of it; then the legislature kills it because it is nonsensical. Youtube commentators said the conversation went south when they started talking about the costs to the DMV of confirming all the requirements previously tacked on by committees (checking for collector insurance, use limitations, etc.)...

Again, I'll highlight the "collector insurance" thing. This was baked into the original version of the bill, then seemingly got taken away, but then tacked back on in committee. WHY? I suspect some lobbying by the Hagertys of the world, but have zero proof of this . . . .

OK, maybe someone drafting the bill figured the mileage and driving restrictions of such a collector car policy would serve to automatically police the usage of these cars and thus minimize air pollution---again, this is pure speculation. It would be interesting to hear from someone in one of these committees and what any other sticking points might have been.

Status quo it is!

Call me jaded, but I don't think the committee-adds were anything more than roadblocks by the opposition to limit the reach of the bill. I don't think many of them were making rational analysis -- just 'how can we kill this or strangle it to the point it barely matters.' If they could have gotten others to agree it only applied to purple cars with green stripes, they would have added that too. Like I said, call me jaded...