by Kerry Jackson
On the surface, it might appear to be minor. Nothing too big. But from seemingly insignificant rules come sweeping, burdensome regulatory frameworks. [some emphasis, links added]
The plan is only to outlaw a particular type of automobile tire for fuel-economy purposes, but it gives regulators the power to police anything they wish: from engine displacement (while internal-combustion engines are still legal in the state) to even a minimum seating capacity (no more two-seat sports cars because they aren’t energy-efficient).
More than 20 years ago, the Legislature passed a law that established the Replacement Tire Efficiency Program, “to ensure that replacement tires sold in the state are at least as energy efficient, on average, as the tires sold in the state as original equipment on these vehicles.”
Few car owners think about it when buying a new set of tires, but those with high-rolling resistance get poorer mileage than those with low-rolling resistance — the sort of tire California wants to force on car owners.
Proposed rules would also set a minimum wet-grip standard for tires, which seems contradictory if safety is a factor, since low-rolling resistance tires have poorer traction than regular tires.
The California Energy Commission says passenger cars running “more efficient replacement tires” will eventually save $153 over the four-year life of their tires. Overall, enforcement of the rule “would save nearly $1 billion per year in gasoline and electricity costs, putting money back in the pockets of California drivers.”
There are reasons to doubt the claim.
Low-resistance tires typically have a shallow tread that wears out faster than tires with deeper treads. Low-rolling resistance tires in Europe typically last about half as long as U.S. all-season tires.
“Shorter-lived tires mean more frequent purchases and more expense over time, directly undermining the fuel savings the regulation promises,” according to Autoblog.
“How California’s tire ban will actually address these finer points remains to be seen, but the initial impressions point to an idea that could play out better in theory than in real life.”
The rule will also squeeze the tire market, leaving owners with fewer choices. Should the regulation pass and hold, Autoblog says:
“[A]nyone buying replacement tires in California (and not just those shopping for high-performance tires) faces a narrower, fundamentally different market. Tires optimized for durability, traction in poor conditions, or heavier vehicles could fail to meet the new thresholds of rolling resistance for that model, potentially putting anyone who wants anything other than low-rolling resistance tires in a spot.”
Car And Driver says the rule “hinges on a misunderstanding of how vehicle tires actually function” and that it’s possible the rule would “effectively ban all aftermarket tires.”
This will hit the “enthusiasts who use inefficient but grippy high-performance tires” particularly hard, says Motor 1. But we might not hear much from them since they “represent only a tiny fraction of a bigger market, so it shouldn’t be an issue for the average consumer.”
Read rest at PRI
#
Look up California Energy Commission Docket 26-TIRE-01 and decide for yourself.
Imagine needing new tires and being told the government has decided the tires you want aren’t allowed anymore.
That may sound ridiculous, but California is working on a regulation right now that could limit replacement tire choices based on fuel-efficiency standards. And if you think this only affects California, think again. California regulations have a habit of spreading to states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Illinois.
Here’s what bothers me. Factory tires aren’t chosen because they’re the best tires available. Automakers choose them based on cost, supplier contracts, production needs, ride quality, and fuel-economy targets. It’s a business decision.
Now California wants to use that factory compromise as the benchmark for replacement tires.
Why? Who benefits? And why is a law passed in 2003 suddenly becoming a priority today?
This video from Car Coach Reports explores a controversial proposal by the California Energy Commission (CEC) known as the Replacement Tire Efficiency Program (Docket 26-TIRE-01). The host, Lauren Fix, argues that this regulatory move could significantly limit consumer choice in the automotive aftermarket (0:00 – 1:45).
Key Aspects of the Proposal:
- The Goal: The CEC aims to mandate that replacement tires sold in California meet strict energy-efficiency standards, specifically benchmarks modeled after original equipment (OEM) tires (3:31 – 3:42).
- The Timeline: The program is planned for a two-phase rollout: Phase 1 begins January 1st, 2028, banning the sale of the lowest-performing tires, followed by stricter efficiency targets in Phase 2 on January 1st, 2031 (3:12 – 3:42).
- Legal Basis: These regulations stem from Assembly Bill 844, a 2003 law that is only now being activated by the commission to drive this policy forward (1:53 – 2:12).
Main Concerns and Criticisms:
- Consumer Choice: The host contends that OEM tires are often the result of business compromises (cost, supply chain, production needs) rather than being the “best” tire for every driving scenario. Forcing the market to mirror these choices could eliminate options for snow, off-road, or high-performance tires (3:39 – 3:46; 9:07 – 10:16).
- Economic Impact: The burden of compliance falls on retailers, which is expected to drive up tire prices by 20% to 50% for consumers (3:47 – 3:58; 8:39 – 8:46).
- National Precedent: While this is a California proposal, the host warns that such regulations frequently spread to other states, effectively setting national standards for the automotive industry (0:35 – 1:00; 15:14 – 15:53).
- Industry Pushback: Organizations like the Tire Industry Association (TIA) and the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) are actively opposing the rule, arguing it ignores the diverse needs of drivers and will harm small tire retailers (8:29 – 9:03).
The host encourages viewers to review the California Energy Commission docket directly to understand the full scope of the proposed changes before they are finalized (5:13 – 5:44; 17:55 – 18:18).
