California drivers will soon have fewer choices when it comes time to replace their tires. The California Energy Commission voted unanimously Aug. 17 to adopt the nation’s first mandatory energy-efficiency standards for replacement tires sold for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. The new Replacement Tire Efficiency Program is technically a regulation implementing a law passed more than two decades ago — Assembly Bill 844 of 2003 — which directed the commission to make replacement tires, on average, as energy-efficient as the tires installed on new vehicles.
The issue is rolling resistance. As a tire rolls, it continually flexes where it contacts the pavement, consuming energy. Reducing that resistance can improve gasoline mileage and extend EV driving range. Automakers already pay considerable attention to rolling resistance when selecting original-equipment tires because it affects a vehicle’s EPA fuel-economy numbers. Replacement tires, however, are often less efficient.
Beginning in 2029, replacement tires manufactured for sale in California will have to meet minimum rolling-resistance requirements, along with a minimum wet-grip standard intended to protect safety. More stringent efficiency requirements arrive in 2033. The regulation does not require anyone to discard tires already on a vehicle, nor does California dictate a particular tire brand. It does mean tires failing the standards generally cannot be sold in the state. Specialty exemptions include certain competition, large off-road and winter-performance tires, and the final program contains different standards or provisions for several other specialized tire categories.
California makes an impressive economic case for the rule. The Energy Commission estimates the 2029 requirement will add about $1.50 to the cost of each tire, or $6 per set, while saving a typical gasoline-vehicle owner roughly $85 in fuel during the tires’ useful life. Under the stricter 2033 standard, the estimated additional cost becomes $26 per set, while lifetime fuel savings rise to about $179. The state projects nearly $1 billion annually in gasoline and electricity savings and a reduction of 2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year.
Consumer Reports and the Consumer Federation of America support the program. They argue that consumers replacing worn tires reasonably expect the new tires to provide comparable efficiency and that efficient tires already exist across the marketplace. Michelin has also said the efficiency targets are technically achievable within the allotted time.
The tire industry’s objections deserve equal attention.
The Tire Industry Association says the state may be significantly underestimating what consumers will actually pay. In one analysis using a common 215/55R16 tire size for a Honda Civic, TIA found Phase 1-compliant tires averaged $117.36, compared with $81.30 for entry-level all-season tires that did not meet the efficiency criteria. TIA says some consumers could ultimately pay more than $300 extra for a set if inexpensive choices disappear. It also worries higher prices could cause financially strapped motorists to delay replacing worn tires or turn to used tires instead — creating a potential safety consequence of its own.
The U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association raises another issue: tire design involves tradeoffs. Rolling resistance, wet traction, tread life, durability and price are interconnected, and USTMA argues that the real-world effects may not be fully known until the first phase is implemented. It asked California to evaluate those results before moving to the tougher 2033 standard. SEMA similarly argues drivers select tires for many reasons — traction, tread life, ride, noise, performance, price and intended use — and says California should emphasize labeling and consumer education rather than removing noncompliant tires from the market.
That brings us to the larger question: How much of this decision belongs to government?
I have no objection whatsoever to California requiring clear efficiency ratings so consumers know exactly what they are buying. In fact, I think that is useful information. Where I become uncomfortable is when an otherwise safe tire cannot be purchased because government has decided fuel efficiency should outweigh a consumer’s other priorities.
If one Californian wants to pay more for maximum efficiency, terrific. If another wants a less expensive tire, longer tread life or different performance characteristics, my preference is to give that person the information and allow him or her to decide, but that’s just me.
California has made a legitimate case that efficient tires can save drivers money. Whether that justifies taking other choices away is a very different question. And as I like to say, less government, to me, is always better.
Editorial credit: Robert V Schwemmer /Shutterstock.com. Los Angeles, 110 Freeway, August 2024.