CEC Approves Nation’s First Replacement Tire Efficiency Standards

CEC Approves Nation’s First Replacement Tire Efficiency Standards

The California Energy Commission (CEC) on Monday approved the Replacement Tire Efficiency Program (RTEP), the nation’s first efficiency standards for replacement tires sold for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in California.

The tires that come on new cars are typically designed to give drivers better fuel mileage. But average replacement tires are less efficient, meaning that consumers often lose mileage and range when they replace their tires. These cost-saving standards are designed to ensure that replacement tires are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold on new vehicles.

The standards, approved unanimously by CEC commissioners, will save California drivers nearly $1 billion per year in gasoline and electricity costs, putting money back in their pockets. The standards will also reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2 million metric tons per year, equivalent to taking approximately 400,000 gasoline cars off California roads.

“Today, we are proud to approve the nation’s first replacement tire efficiency standards,” said CEC Chair David Hochschild. “This action will help Californians save approximately $1 billion a year on refueling while reducing pollution and extending the range of vehicles on the road. I would like to thank all the consumer organizations, industry leaders and public health advocates for their support of this important step forward for California.”

“California’s direction is consistent with Michelin’s all-sustainable and holistic approach for reducing the impact of tires at every stage of the life cycle without compromising safety and other performances that are important to consumers,” said Francesca Mosteller, Director of State & Local Government Affairs, Michelin North America. “We support the efficiency goals and believe the proposed thresholds in this rulemaking are technically feasible within the defined timeframes.”

“[The state] is at the cusp of adopting a program that will deliver real cost savings and environmental benefits to the people of California, allowing you to drive forward energy and climate benefits,” said Karim D. Marshall, Director of Climate and Energy Policy, Consumer Federation of America.

The incremental cost for consumers is very low – only $1.50 per tire during Phase 1 (2029-2033) and $6.50 per tire during Phase 2 (2033 and beyond). A typical driver of a gasoline car with more efficient tires will save $179 of gasoline over the life of a set of tires, or about seven times the incremental cost. These savings were calculated with gasoline prices of $4.60 per gallon. At the elevated gasoline prices of mid-2026, the savings could be 25% higher than estimated.

There are already replacement tires that meet the standards and are available today. These tires are popular, safe, long-lasting, competitively priced, and made by a wide range of manufacturers. Manufacturers will have many years to adjust the design of tires that do not yet meet the standard, which comes into full effect in 2033.

The CEC conducted extensive laboratory testing on the most popular replacement tires in California, as well as reviewed best-in-class industry data from companies such as Discount Tire. This analysis confirms that the regulation is cost-effective and feasible, and that there will be no adverse tradeoffs with tire lifespan, safety, or other characteristics.

The CEC also conducted a five-year stakeholder engagement process with the tire industry, including manufacturers and trade associations. Based on feedback from stakeholders, the CEC has carved out exceptions for certain specialty tires, such as competition tires, large off-road tires, and all-weather winter performance tires. It also created product categories for long-life tires, ultra-high-performance tires, low-load-index tires, and other tires with special characteristics.

As the CEC implements the replacement tire efficiency standard, it will continue to work with stakeholders and ensure equitable and effective enforcement.

###

About the California Energy Commission
The California Energy Commission is the state’s primary energy policy and planning agency, leading the state to a 100 percent clean energy future for all. It has seven core responsibilities: advancing state energy policy, encouraging energy efficiency, certifying power plants, investing in energy innovation, developing renewable energy, transforming transportation, and preparing for energy emergencies

**************************************************

Here’s my take on this:

Barry’s Tire Tech: California Energy Commission: California’s Proposed Replacement Tire Efficiency Program

Any move to regulate the chemicals used in the tires?

There is a EU proposal to address wear particles. They call these particles “Tire and Road Wear Particles” (TRWP). The proposed regulation is called Euro7. Euro7 is mostly a vehicle emissions regulation, but there is a part that covers these particles.

: Barry’s Tire Tech: Euro7: How tires figure in!

Also, there is an issue with a chemical antioxidant/antiozonant - 6PPD. Studies show that roadway runoff washes 6PPD into the waterways, killing fish. Some species of fish are much more sensitive than others - in particular Coho salmon.

The use of 6PPD is quite extensive in the tire industry - such that the chemical just can not be banned without thoroughly disrupting things and the consumers would be the one paying for this disruption with poor aging qualities in virtually every tire.

The tire industry has been looking for alternatives and progress has been made, but they aren’t there yet!

@Cavell Can we please keep the politics out of this?

Call this a selfish act to reduce air pollution. Of course, people want cheap tires from Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Russia etc. but those tires result in reduced fuel economy. Millions of vehicles operating with subpar tires create more air pollution.

This is NOT my experience with replacement tires. Not even close. I’ve yet to buy a replacement tire that wasn’t better in almost every category as the OEM tires I replaced - including MPG. Better ride…better handling…longer lasting (usually by a lot).

Instead of forcing drivers to buy LRR(lower rolling resistance) tires, find a way to enourage drivers to to maintain proper air pressure.

And no, a TPMS light doesn’t count - those come on at Spec Pressure minus 25 percent. Tire pressures 2psi under can also cost fuel economy.

Get 90 percent of cars on the road close to door frame placard pressure, and you’ll see real fuel and energy savings. As it is, 40 percent of passenger tires are grossly under inflated, 40 percent are grossly overinflated, and then there’s that 20 percent like your’s truly..!

As happens with nearly all legislation of this type, the reduction in emissions will be less than estimated and the cost to consumers will be higher that estimated. Bet on it.

The lowest income residents will be faced with higher cost tire replacement that they cannot afford. Future fuel cost savings are immaterial if you cannot pay for new tires now. The the driver will run tires on the cords or buy mis-matched used tires making every CA driver less safe. We all want cleaner air and water but the unintended consequences must be considered.

Take the laws about catalytic convertor replacements as an example. Does a 285,000 mile Camry really need an OEM level cat given the limited life left in the car? No. Aftermarket should be OK if it turns off the P0420. But a $3000 convertor replacement for an old car worth $4000 is likely not going to happen. So the car gets illegally straight piped and runs the highways unregistered because it won’t pass emissions OR an unscrupulous inspector takes a $50 or $100 to look the other way.

How often have you replaced the OEM tires with the same brand and model tires? I typically get better performance on replacement tires, but I never buy the same make and model tire. I will say that we got over 68,000 miles on the OEM Michelin tires on the Odyssey. We only have 3 months on the new tires, and I can’t offer a comparison.

I don’t. And that’s the point. I have bought the same brand. Why would I buy the same model if they only lasted 30k miles.

My wife’s Lexus came with Michelin tires. Had to replace at less than 30k miles. We replaced them with Michelins but the model that she had on her Accord. They lasted at least 70k miles. Same speed rating, but the UTOG rating of the new tires was higher.

At one point I researched which tires came on my 2010 Accord EX when the original buyer bought it. “Michelin Pilot” and “MX4” came up in the search, but I think only an updated version of that has been available for some years.

That’s something to consider when replacing tires on a ten or more model year old vehicle: In many cases the OE tires have been discontinued or succeeded by an updated version.

Michelin Primacy MXM4 (or MXV4). Those are for fuel economy, and the opposition does not want low rolling resistance tires.

Nevada:

And that hits on an underlying fact: Most OE tires - not all but most - possess LRR(low resistance) properties, while lending an upscale feel for a road test, impacts their ratings in other characteristics (traction, stopping, etc.).

(forget it - if I misspelled ‘characteristics’ too many times, it’s not my fault there’s 5 syllables and so many letters in the word! :laughing:)

It’s been a week since those new tire regulations have been issued - and we’ve seen the feedback - almost exclusively negative. It’s now time to address them. Here’s how:

Governor Gavin Newsom should draft a bill to be presented to the state legislature. In that bill would be changing the mandate of AB844 which is the source of all the issues - specifically that replacement market tires need to meet or be better than the OEM tires. Removing that frees up the CEC to write a regulation that makes sense.

I would propose that the database be created and filled in. After ithat, look at the data in light of how many tires would be banned. I’ll leave it to all the stakeholders to find out where that level is.

So, all you residents of California. Contact the Governor AND your local state legislator and demand they do something about this. Sitting back and complaining should not be an option.

Or move out of the state like many others because you are outvoted.

I think that’s the coward’s way out. The issue isn’t going to go away. People need to stand and fight for it.

You can fight the bears or decide to move where you can be free of the bears. The intelligent decision is to move.

The only thing all this ideology-based relocation is doing is creating an evermore divided country.

We’ll be keeping multiple republics by the Tricentennial if this keeps up, lol!

What bothered me was the smugness ofbonebof the board members interviewed. Shevacted like she was doing the public a great favor and reducing their cost. The reality is the cost will be more and forced into a purchase they would not otherwise make. Of course it is not her problem she is allowed to rule But the voters that allow It.