{"id":454323,"date":"2026-09-05T08:50:18","date_gmt":"2026-09-05T08:50:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/454323\/"},"modified":"2026-09-05T08:50:18","modified_gmt":"2026-09-05T08:50:18","slug":"i-did-a-deep-dive-into-californias-tire-ban-heres-the-truth-about-whats-happening","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/454323\/","title":{"rendered":"I Did A Deep-Dive Into California\u2019s \u2018Tire Ban\u2019: Here\u2019s The Truth About What\u2019s Happening"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you\u2019re in California, it\u2019s probably been hard to escape chatter about the \u201ctire ban.\u201d It\u2019s officially the Replacement Tire Efficiency Program (RTEP), which the California Energy Commission (CEC) unanimously approved on August 18, 2026. Since then, concern is swirling about what the California Energy Commission has done, and how it will be implemented. It\u2019s a dense subject you can\u2019t get your arms around from soundbites, short articles, or even the few minutes a TV news feature story provides. We\u2019re going to dig in pretty deep. We studied tire industry statements, spoke with retail and aftermarket sector representatives, and went directly to the CEC itself. Strap in, it\u2019s a lot. And if you want to play along at home, there\u2019s a trove of documentation here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s Not A Tire Ban\/It\u2019s A Tire Ban<\/p>\n

Despite what you may have heard about the program, the tire police are not marching. \u201cAutomotive enthusiasts should rest easy,\u201d said Harrison Reilly, CEC Information officer. \u201cConsumers will have access to an abundance of options for replacement tires. Our goal is to give Californians better-performing tires that save them money while preserving plenty of choices across brands, models, and price points.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Vidframe
\n\"Vidframe<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not surprising that the state would be in favor of a decision made by the state. New rules about what is okay to sell have naturally led to worries and questions from the public. \u201cI could see why people call it a tire ban,\u201d said Christian Robinson, Senior Director for State Government with SEMA, which advocates for the automotive aftermarket industry. \u201cThey [the CEC] want to mandate that replacement tires in the state are essentially at least as efficient as [the vehicle] had when it moved off the assembly line, and they\u2019ve come up with a rolling resistance coefficient to measure that.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"DepositphotosDepositPhotos.com<\/p>\n

Call it what you want. Stuff that doesn\u2019t meet the standards can\u2019t be sold. It becomes a question of semantics; the end result is the same as a ban, whether or not the CEC sought one or not. It sure is rhetorically efficient to just call it a ban. That probably burns some asses in Sacramento.<\/p>\n

The docket<\/a> is stocked with submitted comments, some in support, but many more critical of the effort. \u201cThis legislation is a bad idea,\u201d said Mark Skrenes<\/a> in a comment submitted July 28. \u201cConsider the possibility that by creating separate rulemaking for California you may inadvertently [be] driving up the price of tires in a way that is not captured in your economic analysis,\u201d he said. Bryan Bergsteinsson<\/a>, who identifies himself as a long-time member of the SAE and past head of product development for Toyota in the U.S. is also skeptical; \u201cthe government has no business or an effective track record on managing technology or the marketplace,\u201d reads his comment, though he agrees that buyers benefit from information. \u201cRating tires for performance, yes, making decisions and taking away choice for consumers, no.\u201d<\/p>\n

Throughout the process, the CEC has been responsive to input from industry and individuals. \u201cMichelin<\/a> supports CEC\u2019s proposed express terms aimed at improving tire rolling resistance and overall energy efficiency, recognizing its alignment with long-term environmental and performance objectives,\u201d the company submitted. The tire industry made a lot of technical suggestions for adjustments to the proposed legislation, many of which were adopted into the final rules. Bridgestone<\/a> said; \u201cby integrating previous industry feedback from the initial comment period into the revised draft regulation, CEC has drafted a fuel efficiency program that is technically feasible \u2014 albeit challenging \u2014 and that advances energy efficiency goals while preserving safety, performance, and innovation within the tire industry.\u201d The US Tire Manufacturers Association<\/a> submitted 16 pages of positions and suggested tweaks in June and acknowledged the cooperative process of working with the CEC to develop the regulations; \u201cUSTMA acknowledges the Commission\u2019s goals of improving tire energy efficiency and providing consumers with meaningful information about tire performance. These are goals that USTMA and its members share. USTMA has been engaged in this regulatory development process since its inception, engaging in public workshops, submitting comments, providing data and organizing educational opportunities for CEC staff.\u201d<\/p>\n

Still, the concerns about higher prices and reduced options will linger. \u201cWe wish they had gone a little bit further or even delayed it further.\u201d said SEMA\u2019s Robinson. \u201cThe parameters that are built into the policy give latitude for [manufacturers] to deliver real-life value and benefit to the consumer,\u201d said Woody Rogers, senior vice president of marketing for Tire Rack<\/a>. \u201cThe rules are well-written and today\u2019s product is ready.\u201d<\/p>\n

As with most regulation, if nobody is entirely satisfied, it\u2019s probably just about right.<\/p>\n

What Is Actually Being Mandated?<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s what\u2019s actually mandated, from section 3306 in the amended Express Terms in document TN271526<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of this section,
no tire manufacturer, tire brand name owner, or tire retailer shall sell or offer for sale in California, except as wholesale for final retail sale outside of the state, any replacement tire that has an EU correlated rolling resistance coefficient greater than the following, when tested according to the specifications in section 3303(a):<\/p>\n

(1) For tires manufactured before January 1, 2029, there is no energy performance standard requirement.<\/p>\n

(2) For tires manufactured on or after January 1, 2029 and before January 1, 2033, 9.0 N\/kN.<\/p>\n

(3) For tires manufactured on or after January 1, 20312033, 7.1 N\/kN.<\/p>\n

That may seem pretty ban-ny at first read; let\u2019s paraphrase it to be less stern. Beginning on January 1, 2029, replacement tires offered for sale in California must meet a target Rolling Resistance Coefficient (RRC, measured in N\/kN \u2013 newtons per kilonewton, explained further below) and wet traction rating for their class. Several classes of tire have been created to cover the realities of tire efficiency for different vehicle and tire types and uses. This first phase of the program runs until 2033. Beginning January 1, 2033, RRC requirements become more stringent, and allowances for tires in categories other than the default also go into effect.<\/p>\n

\"IntercoInterco<\/p>\n

Tires have to meet the efficiency prerequisites or fit within one of the exempted categories. \u201cMany specialty tires are entirely exempt from the standard,\u201d said Reilly from the CEC. \u201cThese include competition tires, large off-road tires, winter snow-type tires, and all-weather winter performance tires. Niche tires are also exempted through a limited production tire exemption.\u201d<\/p>\n

How Do The Mandates Change Based On Type Of Tire?
\n\"Californiasource: California Energy Commission<\/a><\/p>\n

Because different vehicles need different tires \u2013 LT tires are not the answer for a Miata, for instance \u2014 the rules allow for some variation. From the Express Terms:<\/p>\n

(b) Ultra Long-Life Tires, Ultra High-Performance Tires, and Run-Flat and Extended
Mobility Tires. No tire manufacturer, tire brand name owner, or tire retailer shall sell or
offer for sale in California, except as wholesale for final retail sale outside the state, any
ultra long-life replacement tire, ultra high-performance replacement tire, or run-flat and extended mobility replacement tire that has an EU correlated rolling resistance coefficient greater than the following, when tested according to the specifications in section 3303(a):
(1) For tires manufactured before January 1, 2029, there is no energy
performance standard requirement.
(2) For tires manufactured on or after January 1, 2029 and before January 1, 2033, 9.8 N\/kN.
(3) For tires manufactured on or after January 1, 2033, 8.5 N\/kN.<\/p>\n

(c) Long-Life Tires. No tire manufacturer, tire brand name owner, or tire retailer shall sell
or offer for sale in California, except as wholesale for final retail sale outside the state,
any long-life replacement tire that has an EU correlated rolling resistance coefficient
greater than the following, when tested according to the specifications in section
3303(a):
(1) For tires manufactured before January 1, 2029, there is no energy
performance standard requirement.
(2) For tires manufactured on or after January 1, 2029 and before January 1,
2033, 9.4 N\/kN.
(3) For tires manufactured on or after January 1, 2033, 7.8 N\/kN.<\/p>\n

(d) Low Load Index Tires. No tire manufacturer, tire brand name owner, or tire retailer
shall sell or offer for sale in California, except as wholesale for final retail sale outside
the state, any low load index replacement tire that has an EU correlated rolling
resistance coefficient greater than the following, when tested according to the
specifications in section 3303(a):
(1) For tires manufactured before January 1, 2029, there is no energy
performance standard requirement.
(2) For tires manufactured on or after January 1, 2029 and before January 1,
2033, 9.5 N\/kN.
(3) For tires manufactured on or after January 1, 2033, 7.6 N\/kN.<\/p>\n

(e) Light Truck and Commercial Replacement Tires. No tire manufacturer, tire brand
name owner, or tire retailer shall sell or offer for sale in California, except as wholesale
for final retail sale outside the state, any light truck and commercial replacement tire that
has an EU correlated rolling resistance coefficient greater than the following, when
tested according to the specifications in section 3303(a):
(1) For tires manufactured before January 1, 2029, there is no energy
performance standard requirement.
(2) For tires manufactured on or after January 1, 2029 and before January 1, 2033, 9.0 N\/kN.
(3) For tires manufactured on or after January 1, 2033, 7.8 N\/kN.<\/p>\n

(f) All-Season Winter Performance Tires. There is no energy performance standard
requirement for any all-season winter performance replacement tire.<\/p>\n

There Are Lots Of Great Tires That Are Excluded From The Mandate<\/p>\n

See item (f)? That\u2019s a hidden gem. In short, anything with the 3 Peak Mountain Snowflake logo (3PMS) is exempt. Dedicated winter tires<\/a> such as the Bridgestone Blizzak, Cooper Discoverer True North, or Michelin X-Ice are amazing in the snow and ice. But their soft, squishy nature leads to higher noise, reduced efficiency, and lower dynamic performance in dry and warm conditions. Across this enormous continent, it doesn\u2019t snow enough to warrant dedicated winter tires for many people. The newer \u201cAll-Weather Tire<\/a>\u201d category still carries the 3PMS logo that means it\u2019s outside of RTEP scope, while being quieter, grippier, and generally just normal in terms of performance.<\/p>\n

\"Adobestockstock.adobe.com<\/p>\n

Running something like a Michelin CrossClimate, Goodyear Assurance Weatherready, or General Altimax 365 AW will be a non-event for most people. You\u2019d probably have to look at the sidewall to discover you\u2019re on anything fancier than a plain old all-season. Think of them as all-season tires that actually mean it; they\u2019re able to deal with more snow than you\u2019d otherwise expect, while also providing good wet traction, lower noise, and the durability to be installed year-round.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a pretty deep list of exclusions, too, including some enthusiast favorites. Your knobbies and slicks are safe.<\/p>\n

\"California[Source: California Energy Commission<\/a>]Additional exemptions cover:<\/p>\n

Limited Production tires \u2013 tires that sell or import fewer than 15,000 units per year in the United States. These tires can be sold in California without needing to meet the standards. The burden is on the manufacturers to certify the production or importation numbers each year with the CEC. While self-reporting may be fraught with fox guarding the henhouse vibes, getting audited and fined over a few thousand tires hardly seems worth any malfeasance.<\/p>\n

Exempted via Petition \u2013 need some new meats for your Porsche Carrera GT? Veyron\u2019s sitting on cracked sidewalls? If only you could get a set of proper sized Cooper Cobras for your XJ220 (white letters out, please!). A manufacturer seeking to serve these niches can petition the CEC to approve a tire that would otherwise fail to meet the criteria, so when there\u2019s no compliant tire available, you\u2019re not fated to a life on cinderblocks or endangering yourself or anyone else by running on vintage tires well-past the point of being safe.<\/p>\n

Can I Still Buy Whatever Tires I Want?<\/p>\n

Probably. \u201cThe sky is not falling for enthusiasts,\u201d Rogers of Tire Rack told The Autopian. The company does significant business in California, thanks to both the state\u2019s large population and its vibrant car culture. Before his marketing role, Rogers spent more than 15 years leading the tire testing program and tire information department. \u201cI know about tires and I love tires,\u201d he said. \u201cWhat I think will end up happening is the very marginal product at the edges of the spectrum will be squeezed, or they will cheat to appear compliant.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"DepositphotosDepositPhotos.com<\/p>\n

Other tire retailers are less sanguine. America\u2019s Tire, also known as Discount Tire, warned the CEC about the regressive nature of cost increases. \u201cTires are a non-discretionary purchase,\u201d the company said in a June 2026 comment. \u201cDrivers cannot opt out. If highly efficient tires carry significant price premiums or meaningfully narrow the available selection, the burden will fall disproportionately on cost-sensitive consumers.\u201d The company is concerned about cost and availability, especially once the program is fully implemented. \u201cIf the Phase 2 requirements beginning in 2031 [later revised to 2033 before passage \u2013 DR] were applied to the tires we sell in California today, roughly 70 percent of currently available options would be removed from the market,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n

News and other media have picked up on that estimate to fuel the \u201ctire ban\u201d angle, and it\u2019s freaking people out. \u201cI have not had [anyone] email me or call me be like, \u2018oh, this is great,\u2019\u201d Robinson said about what people are telling SEMA. \u201cI think there\u2019s concern both from a consumer choice standpoint and from a cost standpoint, and that\u2019s across the board.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think there\u2019s really much of anything in our world that\u2019s going to be impacted, especially on the first phase of this,\u201d said Rogers, \u201cthe media is being sensational.\u201d<\/p>\n

As you can tell, there are competing opinions here.<\/p>\n

[Ed Note: One concern I have is BMW i3 tires. Currently, there\u2019s only one tire brand regularly available stateside, but every now and again MOMO Topruns come up for sale for 1\/3 the price of the Bridgestone Ecopias. The issue is: The MOMOs appear to have a much higher rolling resistance. Thus, these might be banned, leaving us i3 owners with yet again only a single choice that costs $250 to $300 a tire. This would be a huge financial hit to i3 owners, especially since our cars are electric, meaning we will not gain significant money back from the increased efficiency of the Bridgestones. -DT].\u00a0<\/p>\n

Pry \u2018em From My Cold, Dead Driveway<\/p>\n

The state will not be confiscating your tires. I asked Reilly if individual owners would be subject to equipment inspections, or if having non-compliant tires on a vehicle would result in a failed inspection or fines. \u201cAbsolutely not,\u201d he said. \u201cWe are committed to vigorous enforcement, but that enforcement will take place at the manufacturer and retailer level (including online retailers). This is similar to how other appliance efficiency standards are enforced. The scope of enforcement is at the retailer, manufacturer, and test laboratory level.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s on the tire industry to live up to expectations. \u201cThe standard addresses which new tires can be sold. It doesn\u2019t apply to a vehicle being sold or to what can be driven. The standard also applies to tires by manufacture date, so when Phase 1 and Phase 2 come into effect, the existing stock of tires on store shelves remains legal and is gradually replaced with compliant stock.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a great point about how remaining stock will be sold down.<\/p>\n

Nothing Changes Tomorrow<\/p>\n

Even though Phase 1 starts on January 1, 2029, don\u2019t expect anything drastic at that time (at least in terms of automotive tires). \u201cToday\u2019s product at large is already meeting the [phase 1] efficiency requirement,\u201d Tire Rack\u2019s Rogers told me.<\/p>\n

Phase 2 goes into effect in 2033; two-thirds of a decade from now. \u201cIt\u2019s going to get harder,\u201d Rogers acknowledged, \u201cbut that\u2019s two life cycles away from where we are right now, when we look at the tire development curve. So the manufacturers are not actively developing 2033-plus tire lines yet.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reasonable timelines were taken into account during the rule-making. \u201cManufacturers have years to make updates to the remaining models through their normal product development cycles, just as manufacturers routinely redesign and improve their products,\u201d said the CEC\u2019s Reilly.<\/p>\n

Robinson from SEMA voiced concerns about reduced choices and higher prices. \u201cIf you\u2019re a smaller manufacturer, especially, you\u2019re not going to make one set of tires for California, then one for every 49 states, you\u2019re going to need one,\u201d He said. \u201cOne that meets that that certain requirement. So it will have a trickle down effect one way or the other for sure.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cost Concerns<\/p>\n

\"California[Source: California Energy Commission<\/a>]In its final Environmental Impact Repor<\/a>t, the CEC estimates \u201cthe RTEP would result in fuel savings of $179 for lighter vehicle tires and $246 for heavier vehicle tires over the lifespan of a set of four high efficiency (low rolling resistance) tires.\u201d And in the August 17 release<\/a> announcing the passage of the standards, the CEC makes it sound cheap.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe incremental cost for consumers is very low \u2013 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some of the tire industry\u2019s own analysis disagrees with the rosy projections. That last bit about higher gas prices making the savings even sweeter seems to ignore secondary effects. More expensive petroleum for energy and raw materials is going to make tires more expensive to produce and ship by inflating lots of line items across the budget.\u00a0[Ed Note: Though this would be the case for less efficient tires, too. -DT].<\/p>\n

Gladfelty Government Relations has represented the concerns of Goodyear to the CEC during the development process. The firm submitted comments about the cost assumptions in July, saying:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Commission continues to characterize Phase 2 as a low-cost consumer savings measure, estimating an incremental cost of only $26 per set of four tires. That conclusion cannot be reconciled with the Commission\u2019s own Smithers Phase 2 testing data. The Smithers dataset demonstrates that tires meeting the proposed lower rolling resistance thresholds can carry materially higher retail prices and, in several instances, prices several times greater than many of the tires the proposed Phase 2 standard would effectively remove from the California market. Unless the Commission reconciles these actual market data with its modeled assumptions, the record does not support the conclusion that Phase 2 will reduce overall consumer costs as proposed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Gladfelty uses the CEC\u2019s own data and analysis to make its point:<\/p>\n

\"California[source: Smithers Phase 2, TN 269613<\/a>, pp. 7-8, 28-29]Using the chart, Gladfelty says: \u201cIf the proposed Phase 2 default threshold of 7.1 RRC is applied as a reference point, the lower-RRC side of the chart includes tires near $200, $300, and above $450 per tire, while many higher-RRC tires remain clustered around roughly $50 to $150 per tire. That is not a marginal $6.50-per-tire issue. It is a potential several-hundred-dollar point-of-sale issue for a set of four tires.<\/p>\n

The concern is that removing lower-cost, higher RRC tires from the market will force consumers to pay a lot more, and that other costs have been left out to make the projections look better. \u201cThe proposed standard can shift consumers into a substantially higher price band,\u201d states Gladfelty\u2019s letter. \u201cA household buying four tires does not experience that as a $26 change if the available compliant substitute costs $50, $100, or more per tire. Nor does CEC\u2019s estimate appear to fully account for sales tax, installation, disposal fees, redesign costs, compliance testing, or retailer inventory effects.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"California<\/p>\n

While the CEC may be trying to make it look as cheap as possible, Gladfelty may be pushing the numbers to be overly pessimistic.<\/p>\n

\u201cApplying the Phase 2 7.1 RCC limit to the Smithers passenger-car-tire (PCT) population shown above would remove 102 of 114 PCT SKUs (90%) and raise the average price of the remaining compliant tires from $149.92 per tire ($599.68 per set) to $241.22 per tire ($964.88 per set),\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is a statistically significant increase of $ 365.20 \/ set of tires for lower RRC tires from the CEC\u2019s data, which is far greater than the CEC\u2019s estimated increase of $26 \/ set of tires. Using CEC\u2019s estimated $179 fuel savings over the life of a set of tires, this regulation will cost consumers $186.20.\u201d<\/p>\n

This goes along with the gloomy America\u2019s Tire prediction that 70% of today\u2019s choices will evaporate come Phase 2. Reality is likely in the middle. The 102 tires that go away today will be at least partially backfilled by other products in a similar price range, going by the prevailing wisdom we\u2019ve gleaned from tire manufacturer and retailer statements and our own interviews. Costs may well increase, but a $100 jump in per-tire average price seems like an overshoot of its own, even though I won\u2019t pretend to be an expert on tire prices. As for historically sticky fuel prices, well, who knows what they\u2019re gonna do. Assume the new cheap will still be expensive.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe CEC stands by its analysis, research, and cost analysis presented in our staff report,\u201d the CEC\u2019s Harrison Reilly told us. \u201cThese cost estimates were developed based on data from the U.S. EPA and NHTSA, which regularly analyze the cost of lower rolling resistance tires. Because fuel prices can be volatile, we intentionally picked a conservative value for gasoline prices: $4.60 per gallon. That number has only increased since the start of the Iran conflict, and the savings would be substantially higher at current fuel prices.\u201d<\/p>\n

How Will I Know What\u2019s Good?<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve already been through a lot of numbers, facts, and figures; catnip for us nerds, but most people want tires that are round, black, and cheap. And if they last a decade, great!<\/p>\n

You need to meet people where they are. That\u2019s one of the things I learned during a decade in advertising. On my way to becoming a creative director, I learned you have to make choosing easy, and the CEC has taken all of the nerdery we\u2019re spending a few thousand words on here and squished it into four leaves.<\/p>\n

\"California<\/p>\n

The RTEP will use a tire rating system for fuel efficiency. It\u2019s a scale from zero to four leaves; four being the most efficient. It\u2019s similar to the numerical-based European system that\u2019s widely used across all sorts of consumer products, and kind of akin to EnergyStar here in the U.S., but the leaf ratings simplify comparison that much further.<\/p>\n

Reilly explained how the inspiration came from the way the EU does efficiency ratings for much more than just tires. \u201cThe EU uses A-E to indicate efficiency level, which is a system used broadly in the EU across all products including appliances and lighting,\u201d he said. \u201cConsumers in the United States are not familiar with that system, so we translated it into a leaf rating (more leaves = higher efficiency) that we hope will be easier to understand. The 4-leaf rating aligns with the EU \u201cA\u201d level rating for efficiency, 3 leaves align with \u201cB\u201d and so on.\u201d<\/p>\n

How Did We Get Here?<\/p>\n

The initiative started in 2003 as Californa Assembly Bill 844<\/a> (AB844), but paused in the mid-aughts while federal lawmakers tried for a nationwide tire efficiency standard as part of the now-defunct FAST<\/a> act, which expired in 2021<\/a>. The California Energy Commission (CEC) has spent the last six years collaboratively developing standards, rules, and processes for regulating replacement tire efficiency with the goal of creating a net savings for California car owners and reducing air pollution for all residents through related fuel efficiency gains.<\/p>\n

Simply adopting one of the existing standards wouldn\u2019t cut it, either. That\u2019s why California has built on a lot of what came before, but ultimately developed its own rules. \u201cThe EU also has minimum rolling resistance targets it adopted 17 years ago, which we analyzed,\u201d said Reilly. \u201cThe EU minimum requirements are set forth Regulation (EC) No 661\/2009, with maximum RRC of 12 in the 1st stage (effective Nov 2012) and 10.5 in the 2nd stage (effective Nov 2016). Of our originally tested tires, only three products would not meet the stricter EU 2nd stage standard, and even those tires were close to meeting it. That means aligning to that standard would yield very close to zero fuel and cost savings in comparison to adopting no minimum requirement at all.\u201d<\/p>\n

The CEC also looked into tire efficiency rules in Japan, Brazil, China, and South Korea. That research has informed the final RTEP standards.<\/p>\n

The Actual Standards<\/p>\n

\u201cCEC substantially aligned with EU requirements for a rolling resistance rating system and, to a large extent its testing procedures,\u201d Commission Information Officer Reilly told us. The RTEP efficiency standards balance maximum rolling resistance with minimum wet grip. Tires are evaluated against a standard reference tire (as defined by ASTM F2493-2420) using the ISO 28580:2018 procedures as its main test. \u201cWe tested 537 tires,\u201d said California Energy Commission Chariman Hochschild.<\/p>\n

\"DepositphotosDepositPhotos.com<\/p>\n

Tire Rack\u2019s Rogers explained the methodology: \u201cIt\u2019s around a reference that is standardized, so you have a point of comparison.\u201d Coefficients make comparison quicker and easier. \u201cThese values are essentially connected to the tire you\u2019re considering versus some kind of a reference. And it creates a coefficient. If it\u2019s one for one, then it\u2019s as good as the reference,\u201d Rogers said. \u201cThe rules are all written that it has to be, you know, some value or better relative to a reference.\u201d<\/p>\n

Essential Definitions<\/p>\n

This is how the CEC defines the terms and measurements tires are evaluated by. They will be mentioned a lot in the coming text, so this is what the shorthand means.<\/p>\n

Rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) means the ratio of the rolling resistance
force, in newtons (N), to the load on the tire in kilonewtons (kN) as calculated
pursuant to section 3303.\u00a0[Ed Note: This just the F = mu*N equation you learned in physics. -DT].\u00a0<\/p>\n

Rolling resistance force means the loss of energy (or energy consumed) per
unit of distance traveled. The unit conventionally used for the rolling resistance is
newton meter per meter (N m\/m). This is equivalent to a drag force in newtons (N).<\/p>\n

Run-flat and extended mobility tire means a tire structure provided with
technical solutions allowing the tire, mounted on the appropriate wheel and in the
absence of any supplementary component, to supply the vehicle with the basic tire
functions as verified by ISO 16992:2018 and labeled as such on the tire sidewall.<\/p>\n

Smaller truck and bus tire means a truck and bus tire with a load index of
121 or smaller or, where the load index is not marked, a maximum load of 1,450 kg
or lower.<\/p>\n

Sold or offered for sale in California means any sale of or offer to sell a
replacement tire or limited production tire for end use in the state, regardless of the
seller\u2019s physical location, and includes, without limitation, internet, telephone, and
mail order transactions. For purposes of this Article, the Uniform Commercial Code \u2013
Sales (Division 2 (commencing with section 2101) of the Commercial Code) does
not define \u201csold or offered for sale\u201d or determine where sales or offers for sale occur.<\/p>\n

Space-saver tire means a temporary use spare tire of reduced size for
fitting in a confined space.<\/p>\n

Substantial change means a revision to a basic model\u2019s declared tire energy
efficiency rating, relative wet grip braking performance index range, or qualification
for an applicable definition, performance standard, or exemption under this Article.<\/p>\n

Temporary use spare tire means a tire with a \u201cT\u201d in the size designation
under the ISO 4000-1:2024 specification, as incorporated by reference in section
3305, that carries a T designation on the tire sidewall and is intended for temporary
use.<\/p>\n

Tire energy efficiency rating or \u201cleaf value\u201d or \u201cleaves\u201d means the rating
under section 3307 based on the test method set forth in section 3303.<\/p>\n

Tire size designation means the nominal section width, nominal aspect
ratio, and rim diameter of a tire.<\/p>\n

Ultra high-performance means a tire that both bears a speed category
symbol of \u201cW,\u201d \u201cY,\u201d or \u201c(Y)\u201d and is capable of maintaining maximum speeds of
168 miles per hour or above, and that has a relative wet grip braking performance
index of at least 1.45.<\/p>\n

Ultra long-life means a tire with a UTQG wear test score of 1,400 1,000 or
higher, as evaluated according to the treadwear rating conditions and grading
procedure in 49 Code of Federal Regulations part 575.104(e) (2023October 1,
2024).<\/p>\n

Used tire means a tire that was previously sold for end use, was previously
mounted on a motor vehicle for more than 24 hours, and is disclosed as being a
used tire when it is sold or offered for sale. Tires mounted on a motor vehicle when the vehicle is sold or resold are used tires within the meaning of this definition
regardless of whether they have been mounted for more than 24 hours or disclosed
as being a used tire when the vehicle is sold.<\/p>\n

UTQG is an acronym for the Uniform Tire Quality Grading System of the
United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.<\/p>\n

Winter-type snow tire means a tire that has all the characteristics of
subsections (A), and (B) of this definition. A tire subject to the UTQG
standards is not a \u201cwinter-type snow tire.\u201d<\/p>\n

(A) Attains a traction index equal to or greater than 112, compared to the ASTM
F2493-20 standard reference test tire when using the snow traction test on the
medium pack snow surface as described in ASTM F1805-20.
(B) Is equipped with studs or is marked with an Alpine Symbol, specified in the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards at 49 Code of Federal Regulations part
571.139 S5.5(i) (October 1, 20243), on at least one sidewall<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s Talk About The Testing<\/p>\n

California is also not reinventing the wheel. To establish the RTEP standards, the CEC leaned on what\u2019s already been done by the International Standards Organization (ISO), ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials), and existing international testing methods and tire efficiency regulations. The RRC measurements are EU-correlated, meaning California\u2019s numbers match up with larger programs in other global regions. Others have been here before us, and that harmonization helps tire manufacturers deliver what\u2019s needed worldwide as efficiently as they can. In other words, there\u2019s overlap.<\/p>\n

The most heavily relied upon testing methods were:<\/p>\n

ISO 28580:2018 Passenger car, truck and bus tyre rolling resistance measurement method \u2014 Single point test and correlation of measurement results.
\nISO 23671. Standardized method for testing tire wet grip braking performance index relative to a control tire.
\nISO 15222:2025 was used to test light truck tires for wet grip braking performance.
\nASTM F2493-2420 Standard Specification for P225\/60R16 97S Radial Standard Reference Test Tire. This is what candidate tires are compared against.<\/p>\n

The ISO 28580:2018<\/a> test measures rolling resistance. The RTEP uses this testing to calculate the rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) for each tire, and it\u2019s the same test and calculation used by Europe\u2019s efficiency standard. It\u2019s big and complicated, involves a lot of steps and a lot of algebra. To truly understand it warrants an article on its own. Here\u2019s a short snippet from a single subsection:<\/p>\n

Measurement Method. The reference laboratory shall measure each
alignment tire four times and retain the three last results for further analysis, in accordance with Section 7 of ISO 28580:2018 and under the conditions set out in Section 6 of ISO 28580:2018. The candidate laboratory shall measure each alignment tire (n + 1) times, with n being specified in subsection (a)(2)(F)(iv) of this section and retain the n last results for further analysis, in accordance with Section 7 of ISO 28580:2018 and applying the conditions set out in Section 6 of ISO 28580:2018.<\/p>\n

Each time an alignment tire is measured, the tire\/wheel assembly shall be removed from the machine and the entire test procedure referred to in Section 7 of ISO 28580:2018 shall be followed again from the start. The candidate or reference laboratory shall calculate:<\/p>\n

1. the measured value of each alignment tire for each measurement as
specified in Section 9.2 and 9.3 of ISO 28580:2018 (corrected for a
temperature of 25 \u00b0C and a drum diameter of 2 m);<\/p>\n

2. the mean value of the three last measured values of each alignment
tire (in the case of reference laboratories) or the mean value of the n
last measured values of each alignment tire (in the case of candidate);
and<\/p>\n

3. the standard deviation (\u03c3m ) as follows:<\/p>\n

\"California<\/p>\n

where:
i is the counter from 1 to p for the alignment tires;
j is the counter from 2 to n + 1 for the n last repetitions of each
measurement of a given alignment tire;
n + 1 is the number of repetitions of tire measurements (n + 1 = 4 for
reference laboratories and n + 1 \u2265 4 for candidate laboratories);
p is the number of alignment tires (p \u2265 5).<\/p>\n

Existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards definitions were used, as well, from Title 49, Subtitle B, Chapter V, Sections 571, 574, and 575:<\/p>\n

How Much Less Efficient Aftermarket Tires Are Than Factory Tires, On Average<\/p>\n

The CEC asserts that OE tires are tweaked for efficiency, and that even the same brand and model of tire as a replacement may not be as efficient. Moreover, the CEC says this gap is costing people money.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re not just vibing on opinions. Smithers International, a well-known testing lab, was engaged to do serious testing to determine that the average replacement tire has a rolling resistence coefficient (RRC) of about 8.5 N\/kN; higher than the average OE tire RRC of 7.1 N\/kN.<\/p>\n

To put the N\/kN (Newtons per kilonewtons) simply, it describes the amount of energy consumed by the tires\u2019 hysterisis; the way they squish out of round due to their viscoelasticity. In other words, tires are not rigid, and they are constantly deforming as they roll. The amount of energy consumed by this deformation can be measured and expressed in N\/kN. And that figure can correspond to the RRC.<\/p>\n

What Must be Done to a Tire to Meet These Standards?<\/p>\n

For some tires, nothing. Those are the ones that already meet the standards laid out in the RTEP. The adjustments for other tires will vary depending on what needs to change. Tread pattern, compound adjustments, and physical construction are the main categories with some adjustment possibilities.<\/p>\n

Rogers explained that the state of tech in the tire industry now means that smaller companies can get started making great tires very quickly; it\u2019s not just the big, old giants that can do it anymore. \u201cThere have been really significant advances in manufacturing and what tires can do in these last 5 to 10 years,\u201d he said. \u201cTire manufacturing, the mixing and building capabilities, simple tire design capabilities, and what it takes to design good tires, you know, anyone with a with some simulation software and a couple of smart engineers can start [designing] really great tires.\u201d<\/p>\n

Possible Skullduggery<\/p>\n

Reactionary talk in response to regulations is common. \u201cI\u2019ve had people joke like, oh, I\u2019m just going to set up my auto shop right at the border of the Nevada and invite people to come change their tires there,\u201d said Robinson. People who can skirt the rules will do it; lots of cars with Massachusetts license plates dip into southern New Hampshire for tax-free shopping, for instance. It won\u2019t be many overall; the expense and hassle is likely to chill follow through.<\/p>\n

As tire industry comments pointed out, tire manufacturers insulated by geography may attempt to game the system. There are safeguards in place; the limited production exemption, for example, is based on nationwide importation or production totals of a base tire model. It\u2019s not as simple as changing the brand or the tire name after 15,000 units. If two tires are the same base tire model, it\u2019s the underlying design that counts.<\/p>\n

The self-reporting nature of the program means there\u2019s the possibility of getting away with something, at least for a while. But there are enforcement teeth, and the CEC has experience overseeing these types of programs for positive outcomes.<\/p>\n

Spokesperson Reilly said: \u201cThe CEC has decades of experience enforcing energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, TVs, computers, air conditioners, battery chargers, and many other consumer products. To ensure a level playing field, our enforcement team takes dozens of enforcement actions against manufacturers and retailers, including those online and based outside the U.S.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe CEC will require manufacturer certification to a CEC database of approved tires under penalty of perjury, verified through independent laboratory testing and mandatory provision of test reports. Retailers may only sell compliant tires listed on the CEC database, verified through physical and online market surveillance. When noncompliance is identified, the CEC will issue notices of noncompliance and take legal action as necessary.\u201d<\/p>\n

Keep Rolling<\/p>\n

Regulation often has an uphill challenge; nobody loves being told what to do, or the possibility of less choice. This doesn\u2019t appear to be that. Love it or hate it, we hope you at least understand the Replacement Tire Efficiency Program a lot better now.<\/p>\n

Top graphic images: Toyota; California Energy Commision<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"If you\u2019re in California, it\u2019s probably been hard to escape chatter about the \u201ctire ban.\u201d It\u2019s officially the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":454324,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[7,179455,9,8,172981,93,146188,179456,179457,172973],"class_list":["post-454323","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-california","tag-california","tag-california-energy-commision","tag-california-headlines","tag-california-news","tag-cec","tag-featured","tag-rolling-resistance","tag-rtep","tag-tire-ban","tag-tire-efficiency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/454323","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=454323"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/454323\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/454324"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=454323"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=454323"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=454323"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}