California just became the first state to address a problem most people don’t know they have: inefficient tires.
When automakers design a new vehicle, low rolling resistance tires are one of the least expensive ways to improve fuel economy. But they must eventually be replaced, and experts say replacements are often less efficient. This can result in internal combustion vehicles burning more gasoline and EVs needing more electricity.
“It’s very difficult or impossible for consumers to know how energy efficient their tires are going to be,” said Brian Fadie, senior manager for state policy at the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. “As a result, many people unknowingly buy tires that cost them more money than necessary.”
On Monday, the California Energy Commission unanimously approved a rule that would phase in the nation’s first standards for tire efficiency. The rule is “designed to ensure that replacement tires sold in the state are at least as energy efficient, on average, as tires sold in the state as original equipment.” It would also establish a labeling system that gives tires a “leaf” rating, to make it easier for consumers to find the best options. In addition to saving drivers money, the state projects that the changes could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2 million tons annually, which it says is equivalent to taking around 400,000 cars off the road.
“We are proud to approve the nation’s first replacement tire efficiency standards,” said commission chair David Hochschild, in a press release. “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.”
California’s regulations will take effect in two phases, with the first targeting the most inefficient tires starting in 2029 and the second, stricter standard beginning in 2033. The timeline is longer than initially proposed, to address the concerns of some manufacturers who wanted more time to adapt. The rule also comes with exemptions including snow tires and those used in competition. All-weather tires are also excluded, but the state will track them, as that growing segment may be regulated in the future.
Karim Marshall, director of climate and energy policy at the Consumer Federation of America, criticized the delayed timeline and the number of carveouts. But he says even that version of the rule marks significant progress. “We aren’t going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” he said. Bill Magavern, the policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, a nonprofit focused on public health in California, agreed that the regulation was necessary. “Manufacturers do not do the right thing on their own,” he said. “They need the government to set smart standards.”
Reducing the rolling resistance of a tire isn’t technically that difficult, said Fadie. Incorporating more silica, for example, improves not only efficiency but traction as well. Rubber chemistry and tread designs can also lead to gains. The debate centers around the cost of those improvements, and the tire industry appears split on the rule.
Some, like ENSO and Michelin, publicly endorsed at least parts of the rule. Speaking at Monday’s commission meeting, Francesca Mosteller, director of state and local government affairs for Michelin North America, said “we support the efficiency goals and believe the proposed thresholds in this rulemaking are technically feasible within the defined timeframes.”
Others are opposed to the changes. “These tires are broadly more expensive than the typical tire you find on the marketplace today,” said Christian Robinson, senior director of state government affairs for the Specialty Equipment Market Association, or SEMA, which represents the automotive parts industry. “Our concern is that this will create undue burdens on working-class families.”
The energy commission calculated that more efficient tires cost between $6 and $26 more per set, but that increase is more than offset by reduced fuel consumption. It put net savings at $85 to $153 over the lifetime of the tire when gasoline is $4.60 a gallon, though the savings could be 25 percent higher with this year’s price spikes. An estimate SEMA cited from consultant Gladfelty Government Relations, however, put the added cost as high as $365.20.
Robinson said he had hoped the commission would take a step back “given that there’s a disagreement about the economic impact.” But Marshall, the consumer advocate, said industry figures are misleading.
Whatever the case, the energy commission approved the rule. It’s a move that has been in the works since 2003, when the Legislature passed a law calling for such regulation. The state worked toward this goal for a few years but paused in 2007 when the federal government took over the cause. That effort never materialized and the project languished until about 2020, when the energy commission revived it.
With the rule now final, supporters say the impacts could be numerous and widespread. More efficient tires should, for instance, help EVs use less juice, easing demand on already stressed electric grids. At the very least, the leaf rating system should make shopping easier. Similar to the Energy Star label, or the snowflake rating system for snow and all-weather tires, more leaves will mean a more efficient tire, with a four-leaf rating denoting the greatest efficiency. The one hitch is that manufacturers can choose whether or not to display the label, so consumers may have a look up the model in the state’s online database.
Everyone agrees that, given California’s size, this rule will likely spill over into other states. “What happens in California, doesn’t stay in California,” said Robinson, pointing to the state’s tail pipe emission standards, which 17 states and the District of Columbia now enforce. A similar ripple occurred with California’s LED lightbulb rules.
As for tire efficiency, Fadie said Washington and Rhode Island are among those considering following California’s lead. He added that these steps are important because, while the Golden State’s rule will likely buoy the national market, it’s not a guarantee.
“Other states,” said Fadie, “could create certainty for themselves.”