If you’re a regular reader of this column, you might remember that I’ve listed, on several occasions, potential problems that the state of California’s proposed tire fuel efficiency mandate could create for dealers and consumers, as well as unnecessary burdens such a rule would place on tire manufacturers.
I also have mentioned how a fuel efficiency mandate could inspire other states to take up the same mantle. (You might recall that Washington State attempted to implement similar legislation earlier this year, which thankfully went nowhere.)
As we near the end of 2024, I have an update that contains both good and bad news.
The good news is that the California Energy Commission (CEC) has stated that its rolling resistance coefficient standard won’t go into effect until Jan. 1, 2028. In other words, there’s still time for our industry to influence the CEC as the agency continues to collect feedback from stakeholders.
The bad news is two-fold. One, the CEC remains bound and determined to enact a rolling resistance mandate. Number two, there are still many unknowns about the impact such a directive would have.
The Tire Industry Association (TIA), which has been in direct talks with the CEC ever since the rolling resistance mandate idea was resurrected several years ago, also has serious concerns, which were recently relayed to me by Roy Littlefield IV, the association’s vice president of government affairs.
First and foremost, “it’s really going to impact retailers,” he said. “Not every tire is going to be on the (CEC’s) approved list. Dealers are going to be limited in what they can sell. This is a big concern.
“Existing inventory ... how is that going to be impacted? From what the CEC has told us, anything manufactured before 2028 is going to still be legal. They’ve made it clear that this regulation is not going to include used tires. A lot of consumers who can’t afford a new, lower-rolling resistance tire will just go to the used tire market, which is concerning in terms of (consumer) safety.
“And our biggest concern with all of this is the installation” of non-compliant tires, he explained. “Is it going to be legal for (dealers) to put (non-compliant) tires on vehicles? We don’t know yet. It hasn’t been clearly spelled out.
“And there will be requirements for retailers. They’re going to have to be able to inform consumers about what this program is and what their options are. You’re going to have to know what it all means.” (On that note, in a public notice filed a couple of months ago, the CEC stated that “tire dealers would be required to display conspicuous and accessible information through signage about the energy efficient tire rating system” that would be established.)
Another concern — one that I’ve raised before — is that not all tire manufacturers will have the ability to meet the CEC's mandated rolling resistance coefficient. (Again, think back to the early days of the SmartWay medium truck tire program, when only a few tiremakers had the wherewithal to design and build tires that qualified for that designation.)
“They’re going to let manufacturers self-certify,” said Littlefield, “so it will be interesting to see how that plays out, as well. You’re going to have manufacturers wanting to include their products” on the CEC’s approved list “and if they’re self-certifying, what is going to be the process of double-checking those products? Will the CEC retest those (tires) to make sure they’re compliant?” (If you haven't heard, the CEC is planning to develop an online database of low rolling resistance tires sold in California that will contain data supplied by tire manufacturers.)
In its recent public notice, the commission clearly stated that “unless specifically excluded, all replacement tires sold in California will have to comply with the efficiency minimum performance standard, including original equipment tires that are sold as replacement tires,” which raises even more questions.
Once again, whether you are a tire dealer who operates in California or a tire dealer who does business elsewhere, I urge you to contact the CEC to make your voice heard.
I’m sure TIA will continue to press the commission to provide more answers, but all of us, as an industry, should express our concerns. What happens in California rarely stays in California, as history has shown.
