Editorial: Tiremakers, Dealers Oppose Rolling Resistance Mandate

How bad will a rolling resistance mandate in California be for tire dealers, tire manufacturers and tire buyers? A coalition of dealers, manufacturers and trade associations have counted the ways — and there are more than a few.  

They recently shared these points with the California Energy Commission (CEC), the driving force behind the mandate. (Longtime MTD readers will recall that California has been wanting to do something like this for more than 20 years.) 

To recap, the CEC intends to establish a ruling that would require all replacement and original equipment passenger tires sold in the state of California to meet a minimum fuel efficiency standard. In this column before, I’ve discussed the many burdens this rule would place on tire dealers, manufacturers and buyers. 

A letter representing two tire manufacturers (Yokohama Tire Corp. and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.), the California Tire Dealers Association, the Specialty Equipment Market Association and two other trade associations sent to the CEC on April 24 did an excellent job of articulating various concerns. 

The letter started by saying the proposed directive “will increase the cost of replacement tires by approximately $6 to $10 per tire” and that “tires capable of meeting rolling resistance performance ... are typically priced hundreds of dollars more per set than baseline alternatives.” 

The letter goes on to say that “California is in the midst of a widely acknowledged affordability crisis” and that by “materially increasing the cost of replacement tires, the proposed standards would impose hundreds of dollars in new upfront expenses on drivers.” 

Consumer freedom of choice was also addressed. “California consumers already have access to a wide range of tire options that vary in price, performance, durability, noise, traction and efficiency. Many consumers are willing to pay a premium for fuel-efficient or low rolling resistance tires when the benefits align with their driving needs and budgets. Others prioritize longevity, traction or affordability.  

“The proposed regulation removes these choices by mandating a specific performance outcome across the market, regardless of consumer preference, driving patterns or consumer purchasing power. This one size-fits-all approach is particularly problematic given the cost impacts involved.” 

The letter also touched on “operational and compliance burdens” that the proposed mandate would place on automotive repair facilities, including tire dealers, describing these obligations as “significant and unworkable.”  

In one of my previous editorials, I quoted Roy Littlefield IV, vice president of government affairs for the Tire Industry Association, who said the mandate is “really going to impact retailers. Not every tire is going to be on the (CEC’s) approved list.”

Roy also listed additional requirements that would be placed on dealers. “They’re going to have to be able to inform consumers about what the program is and what their opinions are. You’re going to have to know what it all means.”  

From a tire design and manufacturing standpoint, the recent letter raised concerns about “safety, performance and implementation uncertainties,” noting that the CEC’s proposed tire efficiency standard does not “adequately account for real-world safety and performance trade-offs and practical implementation challenges. Reductions in rolling resistance can directly affect traction and braking characteristics, particularly under varied driving conditions, raising legitimate safety concerns.”  

As I’ve noted before, not all tire manufacturers will have the ability to meet the CEC’s requirements. (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.) 

The writers of the letter are calling for “a balanced path forward. Specifically, we urge the commission to either pause adoption of the proposed replacement tire efficiency standards and revised (expectations) using empirically grounded, market-based cost assumptions that accurately reflect real-world pricing and impact on the consumers ... or shift toward a consumer awareness and transparency strategy, such as enhanced tire labeling, public education campaigns and voluntary incentive-based programs to make informed choices based on price, performance and efficiency, avoiding mandating outcomes that Californians cannot afford.”  

Commenting on option number two, I would ask, “Who’s going to take the lead on developing enhanced tire labeling, public education campaigns and voluntary, incentive-based programs and more importantly, who’s going to pay for all of these things?”(The responsibility certainly should not be placed on independent tire dealers or distributors, who have enough to deal with already. But I digress.) 

The CEC is clearly moving forward. In a public statement, also issued on April 24, the commission said it will implement phase one of the mandate in January 2028, while phase two will begin on January 31.

If it goes into effect, the CEC mandate won’t just be “contained” to California. You can bet your bottom dollar that other states will try to implement their own mandates, most likely based on the California model, turning a localized problem into a national one.

If you have any questions or comments, please email me at [email protected].