Browse
Log in / Register
Share
April 10, 2025 – The California Energy Commission’s newly approved Replacement Tire Efficiency Program (RTEP) is being billed as a win for both wallets and the environment. But a growing chorus of industry experts, consumer advocates, and even some drivers are pushing back, warning that the rules could actually make car ownership more expensive and less safe for millions of Californians.
Under the regulation, starting in 2029, all replacement tires sold in the state must meet a maximum rolling-resistance level of 9.1 newtons per kilonewton, tightening to 7.2 in 2033. The idea is simple: lower resistance means less energy wasted, which translates into better gas mileage or longer battery range for EVs. State officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, claim the move will save drivers $1 billion annually in fuel costs, with the average driver saving $179 in gasoline over the life of a set of tires.
But the numbers don’t tell the whole story. According to a detailed analysis by the Tire Industry Association, the incremental cost of compliance could be far higher than the state’s estimate of $1.50 to $6.50 per tire. In fact, the real price jump could be several hundred dollars per set. “We’re looking at an average tire price increase from $81 to $157 per tire,” says John Smith, a senior analyst with the association. “For a family replacing all four tires, that’s over $300 more than today. That’s not a savings—it’s a burden.”
The “savings” narrative also ignores a critical flaw: the mandated tires wear out much faster. Most all-season replacement tires in the U.S. last around 65,000 miles. The European-style low-rolling-resistance tires that would become the standard under RTEP average only 27,000 miles. That means drivers would need to replace them more than twice as often, potentially wiping out any fuel savings and adding hundreds of dollars in extra replacement costs over the vehicle’s life.
Safety concerns are another major sticking point. Thinner, harder tires designed for low rolling resistance often have less grip, especially on wet roads. While the rule includes a minimum wet-grip standard, critics argue that the reduction in tread depth and rubber volume can make tires more prone to punctures and blowouts. “California already has some of the worst road conditions in the nation,” says Maria Gonzalez, a consumer safety advocate with the California Public Interest Research Group. “Potholes, debris, uneven surfaces—these tires are simply not designed for that kind of abuse. We’re setting drivers up for more flats and potentially dangerous accidents.”
The tire industry isn’t against efficiency—it’s against a mandate that doesn’t account for real-world costs. “We support innovation, but this rule is based on flawed assumptions about consumer behavior and market dynamics,” says David Lee, vice president of government affairs at a major tire manufacturer. “If the cost of new tires spikes, many drivers will either delay replacements or turn to used tires, which cost about half as much. That undermines the entire purpose of the regulation and creates a safety risk because used tires may have unknown wear history.”
The timing of the rule is also raising eyebrows. California’s gasoline and diesel prices are already the highest in the nation, thanks to a combination of high state taxes, cap-and-trade costs, and special fuel blend requirements. The new tire rule doesn’t address any of those underlying issues. Instead, it adds another layer of regulation that could make driving even more expensive. “This is a classic case of treating symptoms instead of the disease,” says energy economist James Harris. “The goal should be to lower fuel costs, not to force consumers into a narrow set of products that may not even save money in the long run.”
Electric vehicle owners, ironically, could be hit hardest. EVs are heavier than gasoline cars because of their large battery packs, which causes them to wear through tires faster. The new low-rolling-resistance tires, which are already thinner, may degrade even more quickly under the weight of an EV. That means EV drivers could face even more frequent—and expensive—tire replacements, further undermining the affordability argument for electric vehicles.
The California Energy Commission defends its record, pointing to the agency’s long history of promoting energy efficiency. But its track record on affordability is mixed at best. California’s electricity prices are among the highest in the country, and the state’s gasoline prices are consistently above $4 per gallon. Critics say the commission’s own modeling may be overly optimistic. “They assume everyone will drive the same number of miles, keep their tires properly inflated, and never hit a pothole,” says Harris. “That’s not how real life works.”
The new rule also has implications beyond California. Because the state represents such a large share of the U.S. auto market—roughly 12% of all new vehicle sales and a similar proportion of tire sales—manufacturers often standardize their products to meet California’s requirements, effectively making them de facto national standards. That means drivers in other states could eventually face higher prices for replacement tires even if their own states haven’t adopted similar rules.
The bottom line: while the goal of reducing fuel consumption is laudable, the RTEP appears to be a case of good intentions run amok. Without a clear, independent cost-benefit analysis that accounts for shorter tire life, higher replacement frequency, and potential safety trade-offs, California drivers may end up paying more—not less—to keep their cars on the road. Governor Newsom and the Energy Commission should reconsider the timeline and the scope of the rule, or risk making the state’s affordability crisis even worse.
*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research, with additional analysis from the Tire Industry Association and consumer safety groups.
