Hate gun roster, hmm how about tire roster?

[Gravel]

What I don't understand is what do people think they will be missing? there are already LRR tires that have excellent life with 65K warranties, excellent performance in wet conditions, and will save you money on gas. Companies will just sell you whatever you will buy, so why shouldn't there be standards? As I have said in this thread over and over I'm playing devil's advocate because I don't have faith in anything and I haven't reviewed their data, but I can point to the national tractor trailer program that has already implemented these standards for years and it's not like we are seeing trucks crash everywhere because they don't work and can't grip the road. Consumers in general are pretty stupid honestly, just look at all the reactionaries in this thread who won't even read the rules but keep posting about how it does this or that. They have every opportunity to make a meaningful argument based in reality but instead choose to just talk . I should know better than to expect a thoughtful conversation here but I like to suffer

So you’re smarter than the population as a whole, and therefore you should be able to decide what’s best for others. Because you “read the rules”, and “why shouldn’t there be standards”.

You seem very intelligent, but you have a belief in centralized government (authority in general) that’s puzzling.

Never forget that the people drawn to politics, the ones who crave the power to make decisions for you, like a list of “approved” tires (or guns) are very often the most self absorbed, narcissistic and sociopathic people in the culture. Those are the sources of the data you’re looking at to guide your decision making. And centralized decision makers are always right, right? They would never use selfish criteria to choose your tires, right? Because self centered human nature never appears in the halls of power..

I’d much rather people the ability to choose what’s best for themselves. Some will choose poorly, some will choose well, and that’s a good thing.

 

[Gravel]

The headline makes this sound more immediate and more sweeping than it actually is. I went through the regulation the CEC actually adopted on August 17.

The practical answer is: **nothing changes for you right now, motorcycles are exempt entirely, and the real effects on ordinary car owners do not begin until 2029. The part I'd watch is the much stricter 2033 standard, because that could reduce selection in some specialty/performance categories.**

The CEC formally adopted the rule 5-0 on August 17, but the resolution still directs staff to send the rulemaking package through the Office of Administrative Law process. So it has been approved by the Commission, but we're not waking up tomorrow to a new tire regime. ([California Energy Commission][1])

For your vehicles specifically:

* Your **Explorer, Tiguan and Golf** are within the general universe of passenger-car/light-truck replacement tires.
* Your **motorcycles are completely excluded**. The regulation expressly says a "replacement tire" does not include a motorcycle tire. So this has zero effect on your street motorcycle tires or motorcycle racing tires. ([California Energy Commission][2])
* Your existing tires are unaffected.
* Tires manufactured before the relevant implementation date aren't subject to the new energy requirement. The first phase applies to covered tires manufactured starting **January 1, 2029**. ([California Energy Commission][2])

The timeline is what really matters.

**2029–2032:** The ordinary passenger-tire rolling-resistance ceiling is 9.0 N/kN. The state itself estimates this phase will add about **$1.50 per tire/$6 per set**, while allegedly saving about $85 in fuel during the set's life. ([California Energy Commission][2])

**2033 onward:** The ordinary standard tightens substantially to **7.1 N/kN**. CEC estimates about **$6.50 extra per tire/$26 per set**, with roughly $179 in fuel savings over four years. ([California Energy Commission][2])

Those $6 and $26 figures are modeling estimates, though. They are **not price caps** and shouldn't be interpreted as "your tires will definitely cost only $26 more." SEMA specifically attacked that assumption, saying CEC didn't provide representative retail-price comparisons and warning that actual effects could include higher prices and fewer inexpensive choices. ([California Energy Commission][3])

Where the story got considerably less alarming is that CEC backed away from its earlier one-size-fits-all proposal after getting hammered by enthusiasts and the tire industry.

There are now broad exclusions for used and retread tires, dedicated winter tires, motorcycle tires, off-road recreational vehicle tires, limited-production tires, certain very-high-load tires, competition tires and certain large off-road tires. ([California Energy Commission][2])

And this one matters to people who actually care about performance tires: **ultra-high-performance street tires get their own substantially looser standard.**

A qualifying UHP tire can have rolling resistance as high as:

2029–2032: **9.8 N/kN**

2033+: **8.5 N/kN**

rather than the normal 9.0/7.1 limits. The UHP definition requires a W/Y-category high-speed tire with very strong wet braking performance. ([California Energy Commission][2])

So California isn't simply saying, "Michelin Pilot Sport-type tires are illegal because they grip too much." The regulation explicitly accommodates UHP tires.

Actual competition tires are excluded altogether if they satisfy the rule's definition: motorsports use, tread depth ≤8/32", W/Y/(Y) speed rating, UTQG ≤200 and not classified as all-season. ([California Energy Commission][2])

There is a legitimate wrinkle there. SEMA says that definition is still too narrow because some real drag, rally, autocross, endurance, track-day and other competition tires don't meet every one of those criteria. That means some niche motorsports products could still fall through the cracks. ([California Energy Commission][3])

For motorcycle racing, however, you don't care. The motorcycle exclusion occurs earlier in the definition and takes those tires outside this program completely.

There's also an interesting snow-tire carveout. Dedicated winter tires are excluded, while qualifying 3PMSF-style "all-season winter performance" tires remain technically in the program but have **no rolling-resistance requirement** and are exempted from the minimum wet-grip requirement. ([California Energy Commission][2])

That tells you something about the engineering reality here: even CEC recognized that maximizing snow performance can conflict with its efficiency thresholds.

As for the claim that this won't compromise handling or safety, there's more nuance than either side admits.

CEC tested 179 OE and replacement tire models and concluded that low rolling resistance doesn't inherently require poor wet grip, poor dry grip or shorter tread life. The adopted rule also creates a mandatory **minimum wet-braking index of 1.0** beginning with 2029-production tires, meaning California isn't simply ordering manufacturers to make hard, slippery eco-tires. ([California Energy Commission][1])

But the tire industry's response is not nonsense. USTMA explicitly said there are real engineering tradeoffs among rolling resistance, traction and tread life, particularly when you push toward the limits, and asked California to evaluate the first phase before imposing the tougher 2033 phase. CEC declined to put such a mandatory review into the final rule. ([California Energy Commission][4])

That's the part I think deserves scrutiny. Saying there is **no inherent correlation** is defensible; saying there are effectively **no engineering tradeoffs at all** would be overstating it. Tire design is famously a multi-variable optimization problem: compound hysteresis, carcass deformation, temperature range, tread depth, water evacuation, wear, steering response and rolling resistance all interact.

One other thing buried in the regulation is more consequential than the news coverage makes it sound: **you can't simply order a prohibited tire from Nevada or an out-of-state website.**

"Sold or offered for sale in California" expressly includes sales for California end use **regardless of where the seller is physically located**, including internet, telephone and mail-order transactions. ([California Energy Commission][2])

So starting with applicable 2029-production tires, Tire Rack or another online seller couldn't legally circumvent it just because the warehouse is outside California. In practice, sites will probably build California-compliance filters into their catalogs.

My assessment of the actual impact is therefore:

**2026–2028:** essentially zero.

**2029:** probably barely noticeable for ordinary drivers buying mainstream Michelin/Continental/Bridgestone/Goodyear/etc. tires. Some cheap or old tire designs disappear, manufacturers reformulate others, and prices may move slightly.

**2033:** this is where I expect a noticeable effect. Mainstream tires will still exist, obviously, but California may get a somewhat narrower SKU list, particularly among unusual sizes, specialized light-truck tires and performance products that don't fit one of the special categories. Manufacturers aren't going to redesign every slow-selling tire solely for California; they'll sometimes just stop selling that SKU here. USTMA specifically identified product withdrawal as a realistic manufacturer response. ([California Energy Commission][4])

So I wouldn't call this an automotive catastrophe. The final rule is **way less stupid than some of the earlier versions**, largely because the enthusiast/tire industry pushed hard enough to get motorcycle, competition, winter, UHP and off-road accommodations written in.

But it is still California telling you which replacement tires you're allowed to buy, and the state's rosy "$26 more per set" claim should be treated as a forecast rather than fact. The biggest legitimate concern isn't that all tires suddenly become dangerous eco-tires. It's **loss of consumer choice in marginal/niche categories once the 2033 standard arrives.**

For your particular garage, I would not change a single purchasing decision today because of this. Your motorcycles are untouched, and by the time the stricter automobile rules matter, the major tire manufacturers will have had years to redesign their mainstream lines.

This is one where a 2028/2032 check would actually be useful, because the tire catalogs will tell us much more than CEC's projections about the real-world impact.

[1]: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?DocumentContentId=109720&tn=272046 "Resolution of Final EIR and Replacement Tire Efficiency Program"
[2]: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?DocumentContentId=109074&tn=271526 "Notice of Additional Public Comment Period and Summary of Changes Replacement Tire Efficiency Program Rulemaking"
[3]: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?DocumentContentId=109417&tn=271777 "Specialty Equipment Market Association Comments - Supplemental Comments on Revised Replacement Tire Efficiency Regulations Docket No 26-TIRE-01"
[4]: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?DocumentContentId=109446&tn=271795 "US Tire Manufacturers Association Comments - Additional Comments "

Great reply! The implementation timelines are very important to understand. And never forget that these policies are not the final answer, they will continue to evolve as more “revered leaders” (AKA: politicians and government regulators) want to make their opinions heard. The exceptions we see initially will likely disappear over the years.

So, as always, the state will screw us slowly. And the reasoning is basically “Because F you, that’s why”

 

[RustVendor]

So you’re smarter than the population as a whole, and therefore you should be able to decide what’s best for others. Because you “read the rules”, and “why shouldn’t there be standards”.

You seem very intelligent, but you have a belief in centralized government (authority in general) that’s puzzling.

Never forget that the people drawn to politics, the ones who crave the power to make decisions for you, like a list of “approved” tires (or guns) are very often the most self absorbed, narcissistic and sociopathic people in the culture. Those are the sources of the data you’re looking at to guide your decision making. And centralized decision makers are always right, right? They would never use selfish criteria to choose your tires, right? Because self centered human nature never appears in the halls of power..

I’d much rather people the ability to choose what’s best for themselves. Some will choose poorly, some will choose well, and that’s a good thing.

I'm "smarter" if I read the regulations and make decisions based in reality. I have a lot of experience working with government agencies and to paint them as frauds and selfish is asinine. the people who wrote these regulations 20 years after the bill was passed aren't politicians they are scientists and lawyers, they weren't elected and they aren't in politics. The bill said to analyze the feasibility and if it makes sense to implement standards like the agency does for appliances and water faucets. None of this is a conspiracy, efficiency standards work, and if you don't think so you aren't looking at data and you don't have a point. The idiots I'm talking about won't read the regs but will post pictures of the commissioner and make fun of how she looks. Anything but actually engaging with reality, never mind that the commissionerhad zero to do with this, she didn't write anything and if anything is just taking credit for other people's work. I've said a bunch of times in this thread I don't agree with them jumping straight to a ban, but I'm also no wringing my hands about it. The tires I have on both my cars right now are exempt for one thing. But when I say consumers are idiots I'm also pointing out that when low flow showers came out there were people complaining and wringing their hands about that too, like people begging to waste water. There's a guy in this thread who in response to the idea that low water usage appliances have been helpful says "but we still run out of water so what's the point". These people are real, and a lot more common than someone who isn't reactionary so in many cases for conservation, the only option is a mandate because Americans tend to want the wasteful thing vs the efficient thing.

 

[mrbieler]

The issue is that the CEC is a non-elected board setting regulations for the state. The appointments are largely political appointees with academic and political experience but little real world application. We, the voters, have no say in the board makeup. So much for representative democracy.

 

[irongunner]

Governor Newsom announces appointments 1.7.25 | Governor of California

www.gov.ca.gov

Nancy Skinner, of Berkeley, has been appointed to the California Energy Commission. Skinner was a State Senator at the California State Senate from 2016 to 2024. She was a Senior Advisor at the Energy and Efficiency Institute at the University of California, Davis from 2015 to 2016. Skinner was a Lecturer at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley from 2015 to 2016. She was an Assembly member at the California State Assembly from 2008 to 2014. Skinner was the United States Director at The Climate Group from 2004 to 2007. She held multiple roles at the ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability Climate Protection Campaign from 1994 to 2004, including International Director and United States Director. She was the Executive Director at ICLEI-US Local Governments for Sustainability from 1992 to 2004. Skinner was a Writer/Researcher at Earthworks Press from 1989 to 1992. She was a City Council Member at Berkeley City Council from 1984 to 1992. Skinner was the Executive Director of the Graduate Assembly, University of California, Berkeley from 1982 to 1988. She earned a Master of Arts degree in Education and a Bachelor of Science degree in Conservation and Resource Studies from the University of California, Berkeley. This position requires Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $199,380. Skinner is a Democrat.

 

[RustVendor]

The issue is that the CEC is a non-elected board setting regulations for the state. The appointments are largely political appointees with academic and political experience but little real world application. We, the voters, have no say in the board makeup. So much for representative democracy.

The agencies only get authority from the legislature, in this case it was a bill that passed in 2003 by elected officials. The board voted according to the language in the bill. The board has no authority outside of what is granted by the legislature.

 

[Hit Factor]

Governor Newsom announces appointments 1.7.25 | Governor of California

www.gov.ca.gov

Nancy Skinner, of Berkeley, has been appointed to the California Energy Commission. Skinner was a State Senator at the California State Senate from 2016 to 2024. She was a Senior Advisor at the Energy and Efficiency Institute at the University of California, Davis from 2015 to 2016. Skinner was a Lecturer at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley from 2015 to 2016. She was an Assembly member at the California State Assembly from 2008 to 2014. Skinner was the United States Director at The Climate Group from 2004 to 2007. She held multiple roles at the ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability Climate Protection Campaign from 1994 to 2004, including International Director and United States Director. She was the Executive Director at ICLEI-US Local Governments for Sustainability from 1992 to 2004. Skinner was a Writer/Researcher at Earthworks Press from 1989 to 1992. She was a City Council Member at Berkeley City Council from 1984 to 1992. Skinner was the Executive Director of the Graduate Assembly, University of California, Berkeley from 1982 to 1988. She earned a Master of Arts degree in Education and a Bachelor of Science degree in Conservation and Resource Studies from the University of California, Berkeley. This position requires Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $199,380. Skinner is a Democrat.

Hmmm . . . appointing a Democrat from Berkeley to make policy for the entire state . . . what could go wrong?

 

[RustVendor]

Hmmm . . . appointing a Democrat from Berkeley to make policy for the entire state . . . what could go wrong?

She didn't make the policy, the policy was passed by the legislature. She sounds qualified though. None of you even know how government works it makes sense why you are afraid of it, the great unknown.

 

[mrbieler]

The agencies only get authority from the legislature, in this case it was a bill that passed in 2003 by elected officials. The board voted according to the language in the bill. The board has no.authority outside of what is granted by the legislature.

AB844 gave the board the power to research and implement policy. Delegating legislative power to non elected officials is not representative democracy.

 

[mrbieler]

She didn't make the policy, the policy was passed by the legislature. She sounds qualified though. None of you even know how government works it makes sense why you are afraid of it, the great unknown.

Wrong. She (the CEC) was given the power to set the policy. The legislature delegated their power to the CEC. The legislature does not vote on the policy the CEC sets. The legislature can later pass new laws after the fact to impact the policy and it can impact it's budget, but the CEC sets the policy.

 

[HibikiR]

The Mandate: AB 844 (Chapter 645, Statutes of 2003) instructed the California Energy Commission (CEC) to establish a Replacement Tire Efficiency Program.

The CEC was instructed to establish a policy, and they did. It was not the legislature that established the policy.

 

[Darqhelmet]

Michelin Energy Saver A/S. You be the judge

How is this California contrived program supposed to test every tire against every vehicle, with different pressure, different weight and different driving conditions? There is no easy way to know if it's going to work on my vehicle with my driving habits on the roads I take at the speeds I drive without actually testing them in that exact condition. The Michelin Energy Savers where tested and marketed as more fuel efficient over not LRR tires. And I'm pretty sure Michelin knows more about tires then California does.

If California says a particular tire is supposed to save me fuel and it doesn't, and doesn't let me purchase an alternative that would save me money, does California have a plan to refund the difference or create an exemption for me if their tire doesn't meet the requirements of this so called program? Unlikely.

it’s not. this is more “feel good” bull. But you see it everywhere “blue no matter who!” We are just F-ed, and until the state collapses it’s never going to change. F- even if the state collapsed I bet it wouldn’t change. People are to F-ing stupid and think that the state is there to save them.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Just another California law to ignore. Add tires to my Arizona shopping list along with ammo, ferrets, Birchwood Casey pens and other banned items. Smuggling will becone a survival tool for anyone remaining here.

My off road 35" tires allow me to easily bypass every ag inspection station in this state.

Imagine a tire inspection for every vehicle? There would be a mile long line waiting for every tire and vehicle to get inspected, checked and compared to a list of "permitted tires". Interstate commercial trucking would come to a halt, perhaps that is the commie goal?

 

[Havoc]

they have a cigar roster too

 

[Darqhelmet]

Just another California law to ignore. Add tires to my Arizona shopping list along with ammo, ferrets, Birchwood Casey pens and other banned items. Smuggling will becone a survival tool for anyone remaining here.

My off road 35" tires allow me to easily bypass every ag inspection station in this state.

Imagine a tire inspection for every vehicle? There would be a mile long line waiting for every tire and vehicle to get inspected, checked and compared to a list of "permitted tires". Interstate commercial trucking would come to a halt, perhaps that is the commie goal?

The people that come up with this and then implement it do not want you in cars, they want you on the bus, bike or walking. This is about control, like all laws. Plus bonus points if the poor can’t afford the special approved tires they cant come to our neighborhoods and beach’s.

 

[mrbieler]

This is the same CEC that set natural gas efficiencies to favor electrical appliances in a state with perennial electrical issues and extreme costs. Go figure.

 

[Darqhelmet]

This is the same CEC that set natural gas efficiencies to favor electrical appliances in a state with perennial electrical issues an extreme costs. Go figure.

F- electrics stoves and ovens. Had that in TX because we were so rural. It was insanely expensive to use and cooked like compared to gas.

 

[RustVendor]

Wrong. She (the CEC) was given the power to set the policy. The legislature delegated their power to the CEC. The legislature does not vote on the policy the CEC sets. The legislature can later pass new laws after the fact to impact the policy and it can impact it's budget, but the CEC sets the policy.

"She" didn't do anything except vote on a thing that was directed to be written by the legislature. The policy was passed by the legislature. Why are you arguing if you don't even know the basic terminology? Look up the difference between "policy", "code" and "regulations". The agency writes regulations in accordance with the code that is put in place by the policy that was passed by the legislature.

 

[RustVendor]

AB844 gave the board the power to research and implement policy. Delegating legislative power to non elected officials is not representative democracy.

it's how our government works, in every state. So the constitution disagrees with you. over 100 years of SC case law:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/government-agencies/

 

[Hamburger Monster]

it's how our government works, in every state. So the constitution disagrees with you. over 100 years of SC case law:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/government-agencies/

As far as I know, the constitution doesn't grant power to the politician's to delegate their responsibility to other non elected individuals