Our View: California means well, but misses mark with AB 844

From the sidelines, it's easy to see how California ended up where it did. Because the basic tenets guiding Assembly Bill 844 are commendable.

Foundationally, the proposed legislation attempts to look out for consumers and the environment while challenging the tire industry to push the limits of innovation and sustainability. But in building the proposed law, California missed the mark, particularly when it comes to overly aggressive rolling resistance coefficient standards.

The state's suggestion? A phased-in minimum RRC standard of 9 N/kN by 2026 and 7 N/kN by 2028.

If that sounds extreme, it should. A vast majority of replacement tires sold today have RRCs between 8.5 and 10 N/kN.

At best, the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association estimates that around 56 percent of today's replacement tires do not meet the 2026 RRC proposal. Further, 97 percent don't meet the tentative 2028 mandate. At worst, should the RRC proposal stand, those numbers jump to 90 percent in 2026 and 100 percent in 2028.

Moreover, AB 844's approach to the standards—asking replacement tires to act exactly as their OE cousins—is misguided. OE tires are designed for specific vehicle models, tailored to the exact expectations of OEMs looking to maximize specific performance aspects, most especially range/fuel efficiency.

Replacement tires are built differently because they have to be. They must maximize performance for a wide range of vehicles. They also have to last longer—for the benefit of consumers' wallets and the environment. When tires last longer, there are fewer ELTs and fewer tires sold, which equates to savings on raw materials used in production. All of those have positive environmental impacts, too.

OEMs may be willing to sacrifice tire life for better fuel/range efficiency. Consumers, though, may prefer longer-lasting tires.

And while the tire industry is innovating to further pull the maximum balance of rolling resistance, wet grip and abrasion out of each tire it offers, it's still not where it probably wants to be. That innovation takes time. Especially when compounded by the arrival of EVs, a propulsion that California is eager to embrace.

The transition to EVs is—quite literally—weighing heavily on tires and significantly impacting the treadwear, as demonstrated by the OE market.

During the Smithers Traction Summit, where a representative from the California Energy Commission detailed the environmental need for replacement tires to match OE tire performance, J.D. Power presented Customer Satisfaction Survey feedback. It indicated EV OE tire treadwear is falling drastically short of consumer expectations.

In other words: EVs are getting the range consumers expected. Their OE tires aren't, lasting just 13,000 miles before replacement.

If California is serious about setting the kinds of range/fuel efficiency and environmental standards that can make a difference for its residents and truly challenge the tire industry in the process, it will take a step back and tailor a slightly different approach. One that is both challenging and technically feasible. One that considers the full reality of the tire industry.