CA Tire Replacement Controversy: The 2026 Regulations are Regulatory CHOICES by Energy Commission
Who actually makes California law—the legislative body or unelected regulatory agencies?
By Gloria Romero, August 21, 2026 7:12 am
The California Energy Commission’s newly adopted replacement-tire regulations have been reduced to a simplistic storyline: “Legislators passed a ‘bad bill’ tire-efficiency law.” That framing leaves Californians with an incomplete picture and misses some critical issues pertinent to non-elected commissions implementing the “will of the Legislature” decades after every member of that voting body has either died or left office, including the Governor who signed it.
KCRA Sacramento and other news outlets correctly identified the origins of the program in a 2003 statute. But their reporting failed to clarify or question the distinction between what the Legislature actually enacted in 2003 and the specific regulatory restrictions the California Energy Commission adopted in 2026. That distinction matters and raises concerns over who even oversees enactment of state laws and increasingly expansive powers utilized by non-elected commissions.
The 2003 Legislature did not prescribe the precise tire restrictions adopted twenty-three years later by today’s Energy Commission
The 2003 legislation was Assembly Bill 844, authored by then-Assemblyman Joe Nation. It directed the California Energy Commission to develop a statewide Replacement Tire Efficiency Program for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. The statute established a policy objective: replacement tires sold in California should be “at least as energy efficient, on average,” as tires installed as original equipment on new vehicles.
One can argue whether the Legislature should even have established a policy objective on the issue, but words matter under the law. The 2003 Legislature did not prescribe the precise tire restrictions adopted twenty-three years later by today’s Energy Commission. The law contemplated a database of tire-efficiency information, an efficiency rating system, manufacturer reporting, consumer information, and minimum efficiency standards.
That is far different from implying that legislators enacted the exact numerical rolling-resistance limits, implementation dates, exemptions, and market consequences contained in the regulations adopted twenty-three years later. The 2026 regulations are regulatory choices developed through the Energy Commission’s rulemaking process decades after the original legislative vote. That should be newsworthy and reported to the public because more fundamental questions have not been asked, including: How closely do the regulations adopted in 2026 reflect the 2003 intent, and does the time gap between passage of the bill and adoption of the regulations highlight concerns that, because of term limits, Sacramento’s bureaucracy can “wait out” voting legislators and write regulations decades after elected officials leave Sacramento?
These are questions news outlets should be asking. But they are not. This is especially important because the practical consequences are now being debated.
Some tire company representatives have warned that the 2026 rules could eliminate a large percentage of replacement tires currently manufactured from eligibility for sale in California and could increase costs. The Energy Commission disputes the more alarming cost projections and argues that compliant tires will ultimately save motorists money through reduced fuel consumption, emphasizing that approximately 70 percent of tires already comply with their initial standard. Those competing claims deserve scrutiny.
AB 844 was not a blank check
The Legislature imposed conditions on the development of efficiency standards. The statutory framework required consideration of technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness and protections against adverse effects on tire safety, average tire life, and California’s scrap-tire management efforts. Those safeguards were considered important because tires connect a vehicle carrying human life to the road.
The Energy Commission says its analysis demonstrates that the standards are technically feasible and cost-effective and will not compromise safety or shorten tire life. It projects that the program could eventually save California drivers nearly $1 billion annually in fuel costs and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by approximately 2 million metric tons per year. Those are the Commission’s findings. They should be examined against the industry’s evidence and the actual language of the statute.
What caused this extraordinary twenty-three-year delay?
But there is another historical fact that is particularly newsworthy: what caused this extraordinary twenty-three-year delay, and should there not be better tracking oversight of enacted legislation and timelines for the promulgation and implementation of enacted statutes? Who should do this in California? Indeed, my first response when learning of the regulations was that this seemed outrageous—not only due to the extraordinary time delay from legislative action to adoption but also because legislation does not always prescribe specific metrics. So, what exactly had been passed and what had been implemented?
Undoubtedly, the 2003 Legislature did not envision waiting for two decades for the law to take effect. California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that AB 844 required the Energy Commission to adopt and implement the program within a narrow timeframe. This raises legitimate questions of democratic accountability. The legislators who voted on AB 844 were voting in 2003, based on the technology, tire market, vehicle fleet, gasoline prices, and policy assumptions of that era. The 2026 regulations adopted were written through an administrative process in a politically different era two decades later.
That does not automatically make the proposed regulation unlawful or even good vs. bad policy. Administrative agencies routinely implement statutes through regulations. But a more accurate news headline should not simply be “California Legislature passed a bad tire mandate that we now have to live with.” Given the timespan delay from bill passage to enactment of regulations, it would be beneficial for news outlets to examine the language of AB 844 alongside the final 2026 regulations so we might understand where the two align and where in the framework the Commission may have made consequential regulatory choices of its own. The Commission should explain why the standards adopted in 2026 are consistent with the Legislature’s intent, as well as why it took 23 years to implement them.
Ultimately, this isn’t merely an argument about tires or safety or affordability. There is something bigger at stake that few seem to be discussing: Who actually makes California law—the legislative body or unelected regulatory agencies? How much authority should legislators delegate—intentionally or not—to unelected regulatory agencies who have the power to “wait out” legislators and governors in an era of term limits in rendering their interpretations of legislative intent? And does California even have a viable and enforceable government oversight power to track a bill’s afterlife once it has been signed into statute?
With hundreds of bills still waiting to be voted upon in the final days of the session, it might be a good time for both legislators and the governor to pause the paper shuffling and seek answers to what should happen to bills like AB 844, which was orphaned for twenty-three years.
X/Twitter - @GloriaJRomero
gloriaromero.com
- CA Tire Replacement Controversy: The 2026 Regulations are Regulatory CHOICES by Energy Commission - August 21, 2026
- What’s Love Got To Do With It: Sex Trafficking on Valentine’s Day in the City of the Angels - February 13, 2026
- California’s Failing Schools Would Distress Martin Luther King Today - January 19, 2026
RELATED ARTICLES
-
July 31, 2020 -
-
December 1, 2022
Your typical OEM tire is of low quality. Manufacturers install soft, quiet and CHEAP tires that wear out quickly. Upgrading my tires to quality tires has saved me thousands of dollars and I also get better traction, handling and braking.
I’ve not experience the OEM tires being of low quality. The problem is you won’t even be able buy high quality OEM tires either.
I will buy my tires of choice in Nevada and California will lose the sales tax revenue.
Exactly right but I hear that they plan on enforcing their dictate with tire inspections.
The CEC needs to be dumped NOW!
You won’t even be able to purchase the same tires your car came with new, which would alter the performance, handling, braking and ride of the car. All of the work the engineers did to perfect the tires that came with your car is thrown out the window.
The new California Energy Commission rule can prevent buyers from purchasing the exact same replacement tires that came with their car. The regulations, which take effect in phases starting in 2029 and tightening in 2033, require replacement tires to meet average energy efficiency standards that often exceed the specifications of original equipment (OE) tires.
Drivers may find that their original tire model becomes ineligible for sale in California once the standards fully apply. Industry groups like the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association have highlighted this as a major concern, noting that a driver with a new car might be unable to buy the same tire if it fails to meet the new efficiency thresholds.
While the rule includes exemptions for certain categories like competition, winter, and off-road tires, many standard passenger car tires may be phased out. Consequently, consumers may be forced to choose alternative brands or models that meet the new rolling resistance limits, potentially resulting in a different tire experience than the original factory fitment.
I am so sick of this Commie California BS.
Will Commie tires come with a seal of approval so everyone knows you bought your tires in Kalifornia? I suggest a prominent Hammer and Sickle on the side wall. In red of course.
Well, I’ll be ignored as usual, but we have too many politicians who work for the Globalists and the UN who are implementing the UN Smart Cities aka 15-MINUTE-CITIES aka AGENDA 21-2030. Even ROSA KOIRE warned about this. She has since died, but you can still find her articles. I learned about this from her, Michael Shaw whose articles are archived on the website of NewsWithViews, Kathleen Marquardt and Tom DeWeese. So I didn’t make any of this up.
Roxan, I do read everything you write. You have a lot of good information and it sounds like you’re just as fed up and frustrated as everyone else that reads the globe (except for eyeinthesky). So yea. You don’t go unnoticed, but being noticed is not what we are here for is it.
I’m here for information that I can’t get anywhere else (also to give my 2 cents worth), and I have always respected Katy since I heard her and Phil in the morning on my way to work. The California Globe is fighting the good fight.
I also have respected other people’s opinions. Whether they fall into alignment with mine or not. I can get a lot of good information from other peoples opinions. Theres a lot of smart people here and alot of good laughs too. So keep on keeping on.
Nevada will have normal tires, and that is where I will buy tires if this madness goes through.
Low rolling resistance means HARD tires. On our rutted streets you can lose control on turns or emergency stops.
This law has nothing to do with fuel economy. If these so called-environmentalists were worried about fuel economy, then we wouldn’t have a state ranked 49th for road condition. Poor roads hurt fuel economy. We should have the best roads in the nation, not the worst only behind Alaska.
Low rolling resistance (LRR) tires are engineered to minimize energy loss through specialized silica-based compounds, stiffer sidewalls, and reduced tread depth, but these efficiency gains come with significant performance and durability trade-offs.
Reduced Traction and Wet Grip The primary compromise is decreased safety performance, particularly in wet conditions. LRR tires use harder, less viscoelastic rubber compounds to reduce hysteresis (heat generation), which makes them less “sticky” and reduces their ability to conform to road surfaces. This results in longer stopping distances, increased risk of hydroplaning, and generally poorer handling in rain or on slippery surfaces compared to traditional tires.
Decreased Ride Comfort and Handling To minimize energy loss from deformation, LRR tires often feature stiffer sidewalls and require higher inflation pressures. This construction transmits more road imperfections into the vehicle cabin, leading to a harsher, less comfortable ride. The reduced flexibility can also negatively impact cornering stability and steering response, making the vehicle feel less responsive during aggressive driving.
Potentially Reduced Tread Life While some LRR tires are designed for longevity, the drive for efficiency often leads to shallower tread depths or softer compounds that wear out faster. Consumers may find that the fuel savings are offset by the higher cost and frequency of tire replacements. Additionally, the specialized materials and construction can sometimes result in increased road noise and uneven wear if tire pressure is not meticulously maintained.
This is about penalizing car owners, and the Democrats hatred of private ownership of automobiles.
Will Newscum give billions to BYD to make commie tires? Surely he has a plan to cash in on this mandate.
Hey Gavin Newscum. Leave us alone. Get out of here without anymore of your Commmie rules. Tires that roll better, stop less faster, take corners more dangerously, do not handle pot holes well, and do not handle rain, sleet, snow or sandy roads well at all. That means higher tire prices, more wrecks and crashes during the rainy season. That means higher insurance prices for all tires for cars and light duty trucks. That means we replace these Commie Tires every 27,000 miles instead of every 60,000 to 80,000 tire miles. Which means we now will spend all that savings from our gasoline and diesel bills, to go towards increases in insurance, increased tire prices and car and truck wrecks, and more death on California Commie highways. You SOB. Gavin Newscum, you will make large manufacturers of tires rich, and will run out the small tire companies in Commie California. Creating a monopoly tire market. Next Gavin and his cronies will make it illegal to bring in tires from out of state. Just like they did with ammo and guns.