The new tire law, read from the regulation instead of the headlines

On August 17, 2026 the California Energy Commission adopted the Replacement Tire Efficiency Program on a unanimous vote. It is the first regulation of its kind in the United States, and it will eventually change which tires can be sold in the largest car market in the country. It will not do so this year, next year, or the year after.

The dates that matter

The dates moved late in the process. The proposal published April 24, 2026 said 2028 and 2031. The revision published July 17, 2026 struck both and replaced them with 2029 and 2033. Any article citing 2028 is quoting a superseded draft.

Regulation §3301(a) and §3306; strikethrough visible in TN 271526 against the April proposed express terms (TN 269617). Reported Modern Tire Dealer attributes the one-year delay to the California Tire Dealers Association. We searched the docket and could not find a CTDA filing; the dealer-side comments we can locate are from the Tire Industry Association and SEMA. Reported as the outlet published it, flagged as unconfirmed by us.

There is no single limit. There are six.

Rolling resistance is the energy a tire loses simply by rolling. Lower numbers mean less fuel, or less battery, to cover the same road. Almost every article about this rule quotes one number for it. Section 3306 sets a different ceiling for each tire category:

If a tire qualifies for more than one category, the higher ceiling applies — the rule is written to give the tire the benefit of the doubt. A tire that also qualifies as all-season winter performance is exempt outright.

Regulation §3306(a)–(g), read from TN 271526.

A number that does not match

The Commission's own press release states 9.1 N/kN and 7.2 N/kN, and every news story we found repeats those figures. Neither number appears anywhere in either express-terms document. Both the April proposal and the July revision read 9.0 and 7.1 for a standard replacement tire. We searched both filings for "9.1 N/kN" and "7.2 N/kN" and found zero occurrences.

We are not resolving this by picking one. The adopting resolution incorporates "any changes presented and adopted" at the August 17 hearing, so a floor amendment is a real possibility. We have asked the Commission, and this page will publish the answer and say what changed. Until then: 9.0 and 7.1 are what the regulatory text says, and the gap is small enough that it changes no practical decision today.

Regulation §3306(a) in TN 271526 and TN 269617. Announcement CEC press release, August 2026.

The wet grip standard nobody reported

Rolling resistance took the headlines, but the same regulation sets a braking floor on the same date. A replacement tire manufactured on or after January 1, 2029 must have a relative wet grip braking performance index of at least 1.0. All-season winter performance tires, tires sold to equip authorized emergency vehicles, and approved last-resort tires are exempt.

This matters to the most common objection to the rule — that efficient tires are unsafe tires. Two facts cut against it. The standard was proposed by the tire industry itself, so that efficiency gains could not be bought with braking performance. And the Commission found that only 7 of the 149 models it tested fell below the threshold.

Regulation §3308(a)–(d); test methods ISO 23671:2021 and ISO 15222:2025 at §3303(b). Commission staff report, TN 269612.

The leaf rating

The program creates a consumer-facing efficiency scale from zero to four leaves, assigned by the manufacturer from the tire's declared coefficient. Note that nothing in the adopted text requires it to be displayed at the point of sale — it is filed into the Commission's database.

Regulation §3307(a). We grepped both express-terms versions for label, display, point of sale, placard and signage: the only labeling references are federal. Corroborated by USTMA asking the Commission for a point-of-sale rating system (TN 270674).

Start with your situation

What is exempt, precisely

Most exemption lists circulating this week are close but imprecise, and the imprecision is exactly where people will get hurt. The real exclusions live inside the definition of "replacement tire" at §3302, and several carry conditions that must be met together.

Excluded from the definition of "replacement tire"

• Retreaded tires and used tires
• Deep tread — tread depth of 18/32″ or greater
• Winter-type snow tires
• Space-saver and temporary spares (the "T" designation)
• Rim diameter of 13 inches or smaller. This moved: the April draft said 12 inches, raised to 13 in the July revision
• Motorcycle tires
• Tires for off-road motorized recreational vehicles — dune buggy, ATV, recreational off-highway vehicle per Vehicle Code §500
• Limited production tires — under 15,000 units in the current calendar year and every prior year
• Load index 122 or greater, or where unmarked, rated above 1,450 kg
• Not capable of sustained speeds above 50 mph
• Competition tires — requires all four: tread depth 8/32″ or less, speed rating W, Y or (Y), UTQG treadwear 200 or less, and not marketed as all-season
• Large off-road tires — requires both: speed rating Q or lower (99 mph) and diameter 34.5 inches or greater
• Tires without a DOT tire identification number under 49 CFR 574.5(a)(1)

Covered, but exempted from a standard

• All-season winter performance tires — not excluded from the definition. They are replacement tires carrying no energy standard (§3306(f)) and exempt from wet grip (§3308(d)). A different mechanism from winter-type snow tires above.
• Tires sold directly to owners or operators of authorized emergency vehicles
• "Last resort" tires — where no compliant model exists for a specific vehicle model operated in California, the manufacturer may petition. Sixty-day decision, seven-year term, renewable, revocable, appealable.
• Wholesale for final retail sale outside California — carved out of every prohibition

Regulation §3302(a)(46)(A)–(O) for the exclusions; §3306(f), (h), (i) and §3308(b)–(d) for the exemptions; §3301(a) for the wholesale carve-out. Comment Several — competition tires, large off-road tires, run-flat, and the 12″→13″ change — were added in the July 17 revision, a point SEMA and ORBA acknowledged on the record.

Where the "70% of tires" number actually came from

This figure is in nearly every story about the rule, usually as evidence that California is about to gut the tire market. We traced it to its source in the docket. Almost every element of the popular version is wrong.

It comes from a public comment filed by John Baldwin of America's Tire / Discount Tire on June 18, 2026:

"if the Phase 2 requirements beginning in 2031 were applied to the tires we sell in California today, roughly 70 percent of currently available options would be removed from the market."

Docket comment TN 270848

Four things get stripped every time it is repeated:

1. It is about Phase 2, not Phase 1 — and about a 2031 date that has since moved to 2033.
2. It is one retailer's own assortment, compared statically against a proposed standard, not a market-wide study.
3. It came from a supportive letter. The same filing says "We support California's energy efficiency and emissions-reduction goals." It was a request to adjust a timeline, not opposition to the rule.
4. The Commission never adopted the figure. Its own testing of 179 tire models put the average non-UHP rolling resistance at 8.1 N/kN — already under the 9.0 Phase 1 limit. Its estimate of Phase 1's effect on fleet fuel economy is 0.2%.

An honest version reads: one large tire retailer told the Commission that roughly 70% of its own current lineup would fail the then-proposed 2031 Phase 2 limits. That is a real and serious data point about Phase 2. It is not "California banned 70% of tires."

Comment Discount Tire comment, TN 270848, docketed June 18, 2026. Commission Smithers testing summary and SRIA in TN 269612. Reported Tire Review also flags it as a static 2026 comparison.

Ten things people are getting wrong

1. "It went into effect Monday." It was adopted Monday, and has not yet cleared the Office of Administrative Law. The first standard applies to tires manufactured on or after January 1, 2029.
2. "My tires are now illegal." No tire in service is affected. The rule attaches to the manufacture date of a tire being sold, and only from 2029.
3. "California banned 70% of tires." Traced above. Not a Commission finding, not about Phase 1, and from a letter supporting the program.
4. "The limit is 9.1." There is no single limit. There are six, and the adopted text reads 9.0 for a standard tire. See the discrepancy.
5. "It only applies to manufacturers." Every prohibition names tire retailers too. The duty is narrow, but you are named.
6. "Shops will be fined $X." No dollar amount appears in the regulation. Enforcement runs through database archiving and referral to the Attorney General.
7. "I have to dump my inventory before 2029." The opposite. Tires manufactured before January 1, 2029 have no energy performance requirement, full stop.
8. "Winter tires are banned." Winter-type snow tires are excluded from the definition entirely, and all-season winter performance tires are exempt from both standards.
9. "Buying online or out of state gets around it." The rule covers internet, phone and mail order sales regardless of the seller's physical location.
10. "It starts in 2028." It did, in the April draft. That was struck in July.

Straight answers to the common questions

Do I need to replace my tires?

No. Nothing in this program requires any vehicle owner to do anything, at any point. There is no inspection, no registration, and no deadline for drivers.

Will my next set of tires cost more?

Not before 2029, and after that the estimates diverge sharply depending on who is doing the estimating. Here is the whole range, attributed:

The Tire Industry Association's number is the most concrete counter-evidence in the record: it priced a common 215/55R16 at California retailers and found compliant tested tires averaging $117.36 against $81.30 for entry-level all-season tires not marketed as low rolling resistance. Its concern is that displacing the cheap end of the market pushes people toward older or used tires.

California's own Department of Finance also pushed back on the Commission's math — on tax revenue, on understated agency costs, and on the assumption that a set of tires lasts four years rather than six. That criticism comes from the state's own budget office, not from industry.

Commission CEC announcement and staff report Table ES-5. Comment Tire Industry Association filing, TN 272019. State Department of Finance comments on the SRIA.

A widely repeated "tires will cost 20–50% more" figure appears in press and advocacy summaries. We could not locate it in any primary docket filing, so we do not repeat it.

Can I still buy the tires I like?

Until 2029, every tire on the market is unaffected. After that, a tire must be listed in the Commission's database of approved tires to be sold in California. Whether your specific model qualifies depends on its category and its measured coefficient.

Does this apply if I buy tires online or out of state?

Two different answers, and most coverage gives only the flattering one.

As a driver, you are never the regulated party. Nothing in the program penalizes you for buying or fitting any tire, anywhere.

But an out-of-state online seller is squarely in scope. The regulation defines "sold or offered for sale in California" to include internet, telephone and mail order transactions regardless of the seller's physical location. From 2029, a mail-order retailer shipping a post-cutoff tire into California is subject to the same prohibition as the shop on the corner.

Regulation §3302, definition of "sold or offered for sale in California"; §3301(a) carve-out for wholesale for final retail sale outside the state.

Is anyone suing over this?

No lawsuit, petition, or repeal bill exists as of August 19, 2026 — we checked the docket, the Office of Administrative Law's petition listing, and the California bill record. The one substantive legal theory raised was federal preemption under the Energy Independence and Security Act, filed by Continental Tire before adoption, and the Commission rebutted it on the record by noting no comparable federal tire efficiency regulation has been adopted.

Separately, a bipartisan group of legislators wrote to Governor Newsom in June urging a delay. That is advocacy, not legislation, and it predates the adoption vote.

Docket Continental Tire comment, TN 270669; legislative letter, TN 270603; CEC response in the Notice of Proposed Action, TN 269616.

How we source this

Every factual claim on this site is tied to one of two kinds of source, and we mark which:

• Regulation Commission Comment — read directly from the filings in rulemaking docket 26-TIRE-01, or from the Energy Commission's own publications. Primary sources.
• Reported — from trade or general press. Credible, but secondhand, and this week it was frequently wrong. We label it rather than launder it.

Where the two conflict, we say so and show both rather than quietly picking the one we prefer. Where we have not verified something, we say that too.

Primary sources

• CEC TN 271526 — Notice of Additional Public Comment Period and Summary of Changes, July 17, 2026. Contains the adopted express terms with all changes marked.
• CEC TN 269617 — Proposed Express Terms, April 24, 2026.
• CEC TN 269619 — Initial Statement of Reasons.
• CEC TN 269612 — staff report and tire testing summary.
• CEC TN 272046 — Resolution adopting the program.
• CEC — RTEP proceeding, docket 26-TIRE-01.
• CEC — announcement of approval.

Docket comments cited

• America's Tire / Discount Tire (TN 270848) — the origin of the "70%" figure.
• Tire Industry Association (TN 272019) — retail pricing counter-evidence.
• SEMA and Off-Road Business Association (TN 271777) — the 33-inch request.
• USTMA (TN 270674) — asking for point-of-sale labeling.
• Continental Tire (TN 270669) — federal preemption theory.

Press and trade coverage

• Modern Tire Dealer — dealer reaction and industry cost estimate.
• Tire Review.
• OnAllCylinders — enthusiast summary.
• Barry's Tire Tech — technical detail on ISO 28580 and the leaf rating.

CaliforniaTireLaw.com is independent. It is not affiliated with the California Energy Commission, any tire manufacturer, or any retailer, and it does not provide legal advice. Every regulatory quotation here was read from the filings in docket 26-TIRE-01 rather than from press coverage of them. If you find an error, tell us — a correction is worth more to this site than a visit, and we will publish what changed.