Once again, I am starting off the blog with an entry on the California Energy Commission and their proposed tire regulations. This time it’s the fact that on Friday August 7, 2026, they announced that this item was on the agenda for the CEC business meeting on Monday Aug 17, 2026, 10:00am Pactific Time.

The agenda indicates that adoption of the regulations is what is to be discussed. This got me all flustered as it appears the issue to how many tires would be banned wasn’t addressed very well by the commission – that this was something that would spark a lawsuit to prevent adoption.

Then it occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, this is the current plan – that the commission had done what they could do, but couldn’t fix the underlining problem with AB844 – the legislation that allowed the CEC to make these regulations. That is, that AB844 requires that tires sold in California to have – on the average – the same or lower rolling resistance as OE (Original Equipment) tires.

As a tire engineer, I know that OE tires generally have extremely low RR values. That helps the car manufacturers sell cars, so they frequently push the boundary as far as they can, even going so far as occasionally specifying a tire that has wear and/or traction problems. The OEM’s don’t know this before hand. All they know is they are pushing the boundaries of what is possible.

The way I explain it is that there is a 3 way, triangular relationship between RR, traction, especially wet traction, and treadwear. Improvements in one area come at the expense of one or both of the others.

Rubber chemists have been hard at work to improve this, but they can only modify the magnitudes, not the relationship itself! And, of course, the OEM’s take advantage of that.

So while the RR of replacement market tires can be improved, it can never match OE tires without occasionally generating wear and traction issues – and tires are sold in the aftermarket based on the amount of miles they can deliver. (There are a few exceptions!)

Bringing it back to the CEC, I just wonder if the plan is to issue the regulation, knowing that someone will file suit to prevent its implementation. I don’t know how this would work, but a judge could issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), followed by a trial. Who would defend it? The commission, the State of California, the California Legislature?

And what would happen if the defense puts up no resistance? Judgement for the plaintiff? Wouldn’t that put the ball back in the Legislature’s court?

So who would file suit? The USTMA and its member tire manufacturers, as well as the many groups of dealers, wholesalers, foreign tire manufacturers, tire importers, etc.

It would explain why the USTMA had very little to say about this version of the regulations – in particular, they didn’t indicate how many tires they estimated would be banned – unlike the last time (Feb, 2023). It would also explain why the commission readily modified its proposal following public comments. It would also explain why the commission included in its presentation their work of wear vs RR – they didn’t find any connection!

This seems like the wrong way to do this. Yes, this way, the CEC isn’t to blame for the failure to get a regulation. But it seems an odd way to shift the blame!

So let’s see what happens on the 17th!

*******************************************

OK, the 17th came and went. I didn’t sit in on the CEC hearing – hoping that I could read a transcript at a later date. The last time, the transcript took 2 weeks to appear.

NOT THIS TIME!

OK, it wasn’t a transcript!! It was a public announcement that they – the CEC – had approved standards limiting the amount of rolling resistance a tire sold in California could have.

It was announced the SAME DAY!!

There haven’t been any clues as to what their plan is, if it isn’t just issuing the regulations in writing and setting up the bureaucratic pieces to implement this.

**********************

I haven’t talked about 6PPD lately. 6PPD is a commonly used in tires as an antioxidant and antiozonant, commonly abbreviated as AO’s. A 2017 study revealed that 6PPD was responsible for killing Coho Salmon in the state of Washington. As a result, California has proposed a ban on the material effective January 1, 2029.

Because of the widespread usage of 6PPD in tires, the US Tire Manufacturers Association coordinated research to find an alternative. They identified 7 possible chemicals.

However, recent developments have expanded that to 24 chemicals – and some involve alternative strategies, rather than direct replacement.

Please note: While the USTMA is coordinating the research, there are a total of 32 tire manufacturers involved. The USTMA has 11 tire manufacturers as members, so the effort is much broader than just the US.

*********************************8

Once again California: I saw a brief interview of a Commissioner for the CEC – Nancy Skinner. She repeatedly talked about how large the timeframe was before the regulations kick in. She mentioned that some tires already mee the standards and she expected the tire manufacturers to be able to reach the levels needed.

So that appears to be the plan. Let time and the tire research improve the relationship between treadwear/traction/rolling reistance. Put another way, the technology catches up 20 year old OEM rolling resistance levels!

That seems optimistic to me, but possible. She also said they would be willing to adjust things.

I think that means she has seen data that indicates the first deadline (Stage 1 = Jan 1, 2029) is achievable. I suspect she is referring to the data file that the USTMA provided about 3 years ago. I speculated at the time that the file contains rolling resistance – along with the other data being asked for for the proposed database.

Just an FYI, Jay Spears, the Continental Tire rep to the USTMA said the database would possibly contain 240,000 lines of data – so the 7400 line database given to the CEC in 2023 is a mere fraction of that!

I am taking a wait and see approach to this, but I am recommending that everyone living in California write to both the Governor and their local state representation expressing their concern!

*************************

.