With California’s new tire regulations hitting the news, we thought we would dig a little deeper to uncover the largely forgotten legislation that actually prompted the California Energy Commission (CEC) last month to set forth its regulatory plan for future new tire purchases by consumers.
You may have heard that this past month, the CEC announced a two-phased approach targeted at phasing out the sale of certain energy efficiency standards, based on rolling resistance, which is the amount of energy a tire uses as it rolls down the road. Lower resistance means a vehicle uses less gas or electricity.
New cars come with generally efficient tires, but consumers typically replace those with higher rolling resistance tires. That resistance gap is what regulators are trying to narrow. The first phase of standards begins in 2029, which sets an initial maximum rolling resistance cap of 9.1 N/kN and the second begins in 2033, drops the cap to a stricter 7.2 N/kN, which critics claim could impact up to 70% to 80% of current tire options on the market.
These newly proposed standards, though, have an interesting past. Unbeknownst to the populace and even to many legislators, Assembly Bill 844, signed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003 (one week before his recall election), has sat waiting in the corner for over two decades, only now to be unearthed. Known as the “Replacement Tire Efficiency Program,” the measure was enacted to require the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, in consultation with the California Integrated Waste Management Board, to adopt, on or before July 1, 2007, and implement, no later than July 1, 2008, a replacement tire efficiency program of statewide applicability for replacement tires for passenger cars and light-duty trucks, that is designed to ensure that replacement tires sold in the state are at least as energy efficient, on average, as the tires sold in the state as original equipment on these vehicles.
As part of AB 844’s findings, declaration and legislative intent, the Legislature stated:
- Substantial evidence indicates that replacement tires for passenger cars and light trucks are less energy efficient, on average, than tires installed as original equipment.
- Improving the energy efficiency of replacement tires for California’s passenger and light truck fleet could yield significant economic and environmental benefits without affecting vehicle performance or safety, while also reducing California’s vulnerability to oil price increases.
- There are strong indications that technologies are available to make replacement tires more energy efficient and longer lasting.
- According to a January 2003 report by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, titled “California State Fuel Efficient Tire Report: Volume 1,” energy efficient tires have the potential to significantly reduce fuel consumption by California drivers, resulting in significant cost and fuel savings. According to the report, adequate tire pressure will also promote fuel savings, and a specified tire testing procedure developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers should be used to measure the fuel efficiency of tires.
- It is the intent of the Legislature to provide the statutory framework to ensure that replacement tires sold in California are at least as energy, on, as original-equipment tires.
- It is further the intent of the Legislature that the Replacement Tire Efficiency Program not increase the amount of scrap tires generated within California, nor negatively impact state efforts to manage scrap tires pursuant to the California Tire Recycling Act.
AB 844’s Third Reading analysis noted:
SB 1170 (Sher), Chapter 912, Statutes of 2001, requires CEC to prepare a report “The California State Fuel-Efficient Tire Report” that among other things mandates CEC to make specific recommendations for a state fuel-efficient tire program. In that report, CEC made a number of findings including that low-rolling resistance tires can improve the fuel economy of a passenger vehicle by approximately 3%, thereby saving California approximately 300 gallons of gasoline annually and saving consumers approximately $118 million to $165 million annually.
According to the author’s office, unlike refrigerators or other household appliances, there are no requirements that replacement tires be labeled for fuel efficiency or meet minimum efficiency standards. Instead of purchasing energy efficient replacement tires, most consumers end up purchasing new virgin tires when their old ones wear out. This bill would address this problem by requiring tire manufacturers to label their tires and meet minimum efficiency standards, after a period of testing to determine which tires are most efficient.
However, the policy set forth by AB 844 sat dormant and unfulfilled. The long delay in setting these standards was likely caused by a few factors: the state waited for a federal program to be implemented that never materialized; industry pushback; and a measure (AB 844) which had simply been forgotten. Although it is unusual for state leadership to fail to implement programs set out by legislation, here is a case where regulators even admitted they did not know the existence of the 2003 mandate. Interestingly, State Senator Nancy Skinner didn’t forget and when she joined the energy commission recently, she brought up the lost measure, which ultimately triggered the recent rulemaking process.
For over 50 years, Legislative Intent Service, Inc. has been providing the legislative history for bills and regulations from the 1800s to the present. If you are interested in knowing more about the background of any state or federal statute, please contact our office today! We even provide a legislative history report and analysis on your bill of interest with a procedural summary that helps guide you through the intricacies of how your bill eventually became law. Please contact our office for a quote today: quote@legintent.com or (530) 666-1917.