. . . wait until you hear about its tire regs.
. . . wait until you hear about its tire regs.
T he decision by the unelected California Energy Commission to make an estimated 70 percent of the tires sold in the state illegal by 2033 is touching off a citizens’ revolt. This week, the CEO of Dunlop, which is headquartered in California, scorched the commission’s power grab by comparing its stupidity to the state’s notorious, budget-busting high-speed-rail project: a perfect metaphor for government incompetence.
Dunlop CEO Darren Thomas says that, by mandating more “efficient” tires, regulators risk repeating the stupidity behind the bullet train by ignoring real-world economics in a misguided effort to curb carbon emissions. “We’re asking California to prove that the regulation produces a better overall outcome for Californians,” he says. “As a state we failed to do that with High-Speed Rail. Another initiative that cost taxpayers billions and promised lower fuel consumption and emissions.”
But the California Energy Commission’s first-of-its-kind tire efficiency standards could have national implications. A long list of Golden State regs — from vehicle emission limits to appliance standards — have become de facto national ones because of the size of the state’s market. These tire restrictions, too, could be coming to other states. New cars generally come with efficient tires, but consumers typically replace those with ones that have higher rolling resistance. Goodyear warns that the increased costs to consumers could run in the hundreds of dollars. Most all-season replacement tires last for roughly 65,000 miles. But the European-standard tires mandated by the new rules average 27,000 miles, meaning that consumers will have to replace them twice as often. It’s no surprise that the only major tire company to back the regs is France’s Michelin, whose tires are consistently in the top price tier and will likely see increased sales under the new standards.
California Energy Commission member Nancy Skinner insists that the new tire standard will result in energy savings for consumers, which many analysts dispute. These reassurances, after all, come from the same state regulators whose actions have led California’s electricity rates to more than double compared with those of neighboring states. California’s energy efficiency savings haven’t offset the higher rates paid by consumers. Why should anyone expect that the tire efficiency standards will be any different?
“You will not have as many manufacturers, importers, distributors selling as many products,” Thomas said. “When the supply goes down and the demand stays stable, prices go up. So will prices increase? You bet they’ll increase.” Dunlop’s CEO told reporters that the new regs could raise the cost of a full set of tires by more than $300 — and this at a time when government is supposed to be concerned about “affordability.”
There is a simpler solution. Underinflated tires result in a much greater loss in mileage and efficiency than the California Energy Commission’s sledgehammer regulation seeks to cure. A far better approach would be to educate and incentivize drivers to maintain proper tire pressure. “So essentially, we’re solving a very simple problem, which is, ‘Let’s gain better fuel efficiency,’ in very complicated measures that are going to cost the consumer money,” Thomas says.
Then there are safety concerns that the commission is largely ignoring. Those who prioritize tire durability, traction, or suitability for heavier vehicles will be out of luck. More expensive low rolling resistance (LRR) tires offer less grip when a car goes around corners. “In an evasive maneuver you want performance tires, not hardened LRRs,” concludes the trade journal Autoweek.
Once again, California’s environmentalists are promising savings (but, in this case, increasing replacement frequency), ignoring safety trade-offs, and limiting options. Real consumer advocates would leave the cost-benefit analysis up to tire purchasers. But the agenda of the nanny-state regulators at the California Energy Commission is to get people out of their cars and into public transit — the purported energy savings are merely a subterfuge.
Luckily, the public is slowly catching on. A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that only 32 percent of voters support the ban on new gas-powered cars that is set to take effect by 2035, down from 49 percent in 2021. Only 38 percent support paying higher rates for renewable energy. That’s down from 56 percent a decade ago.
Now, the question is: Will the increasing number of Californians who have doubts about the state’s insane energy policies express that frustration at the ballot box in November? So far, there is scant evidence that Democrats who are captive to the environmental lobby are in danger of losing any of their key statewide offices. A majority of Californians appear willing to stay on a political road to nowhere paved with cognitive dissonance.