California will start regulating tires in the coming years, which some manufacturers and industry groups say will increase costs to consumers — something supporters say will do the opposite.

The California Energy Commission recently approved the nation’s first efficiency standard for replacement tires for passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. It said the new regulations that start in 2029 will eventually save drivers billions of dollars in fuel costs and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Tires on new vehicles are designed to give drivers better fuel mileage. But replacement tires tend to be less efficient and drivers lose mileage — and in the case of electric vehicles, lose range. Lawmakers said the higher price of replacement tires will be more than offset by the financial savings in the long run.

The Pacific Research Institute, a Pasadena think tank that advocates for free-market solutions to policy issues, criticized the mandate as regulatory overreach. “Where does it stop? It seems like there’s no corner of our lives where they think they can’t become involved,” said Kerry Jackson, the group’s William Clement Fellow in California Reform.

Question: Should California be regulating tires?

Economists

James Hamilton, University of California-San Diego

YES: Tires on new cars deliver better fuel economy because the manufacturers want to meet fuel efficiency standards. If an average driver were to get replacement tires of the same quality, they might save 8-10 gallons of gasoline each year, or close to $50 at today’s prices. Drivers of electric vehicles might save $30 each year. These more than cover the added cost over the life of the tires. But most consumers don’t have time to do the calculations.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: California should require clear disclosure on tire longevity and any expert‑recommended safety information but regulating “quality” is paternalistic and no different from mandating government‑approved mattress firmness or minimum flashlight brightness. Consumers don’t need Sacramento deciding what products are “good enough” for them. Give us transparency and let us choose what to buy without a state‑sponsored shopping nanny determining minimum quality.

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

NO: While well-intentioned, it is the wrong time to pile costly tire regulations onto the highest fuel prices in the country. They are politically polarizing and invite unintended consequences — drivers keeping worn tires longer or buying them across state lines. Better tools to improve mileage and cut emissions exist, such as incentives to retire the oldest gas-guzzlers, or a public campaign to keep tires properly inflated. Otherwise, this rule risks a whole new “don’t tread on me” backlash.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: Consumers can and many already choose to purchase more expensive, higher quality tires for better fuel mileage or whatever they want. Under-inflated tires cause greater losses of mileage than the new rule attempts to address. Difficulties in regulating and enforcing the new tire requirements will be easy to circumvent by simply purchasing them in other states. Yet another attempt at micromanaging behavior and business is why everything costs so much more to live in California.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: Critics of this regulation argue that low rolling resistance tires offer less traction, a concern when driving in wet weather, and that they wear out faster than regular tires. Drivers can already choose energy efficient replacement tires if they believe that savings on fuel will cover the higher purchase price. But drivers who are not persuaded that improved fuel efficiency will offset price and performance concerns should not be forced to buy low resistance tires.

Ray Major, economist

NO: This is another stupid idea from Sacramento and will end up costing consumers significantly more money than it saves. The math shows the average savings would be approximately $67 per year. However your tires will last only 30,000 miles, rather than 60,000, costing consumers an additional $500 to $1,200 every two years for new tires. Furthermore, California will need to get rid of an additional 14,230,000 tires per year. Wait till they hit us with additional disposal fees.

Executives

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO: California is regulating yet another industry, and consumers will likely pay the price. More mandates can mean higher costs, fewer affordable options, and added burdens for manufacturers, retailers and drivers. Even when regulations are well-intended, they can reduce competition, limit consumer choice, and create supply chain challenges in an already expensive state. California continues to make it harder and more expensivefor people and businesses to live and work here.

Mark Kersey, San Diego County Taxpayers Association

NO: State regulation will undoubtedly lead to higher prices for consumers, just as it has for years with gasoline. Regulators don’t even dispute that — they just argue that eventually the higher tire prices will be offset by better MPG. In the meantime, families already struggling with California’s astronomical cost of living will shell out more money for tires, hoping that maybe someday the state will do something to actually help them afford to live here.

Phil Blair, Manpower

NO: The state is getting too involved in mandating issues that citizens should control on their own. Educating people about issues like quality of tires, and what it means long term, is a much better option.

Gary London, London Group Realty Advisors

NO: Tire inflation is just another type of inflation. My answer is less about government overregulation, which I usually complain about, and more about my skepticism about the promise from California regulators that consumers will save money in the long run. There are contrasting arguments about long-run savings. Pick your favorite. But in the short run it is incontestable that replacement tires will be priced hundreds of dollars higher.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

NO: California’s tire‑efficiency rule may deliver modest fuel savings, but it’s another example of the state narrowing consumer choice in the name of incremental gains. Mandating rolling‑resistance standards risks higher prices, fewer available models, and added compliance costs for manufacturers. Even well‑intended regulations can accumulate, creating a pattern of state micromanagement that limits flexibility for drivers and businesses. California should encourage efficiency, not impose another mandate that expands its regulatory footprint.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

NO: Regulation is justified when meaningful externalities outweigh the complexity, cost and enforcement burden. Tire efficiency affects fuel consumption and emissions, but the benefits here seem incremental. Consumers already have incentives to choose products that improve mileage or EV range. A simpler option is to make mileage impacts transparent. California should be cautious about adding product mandates unless the environmental gains are substantial and exceed the costs imposed on manufacturers, retailers, regulators, and ultimately drivers.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

NO: The new tire-efficiency standards have a reasonable goal: reducing fuel use and emissions. But drivers should be able to choose the tires that work best for their needs — and even the state acknowledges this will mean higher upfront costs. Californians already face some of the nation’s highest living costs. Each new mandate or law may seem modest but, collectively, they make California less affordable.

©2026 The San Diego Union-Tribune. Visit sandiegouniontribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.