California regulators are considering a new rule that would require tires sold in the state to meet stricter fuel efficiency standards, a measure aimed at reducing gasoline consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. The proposal, currently under review by the California Energy Commission, could lead to an average savings of $153 for drivers over the lifespan of their tires after factoring in an estimated additional cost of about $26 per set.

According to the commission, the rule’s full implementation by 2035 could decrease annual gasoline demand by an amount equivalent to one to two months of production from a single California refinery. The reduction in carbon emissions is projected to be comparable to removing approximately 400,000 cars from the road each year.

At a public hearing held on Wednesday, many attendees expressed support for the measure, citing environmental and economic benefits. However, some stakeholders raised concerns about the safety and durability of low rolling resistance tires, which are central to the commission’s proposal. Critics argue these tires might not provide adequate grip or could wear out faster than conventional options.

In response, the Energy Commission has incorporated new grip standards into the draft rule and commissioned a study indicating that improved tire efficiency does not negatively impact tire lifespan. Adjustments to efficiency requirements for longer-lasting tires have also been proposed to address durability concerns.

The rule has drawn mixed reactions from various interest groups. Car enthusiasts and motorsport participants fear the restrictions will disproportionately affect vehicles used for racing or those requiring high-performance tires that prioritize grip and treadwear over fuel savings. Commenters such as Tommy Wong, representing part of California’s car culture, have voiced opposition on this basis. Several motorsports and trade publications have also criticized the proposal.

The tire industry itself remains divided. Companies including Michelin, Discount Tire, and the electric vehicle tire manufacturer Enso have expressed support for the initiative. In contrast, Goodyear, Yokohama, and the California Tire Dealers Association have pushed back, disputing the commission’s cost estimates and predicting higher prices for the mandated efficient tires.

Consumer advocacy organizations have backed the proposal. Consumer Reports and the Consumer Federation of America characterized the commission’s cost-benefit analysis as “well-grounded” and described the potential rule as a necessary step in addressing broader affordability concerns related to vehicle operation.

Ken Rider, a staff member at the California Energy Commission, said consumers are unlikely to experience significant changes if the regulation takes effect, given that many existing replacement tires already meet the proposed criteria. He emphasized the availability of competitively priced, safe, and long-lasting options from multiple manufacturers across diverse vehicle types.

A spokesperson for the commission indicated that further modifications to the proposal are under consideration, which could prompt additional public input. Once finalized, the regulation must receive a formal vote by the commission before it can be adopted.