Goodyear vs. the State: Whose 70% Is Right on California's Tire Rules?

Where the Confusion Comes From

If you've been reading about California's Replacement Tire Efficiency Program, you've probably seen the number 70% used to argue two opposite points.

Commissioner Nancy Skinner, making the case for the rule, pointed out that about 70% of replacement tires available today already meet the Phase 1 standard that starts in 2029 — and that compliant tires have been selling in Europe, Japan and South Korea for over a decade. Her framing: California drivers aren't waiting on new technology, they're getting access to technology that already exists.

Goodyear told the Commission the rules could knock out 70% of the replacement tire models currently on the market.

Both statements are accurate. Here's the bridge between them: regulators also acknowledge that only about 30% of tires on the market today meet the tougher Phase 2 standard arriving in 2033. Flip that around and you get Goodyear's number. Same data, two different deadlines, two very different-sounding headlines.

So the real disagreement isn't about the math. It's about whether seven years is enough time for manufacturers to redesign that 70% without the cost landing on you.

Goodyear's Actual Argument

Goodyear's position, argued at the Commission by Bret Gladfelty, comes down to affordability. Their concern is that Phase 2 pushes costs up by hundreds of dollars for a family already stretched — and they've argued that conclusion comes out of the Commission's own figures, not from outside estimates.

They made a second point we hear at our counter constantly: a driver should be able to buy the same tire that came on their vehicle from the factory. If a replacement model has to be reformulated or dropped to satisfy a California-specific rule, you can end up unable to buy the exact tire your car was engineered around.

The state's counter is that the incremental cost is $1.50 per tire in Phase 1 and $6.50 in Phase 2 — about $6 and $26 per set — against roughly $146 to $179 in fuel savings over the life of a set.

Our honest read: the per-tire arithmetic favors the state. But per-tire arithmetic isn't how a $900 set feels to somebody deciding between tires and rent. And the cost that worries us isn't the $26. It's what happens to the bottom of the price ladder when 70% of models need re-engineering and manufacturers decide which ones are worth saving. We wrote about that in detail in Will Cheap Tires Disappear in California?

The Industry Isn't United on This

This is the part most coverage skips. "The tire industry opposes the rule" isn't accurate — the manufacturers split several ways, and we sell tires from all of them.

Michelin — supportive. Michelin, which also owns BFGoodrich, backed the regulation and said the efficiency targets are technically achievable. Their state and local government affairs director framed it as consistent with the company's existing approach to reducing tire impact across the life cycle without giving up safety or other performance drivers care about.

Bridgestone — supportive with conditions. Bridgestone backed the program's goals but flagged enforcement as the make-or-break issue, specifically for imported tires and manufacturers with little U.S. presence. That's a fair worry. A standard that only gets enforced against companies with American offices punishes exactly the wrong people.

Dunlop (Sumitomo) — cautionary, not opposed. Dunlop Tires North America doesn't oppose efficiency improvements. Their argument is that a tire is a balance of rolling resistance, traction, tread life, durability, handling, load capability, weather performance, ride, noise and cost — and that optimizing hard for one of those quietly costs you another. They want the program judged on overall consumer outcome, not on rolling resistance alone.

Goodyear — opposed as written. Cost and consumer choice, as above.

SEMA and aftermarket groups — opposed. Argued the state hasn't supported its cost assumptions and that the rule shrinks affordable options.

Four different positions from four companies whose tires sit on the same rack in our shop. When you see a headline saying "the tire industry says," check which part of it.

What Any of This Means for Your Car

Honestly? Not much, for a long while.

The rule works off a tire's date of manufacture, not the date you buy it. Anything built before January 1, 2029 stays legal to sell and drive on permanently. There's no deadline, no stockpiling advantage, and nothing on your car becomes illegal — ever.

What's worth tracking:

• 2029 is a small step. About 70% of what's on the market already clears it. Most people won't notice.
• 2033 is the real one. If you buy at the bottom of the price range, that's the year to watch, and it's seven years out.
• Used tires and retreads are exempt from the program entirely. That lane stays open.
• Winter, competition, off-road, motorcycle and small-diameter tires are all exempt too.

Where We Stand

We sell Goodyear. We also sell Michelin, Bridgestone, Falken, Pirelli, Nexen and Toyo — and we're an authorized dealer for Pirelli, Falken and Nexen. We don't have a horse in this fight beyond wanting our customers in North Long Beach, Compton, Paramount and Lakewood to have safe tires they can actually afford.

What we'd say to both sides: the state is right that the technology exists and that most drivers won't feel Phase 1. Goodyear is right that a rule which raises the floor also raises the entry price, and that the people who feel it are the ones with the least room. Those aren't contradictory — they're just the two halves of an honest answer.

Our commitment through this is the same as it's been since 1988: work our distributors to keep a genuine value option on the board, tell you what you're actually buying, and never use a regulation as a reason to rush you into a purchase.

Sources & Currency

Information current as of August 29, 2026. Based on the California Energy Commission's Replacement Tire Efficiency Program (Docket 26-TIRE-01, adopted August 17, 2026), public testimony and statements at the August 17 Commission business meeting as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, CBS 8, Kelley Blue Book and Fox Business, and Dunlop Tires North America's statement of August 19, 2026. The regulation remains subject to final administrative review. General information for California drivers, not legal advice.