Low Rolling Resistance -- it's The Law

[freebeard]

app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2262&Year=2023

H-2487.1
HOUSE BILL 2262
State of Washington 68th Legislature 2024 Regular Session
By Representatives Street, Fitzgibbon, Slatter, Kloba, Ortiz-Self,
Ramel, Peterson, Doglio, Thai, Ryu, Cortes, Pollet, Morgan, Simmons,
and Macri
Read first time 01/10/24. Referred to Committee on Transportation.

p. 1 HB 2262
1 AN ACT Relating to reducing rolling resistance of motor vehicle
2 replacement tires; adding a new section to chapter 46.37 RCW; adding
3 a new chapter to Title 19 RCW; and prescribing penalties.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that:
6 (1) Rolling resistance of tires has a significant effect on the
7 fuel efficiency of motor vehicles, and the sales of high rolling
8 resistance replacement tires when low rolling resistance tire
9 technology is in use by new vehicles costs the average gasoline
10 vehicle driver the equivalent of approximately two-thirds the state
11 gas tax;
12 (2) Independent testing of available tires has demonstrated no
13 statistically significant adverse effect of low rolling resistance
tires on safety or tire longevity;14
15 (3) Analysis conducted by the department's energy policy office
16 shows adoption of reasonable replacement tire energy efficiency
17 standards could result in an approximate cumulative reduction of
18 600,000,000 gallons of gasoline and 1,500 gigawatt hours of
19 electricity, equating to a savings of $3,000,000,000 in
20 transportation costs for Washington drivers and 5,000,000 metric tons
21 of carbon dioxide from 2026 to 2035, assuming a 10 percent reduction

p. 2 HB 2262
1 in rolling resistance improves gasoline fuel efficiency by three
2 percent and electricity fuel efficiency by eight percent;
3 (4) Providing authority to the department to adopt energy
4 efficiency standards for replacement tires sold in the state could
5 therefore lower gasoline and electricity costs for drivers, reduce
6 greenhouse gas emissions to reach the state limit in RCW 70A.45.020,
7 and improve public health especially for overburdened communities
8 near highways through reduced transportation-related air pollution.

"...assuming a 10 percent reduction" Is this a reasonable expectation?

[Phase]

I’ve seen a bigger improvement than 3 percent when switching to low rolling resistance tires. Then again that’s switching over from winter tires versus generic all season or summer tires

[CapriRacer]

Reading the news reports on the bill, there doesn't seem to be any specifics. It appears that the bill would give the Washington Department of Commerce the ability to ban the sale of certain tires, but it doesn't say what criteria is to be used.

California has legislation that would ban any tire that on the average doesn't equal the OE tires. How that is to be done is unclear, but they have been working on it for quite some time and have reached an impasse - the legislation would effectively ban the sale of 99% of the currently available tires. The US Tire Manufacturers Association (USTMA) has been working with the California Energy Commission (CEC) on this. I don't think the CEC can propose anything that will work = the legislation has to be changed.

I go into more detail here: Draft Framework of California's Replacement Tire Efficiency Program

I suspect the USTMA will be active on the Washington State legislation as well.

[redpoint5]

I just wish legislation would decide how many scoops of ice cream I'm allowed at a time.

Looks like the government would be liable for accidents caused by underperforming tires. After all, the other side of the authority coin is responsibility (liability). I'd basically sue every time I was involved in an accident, because the government didn't use their genius to prevent me from harm.

[oil pan 4]

The US doesn't appear to have a rolling resistance index. Best we can get is hopefully whatever tire we want is sold in the European market and we can find a rolling resistance index letter for it.

[Hersbird]

I would bet what they are gunning for is all terrain or mud terrain tires. Or maybe just tires of a different size than stock. I can't imagine setting up test standards, labs, enforcement, etc over one Chinese car tire vs another. They need something obvious an officer can identify and target from a distance.

Either way it's stupid... so probably has a good chance of passing.

[aerohead]

In 1992, when GM debuted their Ultralite concept, with ultra-low R-R Good-years, I contacted Paul Bowers at Goodyear to see if I could get some.
He told me that, although they constructed the tires for Ultralite, they were simply building the tire to GM's proprietary specifications, and if I wanted some, I'd have to get permission from GM.
So I wrote GM's legal affairs department, and later got a polite reply that, GM was flattered by my proposal, but at the moment, not interested in selling a royalty agreement for the tire's manufacture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that, at least dealers have access to OEM tires, and any motorist would be free to purchase tires of any stripe from their parts department. And DISCOUNT TIRE sells some one-of-a-kind GM tires, as no other tire manufacturer supplies a 'duplicate'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And while auto manufacturers have open access to tire specifications, consumers do not.
California tried to pass a state law, requiring that consumers have total access to R-R data for aftermarket tire purchases, but it was shot down in Sacramento. Obviously, elected state congress-people, in effect, don't feel that consumers should ever be told the 'square-footage of a home, or whether or not there's any insulation in the walls or ceilings'. R-Factor of windows or doors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good for Washington State for trying to make a mistake in favor of the consumer. There ARE a lot of investors who stand to lose $ billions in gas/diesel/kWh sales, if such a law passes. And you can bet that lobbyists will outnumber everyone else, and be given the most time at the 'podium' during policy negotiations.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Either way it's stupid... so probably has a good chance of passing.

Quoted for accuracy.

When I first bought the Dodge/Cummins truck, I got stuck in the field 100% of the time there was any dampness at all even in 4x4 low. Swapped tires to something more suitable and I got stuck 0% of the time. Hopefully some genius in the government tells me it's illegal to avoid getting stuck.

[Tahoe_Hybrid]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Quoted for accuracy.

When I first bought the Dodge/Cummins truck, I got stuck in the field 100% of the time there was any dampness at all even in 4x4 low. Swapped tires to something more suitable and I got stuck 0% of the time. Hopefully some genius in the government tells me it's illegal to avoid getting stuck.

You can't park there, sir!

[JSH]

Not the law - this was sent to committee to die.

Light trucks would avoid this by using a snow rating. Many light truck tires are 3 peak now even those that aren't full snows. All it takes is a a bit more siping