California and the federal government battle over hospice fraud, as victims lose coverage and care

August 28, 2026 By Jaimie Ding Leave a Comment

LOS ANGELES (AP) — At 71 and a few years into retirement, Linda Henry felt like she was in good health, and only went to her doctor in Southern California for the occasional checkup.

So it was a shock when she found out in 2024 that she had been enrolled in hospice, a specialized end-of-life care usually provided to people with six months or less to live. A Medicare worker told her the system said she had heart failure.

Henry was a victim of rampant fraud in the hospice industry, a problem that’s been especially extreme in California, where scammers have taken advantage of historically weak government oversight. Fraudsters have created fake hospices and tricked people into enrolling, or stolen people’s identities to bill Medicare for hospice services.

California’s been a focus of the Trump administration’s crackdown on fraud in federally-funded health programs, with more than 1,000 California hospices removed from Medicare since early 2025. Federal officials estimate LA County alone accounts for an estimated $3.5 billion in fraudulent hospice claims.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The state says it’s doing its part to tackle the issue. California has revoked nearly 500 licenses since putting a moratorium on new hospices in 2021 and in June adopted long-awaited emergency regulations that set more stringent criteria for approving new licenses.

Since hospice is a form of palliative care meant for terminally ill patients, once someone enrolls in it, Medicare will not pay for additional medical treatment outside of it, leaving vulnerable seniors to miss out on appointments and be denied crucial care. Meanwhile, millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled to fraudsters every year, and those who truly need hospice care might not get it if they enroll with a fraudulent hospice operator.

Advocates say they don’t have a clear estimate of how many people like Henry have been unwittingly caught up in fraud, but urge state and federal cooperation.

Hospice fraud has been a major problem in California

In 2026, the state had about 2,100 hospice organizations, down from 2,800 four years prior. New York, which has far more stringent rules for registering a hospice, has just 39, according to its state health department.

A 2022 state audit found rampant fraud and abuse in the system, particularly in LA County. It found dozens of hospice agencies were often clustered in the same building as well as a rapid increase in the number of hospices being established and abnormally high rates of patients being discharged. Hospice is often provided at patients’ homes, meaning one registered hospice can serve patients in numerous locations.

In April, federal prosecutors made arrests in five cases involving hospice fraud in the LA area. A week later, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said 21 people were arrested for a multimillion scheme to use stolen identities to charge for hospice services. His office has filed more than 100 hospice-related criminal cases and secured over 50 hospice-related convictions since 2021.

Click here to read the full article in AP News

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Meta to pay $17 billion — and limit ‘likes’ for teens — in social media settlement with states

August 27, 2026 By Colin Lecher 1 Comment

Meta agreed to pay up to $17 billion and to make changes to its platforms to end a major case on children and social media addiction.

California will receive up to $2.1 billion if the settlement is approved by a judge, according to a statement from the Attorney General Rob Bonta. Meta will agree to a payment of more than $12 billion, with an increase up to the $17 billion over 10 years if other social media companies settle related claims, the New York Times reported.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

A group of 47 states led by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey accused Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, of engineering its products to be addictive to children.

Despite knowing the products could damage kids’ mental health, the attorneys general said, Meta continued to promote them, even as its own research showed harms. The case has been compared to past litigation against Big Tobacco, and was seen as a major test of similar litigation tech companies face around the United States.

“Today, we have secured a settlement with Meta that will make social media less dangerous for our kids and make a world of a difference for children and their families,” Bonta said in the statement.

A Meta spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Opening statements in the suit started just last week in an Oakland federal court, with a weekslong trial anticipated. The case was among the largest in a series of bellwether cases testing claims that major tech companies deliberately marketed products to children, even as those products damaged their mental health.

Earlier this year, Meta and Google were found liable by a Los Angeles jury in a suit that tested similar claims. Meta lost another, similar suit in New Mexico this year as well. But today’s settlement eclipses any legal challenge so far.

Lexi Hazam and Previn Warren, attorneys who have represented families and school districts in other litigation against tech companies, praised the ruling in a statement, calling it “a major step toward holding Meta accountable for the harm its platforms have caused young people.”

Meta continues to face claims from parents and school districts around the country. Google, Snap, and TikTok are among the companies facing similar suits.

“We will not rest until every one of these plaintiffs sees justice for the harms caused by all of the defendants’ platforms,” Hazam and Warren said.

Under the terms of the deal, which still must be approved by a judge, Meta will change how it operates its platforms. The changes would include:

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Fed up with high prices, California weighs penalties against hospitals, other entities

August 26, 2026 By Claudia Boyd-Barrett 1 Comment
About half of U.S. adults say they can’t afford healthcare. California is among at least eight states that have set spending growth targets for the healthcare sector. It may soon impose enforcement penalties aimed at pushing hospitals and other providers to meet those goals.

California is weighing stiff penalties for hospitals and other healthcare entities that don’t stay under state spending limits, potentially levying hundreds of millions of dollars in fines if these providers don’t take steps to rein in rising healthcare costs.

If the state Office of Health Care Affordability adopts the fines this week, hospitals, medical groups, insurers and others could face penalties that amount to as much as 125% of the total they spend above the state’s annual growth targets.

The penalty proposal comes after healthcare entities in California were asked to limit growth by 3.5% last year and ramp down to 3% by 2029. Seven hospitals that state officials consider particularly expensive face even smaller growth targets: 1.8% in 2026, dropping to 1.6% by 2029.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Consumer advocates argue that state financial deterrents are critical to bring relief to millions of Californians struggling with high insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. Hospitals accounted for 40% of the increase in U.S. health spending from 2022 to 2024, compared with 11% from retail prescription drugs. But adding teeth to those targets sets up a fight with the powerful hospital industry, which has a pending lawsuit challenging the spending limits as unreasonable.

Hospitals warned that they will cut back on vital services, including in emergency rooms, obstetrics and behavioral health.

Healthcare industry representatives said the state affordability office hasn’t accounted for year-to-year volatility or other factors beyond the industry’s control, such as rising minimum wages, state earthquake retrofit requirements, and expensive new drugs.

“They’re building the plane while flying it,” said Ben Johnson, group vice president for financial policy at the California Hospital Assn. “We know improvements in affordability are needed, but we have serious questions about how and about what the unintended consequences could be under OHCA’s rather stringent approaches.”

When calculating penalties, California regulators would consider various factors, including a healthcare entity’s financial situation, its market impact and the gravity and number of offenses, according to a board presentation in June. And entities would first be given opportunities to implement performance improvement plans to bring their spending into line before penalties are imposed. For those that don’t comply, the board is considering penalties of $10,000 a day or a flat $500,000.

The penalties, which the affordability office’s eight-member board is required by state law to adopt, are slated for discussion, and a potential vote, at the board’s Aug. 26 meeting. The soonest healthcare providers would be subject to penalties is 2028, because it’s expected it will take two years to collect and publicly report spending data to measure against the 2026 targets.

The state is still collecting data on how entities performed against the 2025 targets, which aren’t enforceable, according to Andrew DiLuccia, a spokesperson for the California Department of Health Care Access and Information.

States set targets

California is one of at least eight states that have set spending targets as part of an expanding effort to curb soaring healthcare spending across the nation. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon and Rhode Island have also authorized the use of some type of financial penalty. The specifics of each vary widely, although so far no state has applied them.

A survey last year by the California Health Care Foundation found that 4 out of 10 state residents said they had medical debt, and 6 in 10 reported that they or a family member had skipped or delayed medical care in the previous 12 months because of cost. Nationwide, about half of adults say it is difficult to afford healthcare costs.

After Rosalyn Book got stitches on her chin, the elementary school teacher received a $15,000 ER bill from a hospital, despite having insurance. Many teachers in her district leave because they can’t afford the cost of healthcare and insurance premiums, she said.

“The healthcare charges are just insanity, and what we get as patients for the care, it’s not the best either,” said Book, president of the Monterey Bay Teachers Assn. “If you’re a working, regular individual in terms of how much you make, the cost of living and especially the healthcare is just not doable.”

Meanwhile, hospitals are warning there’s a risk of more closures. According to Yale University’s Health Care Affordability Lab, 17 hospitals have closed in the state since 2016, compared with only six openings.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Walters: California’s clashes over business regulation rage on as legislative session nears end

August 25, 2026 By Dan Walters 1 Comment

The state Capitol’s most enduring conflict pits corporate California against four powerful interest groups over new regulations, taxes, minimum wages or other costly mandates.

The specific issues may vary from year to year, although some continue for decades, but the underlying clash of interests is perpetual.

The four groups arrayed against business — unions, personal injury lawyers, consumer advocates and environmentalists — contend their bills are needed to protect consumers, workers or the environment. Business executives see them as driving higher operational costs that threaten companies’ profitability or even existence.

As the Legislature approaches the August 31 adjournment of its two-year session, some of the bills arising from the conflict are still pending, and the contending forces are applying maximum pressure to affect the outcomes.

One example is Assembly Bill 2564, carried by Assemblymember Christopher Ward, a San Diego Democrat, on behalf of unions, consumer groups and advocates for the poor.

It would prohibit retailers from engaging in “surveillance pricing,” which is a form of algorithmic pricing in which sellers use personal information to tailor prices to specific consumers.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Backers of the bill say it’s needed to avoid discrimination, while retailers say the measure could eliminate coupons and other forms of price discounts for loyal customers, thus raising the cost of living in an already expensive state.

The most important measure still pending in the Legislature, at least from the standpoint of California’s overall business climate, is Assembly Bill 1776, authored by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Democrat from Davis.

It would broaden California’s anti-monopoly Cartwright Act, first enacted in 1907 to allow civil or criminal actions against corporations that monopolize markets.

The Cartwright Act, which has been amended several times since its enactment, resembles the federal Sherman Antitrust Act in several regards but is broader in its reach. It still is aimed at collusion between two or more corporations to stifle competition and raise prices. But AB 1776 would also sanction actions against corporations that become dominant without colluding.

The change was recommended by the California Law Revision Commission to curb monopolistic behavior framers of the original law never envisioned. It is backed by a long list of consumer advocates and unions.

Business interests led by the California Chamber of Commerce see it as opening the door to lawsuits that would penalize corporations for earning market shares honorably vis-à-vis long-established practices.

Until a few days ago, the bill also would have allowed lawyers to instigate lawsuits on their own, a provision known as “private right of action,” which opponents found particularly onerous. That provision was removed after the bill narrowly passed the Assembly and moved to the Senate floor, thus limiting its enforcement to the attorney general or local prosecutors.

The California Chamber of Commerce is still steadfastly opposed. It contends the bill still allows crackdowns on corporations that are just operating normally, penalizing them for success in gaining substantial market power.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , ,

Gov. Newsom Wails Grimes: About Assaults on the Free Press, then Signs ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ into Law

August 24, 2026 By Katy Grimes 1 Comment

‘California Passes a law making it a crime to report a crime’

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” Assembly Bill 2624, by Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Oakland) into law Saturday August 22, 2026. Bonta claims her bill is about “privacy for immigration support services providers.”

Gov. Newsom two days ago screeched on X about unfair attacks on the free press:

“A free press cannot function under constant threats and retaliation from the government. Reporters must be free to hold those in power accountable — without fear of retribution. The assault on the free press must end!”

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

And then he signed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” into law. 

Republicans nicknamed the bill the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” for independent YouTuber and citizen journalist Nick Shirley after he exposed Somali daycare fraud in Minnesota. 

Bonta, wife of California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, claims it does not fine or jail journalists simply for “uncovering” Democrat fraud.

However, her bill will fine citizen journalists a minimum $4,000 for exposing fraud inside “Immigration Support Service Providers” – illegal services to illegal aliens.

Bonta’s bill would impose huge civil sanctions on independent investigative reporters for “harassing” what Bonta calls “immigrant services” workers who, in fact, are providing taxpayer-funded goods and services to illegal aliens. It is designed to use as a weapon to intimidate and punish journalists who dissent from mainstream views.

AB 2624 is reminiscent of AB 2098 from October 2022 when Gov. Newsom signed a bill to censor California doctors accused of “Spreading COVID Misinformation” during Covid. Assembly Bill 2098 put unconstitutional restrictions on free speech by medical professionals, and subjected them to disciplinary actions by the Medical Board of California if they did not adhere to the “approved COVID treatment consensus.”

Even before AB 2098 went into effect, it was already used as a weapon to intimidate and punish doctors who dissented from “mainstream views.” However, the bill was ultimately ruled unconstitutional and the governor and COVID “experts” were defeated over their law to punish doctors for “Covid Misinformation.”

California legislators are trying to make investigating fraud illegal, as Elon Musk correctly noted on X.

Within days of announcing her new bill, Ms. Bonta claimed “Right-wing agitators, ineffective legislators, and Trump loyalists are intentionally spreading significant misinformation about Assembly Bill 2624.”

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) calls it what it is:

CENSORSHIP: The “Stop Nick Shirley Act” that makes it illegal to post videos of fraud against taxpayers is now law. Democrats decided to stop independent journalists from investigating fraud instead of stopping the fraud.

DeMaio should know. On Wednesday, Assembly Democrats censored him on the floor of the Assembly during debate over Bonta’s bill.

“California Democrats don’t care about freedom of speech. They silenced @carldemaio when he attempted to debate the Stop Nick Shirley Act bill. Who is next?” I posted to X.

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , , ,

Homeless counts dropped in these California counties this year

August 23, 2026 By Marisa Kendall 1 Comment

California reduced its official homeless count in 2025 after years of increases. Now, preliminary data for 2026 shows many places in the state are continuing to make progress.

Counties up and down the state are reporting that their homeless populations dropped this year, citing early results of the point-in-time count conducted in January. Some of the drops were significant. San Joaquin County cut its total unhoused population by nearly a third compared to 2024 and nearly halved the number of people sleeping on the street without shelter. Others were more modest, such as San Francisco’s 4% drop.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Of the 28 counties or continuums of care (which group smaller counties together into single counts) that released 2026 data, more than half reported a decline in homelessness. Eight others did not conduct a point-in-time count this year, while seven had not publicly released their results.

Officials in counties where the homeless count dropped credit their progress to creating more shelter beds and low-income housing, which they say was made possible by new state funds released over the past several years.

At the same time, some activists are questioning whether the numbers really are as rosy as they seem. Cities have ramped up enforcement against unhoused people in recent years – clearing encampments and citing people for illegal camping more frequently – which causes people to scatter and become harder to count. Just because someone is missing from an official count doesn’t mean they moved off the street and into housing.

Even in counties celebrating wins this year, officials wonder whether they can maintain those gains in the face of recent federal cuts to Medi-Cal and social services.

“We’ve made progress,” said Jonathan Russell, director of Alameda County Health Housing and Homelessness Services, which reported a 13% drop in homelessness compared to 2024. “And there are real threats, real peril.”

What the 2026 point-in-time counts show

The federal government requires every county to conduct a point-in-time census of its homeless population at least every other year, though some do it every year. Typically, volunteers join city, county and nonprofit staffers on a single night in January to tally every unhoused person they see. The results are generally considered an undercount, as it’s easy to overlook people tucked away behind bushes or hunkered down in parked cars. But despite the count’s flaws, it’s the only standardized way the state (and the rest of the country) has to measure fluctuations in its homeless populations.

There were 181,934 homeless Californians counted last year – a nearly 3% drop from 2024. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which compiles the data from each county, won’t release the official statewide or nationwide 2026 count for many months. But most counties that did a 2026 count have published the preliminary results on their own.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

Notes for the end-of-session

August 22, 2026 By CHRIS MICHELI Leave a Comment

With the final weeks of Session upon us, several procedural items that regularly occur on the Floors of the California Legislature may be in order:

How many times can a bill be reconsidered?
Regarding the reconsideration of bills, the same rule applies whether a bill is in committee or on the Floors of the Assembly or Senate. Only one reconsideration is in order. The first time a bill fails, it can be granted reconsideration. However, if it fails a second time, that is it. There is not a second reconsideration and, as a result, the bill has failed passage if it fails a second time after having been reconsidered.

So, either in committee or on the floor, a bill can be reconsidered once. However, if the bill has been reconsidered and then amended, and the amended version fails passage, that amended version could be reconsidered because the amended version of the bill is considered a new question for purposes of reconsideration. See, for example, Assembly Rule 100(d).

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

How many times can a bill be placed on call?
There is no rule on this. In other words, the Joint Rules, Senate Rules, and Assembly Rules do not cover the number of times a bill can be placed “on call,” whether it is in committee or on the Floor of either the Senate or Assembly. This question is also not covered in Mason’s Manual.

Nonetheless, even though there is not a rule regarding the number of times a bill can be placed “on call,” a majority vote on the floor or in committee will dictate the outcome. In other words, the “custom and practice” of the house is used.

Unfortunately, neither house has a formal custom or practice that sets forth a maximum number of times a measure can be placed “on call.” Again, the rules of the two houses state that “the call is continued by a majority vote of the Members present.” See, for example, Assembly Rule 101.

72-Hour In-Print Rule
A bill cannot be passed or become a statute unless that bill and any amendments have been in print and published on the Internet for at least 72 hours before the vote, unless the Governor has submitted a statement that the bill is needed to address a state of emergency. As a result, with the planned August 31 adjournment date, bills would have to be in their “final form” by midnight on August 28.

Consent Calendars
There are different rules between the Senate and Assembly regarding what is a measure for the consent calendar on their Floors. For example, under Senate Rule 28.3(a), if a Senate bill or Assembly bill is amended in the Senate to create a new bill or to rewrite the bill, a standing committee may not place the bill on its consent calendar. There is also a “special consent” calendar used on the Senate Floor, as well as occasionally the “batching” of bills on the Assembly Floor. These items are covered in detail in a separate article.

Click here to read the full article in Capitol Weekly

Filed Under: Trending News

As California demands less plastic in packaging, manufacturers say you’ll pay more for stuff

August 21, 2026 By Alejandra Reyes-Velarde 1 Comment

More than two dozen California Assembly Democrats and one state senator sent a letter Wednesday to legislative leaders asking them to delay fees under SB 54, the state’s landmark plastic reduction law, for two years — an eleventh-hour push as the Legislature hurtles toward the end of session.

The letter, addressed to Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, was signed by 23 Assemblymembers and Sen. Melissa Hurtado. It asks lawmakers to pause fee assessment and collection this year and next, commit to a “reform package” next session, and increase legislative oversight of the program going forward.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The request lands amid a broader fight over how the plastics law is rolling out. Little by little California is demanding that the packages you pick up at your doorstep or at the store contain less plastic. A law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed four years ago aims to phase out 25% of non-recyclable, non-compostable plastic by 2032.

To get there, the state tasked a nonprofit, the Circular Action Alliance, with drafting a plan to meet the state goals. The group estimated the work would cost $17.2 billion over five years –  and is asking for a three-year exemption from the source-reduction deadline.

But as the state moves to implement the law, questions are mounting over how the organization calculates the fees producers — and eventually consumers — will pay, and how much oversight the group actually faces.

Industry groups say the price tag for complying with the law could be tens of billions of dollars higher than California originally estimated. An industry-commissioned study found the law could cost consumers three times what the state projected — between $683 and $948 a year, rather than $190.

That means groceries, shampoo bottles and other consumer goods packed in plastic could cost a little more as the law takes effect.

The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, which oversees implementation, declined an interview but said in a written statement that the law puts consumers first and pushes producers to design packaging with recycling in mind.

“Californians are facing rising costs and pollution from increasingly complex packaging that wasn’t designed for the recycling systems local governments, ratepayers, and the state developed and funded over the past four decades,” said CalRecycle director Zoe Heller. “The law’s rollout is a dial, not a switch, giving producers flexibility to redesign packaging, invest in recycling systems, reduce single-use plastics, and make adjustments along the way,” she added.

Watching the watchers

The Circular Action Alliance published its fee schedule in June, spelling out what each producer owes into the system. The fees could add up to more than $10 million for some businesses, according to the Dairy Institute of California. The Dairy Institute is a trade association that represents milk processors and dairy product manufacturers.

But unlike a state agency, the Circular Action Alliance answers to almost no one, said Katie Davey, executive director of the Dairy Institute.

“[The alliance] does not have to go through an audit by the state auditor. They’re not subject to the (California open government law) Brown Act. They’re not subject to public records requests. The Legislature does not approve their budget and does not approve how many employees they need, or how many fees they can charge,” Davey said.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

 

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

FAIR Plan rate hike adds to California homeowners’ insurance strain

August 20, 2026 By Mark Rosanes Leave a Comment

A 29.1% FAIR Plan increase and an unresolved wildfire dispute are squeezing California’s already-limited market

California’s homeowners insurance market is absorbing a new wave of rate increases. The pressure arrives as lawmakers weigh changes to how wildfire costs are allocated between utilities, insurers, and policyholders.

The California FAIR Plan’s 29.1% rate increase takes effect October 15, per the California Department of Insurance. The plan initially sought 35.8%. State Farm‘s 17% emergency rate increase, approved by regulators in May 2025, was confirmed in a March settlement.

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

The admitted carrier market remains restricted. State Farm and Allstate are still closed to new business. Mercury, Farmers, and AAA/CSAA are among the carriers writing new policies statewide.

FAIR Plan enrollment grew 43% between September 2024 and December 2025, according to FAIR Plan data. The January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires drove much of that increase. Total FAIR Plan exposure reached $750 billion by March, a 242% increase since September 2022 based on data gathered by Amwins.

In the highest-risk ZIP codes, approximately 41% of residential structures now carry a FAIR Plan policy, compared to 4% in lower-risk areas.

End-of-session liability dispute

At the center of the legislative debate is a question of who bears the cost of utility-caused wildfires. California’s inverse condemnation doctrine holds utilities responsible for wildfire damage caused by their equipment, regardless of negligence. Subrogation gives insurers the right to recover paid wildfire claims from those utilities.

Senate Bill 254 (Becker, 2025), signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, required a study of wildfire liability options. The study, produced by the California Wildfire Fund administrator, examined approaches including eliminating inverse condemnation.

Utilities have argued the current framework exposes the state’s $40 billion Wildfire Fund to depletion. Insurers counter that eliminating subrogation would remove their right to recover wildfire costs and shift those losses to policyholders.

 

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,

California regulators approve new rules limiting what replacement tires you can buy for your car

August 19, 2026 By Ashley Zavala 2 Comments

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California regulators on Monday approved new rules that will restrict what tires you can buy when it’s time to replace them on your car.

In a unanimous vote, the California Energy Commission voted to adopt new rules that will phase out the sale of replacement tires that don’t meet certain energy efficiency standards.

“This ultimately is about protecting consumers,” said David Hochschild, the chairman of the California Energy Commission. “I see this as sheltering the public from higher costs in the long run.”

Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review

Tire manufacturers and the commission’s staff are at odds over whether this will add to the cost of living in the state. Both sides acknowledged this will no longer allow the sale of a significant portion of the tires currently sold in California.

At the center of this is a tire’s rolling resistance, or how much energy a tire uses as it rolls down the road. Lower resistance means a vehicle uses less gas or electricity. New cars come with generally efficient tires, but consumers typically replace those with higher rolling resistance tires.

The first phase would begin in 2029, which would allow the sale of tires with a maximum rolling resistance level of 9.1 newtons per kilonewton (N/kN). In phase 2, the standard lowers to 7.2 (N/kN) starting in 2033. The commission came up with the standards after testing 537 types of tires.

According to the commission’s staff, the rules are meant to ensure replacement tires sold in California are at least as energy efficient on average as the tires that come with the car or truck when it’s originally sold. The CEC claims Californians could save $79 in four months in gas or electricity costs under phase 1, and about $153 in phase 2 within seven months.

Click here to read the full article at KCRA

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: , ,