Gas War: California Brings Stellantis to Heel

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Stellantis has agreed to adhere to California emission policies, including requirements to make two-thirds of new cars to zero-emission or electric by 2030. This means the automaker — which oversees Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, Ram, Fiat, Maserati, Alfa Romeo, and several brands that are not sold in the United States — will be required to cut emissions through the 2026 model year and adhere to California’s requirement to have a majority electrified fleet within the next several years. There are also provisions for the company to spend millions of dollars on charging stations and community outreach programs designed to encourage EV sales.


The assumption is that this is being done ahead of the 2024 presidential election in case Donald Trump wins and attempts to reinstate fuel economy rollbacks or revoke the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) emission waivers — both of which were undone by Joe Biden via executive order in 2021.


From CARB:


Under the agreement, Stellantis will contribute to save more than 10 million additional metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions beyond compliance with existing standards through the 2026 model year. Furthermore, Stellantis will comply with California’s zero-emissions light-duty vehicle sales requirements through 2030 even if CARB is unable to enforce its standards as a result of judicial or federal action. The automaker will extend its educational programs specific to zero-emissions vehicles as well as invest $4 million in California to deploy public charging infrastructure in places such as tribal areas and in federal, state, and county parks, plus an additional $6 million in other states that have adopted California’s greenhouse gas emissions standards for these model years.
The agreement with Stellantis is the latest example of California’s ongoing collaboration with vehicle manufacturers that improves public health, reduces climate pollution, and increases consumer options while providing a sure path forward toward a clean vehicle future. Under the partnership, Stellantis has committed not to oppose California’s authority under the Clean Air Act for its greenhouse gas emissions and zero-emissions vehicle standards.


While Reuters framed the situation as Stellantis having “unsuccessfully sought to join a deal that other automakers had struck” with California in 2019, the reality is quite a bit different.


Stellantis didn’t even exist at the time and its predecessor, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), was pretty adamant about not being interested in courting emissions compliance any more than necessary. Meanwhile, California was effectively bullying companies into vowing to adhere to its extremely stringent emission standards if they wanted to continue selling vehicles within the state.


At the time, the Trump administration had attempted to revoke the California Air Resources Board having its own emission standards as part of a broader rollback of Obama-era vehicle regulations. The concern was that those targets were wildly unrealistic and included loopholes that were already creating a weird dichotomy in the market. Manufacturers were being incentivized to build extremely large and inefficient pickups while likewise cutting their most affordable models from the lineup while they aggressively pursued electrification.


Trump claimed a sudden influx of EVs would not sell and that regular Americans would gradually be priced out of the automotive market as their options became more limited. His argument was that the government should focus on trying to nudge the industry toward building safer vehicles, keeping prices down, and maximizing domestic labor.


California having a waiver to issue its own benchmarks further complicated the matter. Due to the state’s large population, there were concerns that its stringent emissions targets would become the de facto national standard. Despite claims to the contrary and numerous lawsuits, this is effectively what California attempted, too. The state then issued a letter to automakers stipulating that they would need to publicly promise to adhere to its standards (rather than the updated federal ones) if they wanted to continue selling within the Golden State. This included a pathway to ban combustion vehicles by 2030.


FCA’s Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne passed away in 2018. But he repeatedly and openly expressed his distaste for emissions compliance. When other companies yielded to California, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles were one of the few mainstream brands that stood in opposition. Leadership made it clear that FCA endorsed the Trump emission rollbacks, noting that the company offered numerous models boasting large engines.


“Carmakers that have chosen to be on the wrong side of history will be on the losing end of California’s buying power,” Governor Gavin Newsom threatened in 2019.


Frances’ PSA Group purchased FCA in 2021, creating the massive Stellantis, and it seems to possess leadership that is much more eager to run with smaller engines and widespread electrification. Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares’ past statements show him as wholly behind the climate agenda and he has welcomed the automaker having pledged its fealty to California. The company itself likewise has a "Dare Forward 2030" strategic plan that's all about dumping money into electrification so it can sell a majority of battery electric vehicles within the obligatory time-frame.

“Together, we have found a win-win solution that is good for the customer and good for the planet,” Tavares said. “This agreement will avoid 10 to 12 million metric tons [of] greenhouse gas emissions over the lifetime of the agreement and will also allow our U.S. customers to fully benefit from our advanced technologies, including five plug-in hybrids and two pure electric vehicles. We remain as determined as ever to offer sustainable options across our brand portfolio and being a leader in the global decarbonization efforts.”


These days, only those living the most charmed and out-of-touch existences are swayed by the presumed horrors of climate change. Most regular people living today have bigger fish to fry than fretting over exactly how each automaker wants to pretend it's a friend of the environment. However, CEOs and government officials haven’t learned this yet and will continue using it as a strategy to wrangle authority and pedal influence. This particular brand of public-private partnerships will persist as a softer kind of fascism until they’re outed for what they are.


“This partnership with Stellantis will help California achieve our ambitious goals to drastically cut pollution and get more clean cars on the roads,” Governor Gavin Newsom said of the deal. “The biggest and most influential companies in the world understand that this is how we can fight climate change together, and it’s another example of the private sector joining California to help millions of people get into clean vehicles.”


However, none of the above serves as definitive proof of the future. Companies holding out against California caved once the Biden administration took office and nullified softened emission rules. Assuming Trump returns to the White House, there’s a very good chance many automakers will change their allegiances yet again. But that likewise does not preclude the continuation of unsavory political partnerships between government and industry, which presently seems to be the status quo for all parties. Either way, companies lining up to choose sides in a war where the rules of engagement and objectives constantly change every few years hardly seems like a sound strategy to produce reliable, affordable automobiles that meet the needs of the average consumer.


[Images: Stellantis]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 63 comments
  • Lorenzo Lorenzo on Mar 20, 2024

    Speaking as a Californian since 1970, I wonder if there's a fault line under the statehouse in Sacramento that, if triggered, could swallow up the entire building? Not that I would advocate something like that. The Capitol building dates to 1861 and is a beautiful example of neo-classical architecture, listed on the National Register of historical places.

    • Jkross22 Jkross22 on Mar 21, 2024


      The assembly and legislature of CA are not the problem. The voters are the ones who put them there.


      The fact that we can't get rid of them is our failure.

  • SaulTigh SaulTigh on Mar 21, 2024

    I for one am quite looking forward to our dystopian and less mobile future.



  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next