Stellantis Limiting Availability of Gasoline Models by State Emission Rules

by Matt Posky

Published: June 16th, 2023

stellantis limiting availability of gasoline models by state emission rules

Stellantis is reportedly no longer allocating gasoline-only vehicles to the fourteen states with leadership that has agreed to adhere to the emission standards set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). While the rules exceed federal standards, they’ve been embraced by coastal regions and beginning to influence how the industry does business.

For Stellantis brands (e.g. Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Ram, etc.) this means dealer allocation will prioritize powertrains based on how restrictive the local emissions standards happen to be.

According to Automotive News, Stellantis has already stopped delivering internal combustion models to dealerships located in CARB states unless customers have ordered them special. Meanwhile, dealerships situated in non-CARB states can no longer get models like the Wrangler 4xe and other plug-ins without a customer order.

From Automotive News:

Stellantis began changing allocations for the two groups of states about two months ago. The automaker told dealers in April that the CARB states are enforcing tougher greenhouse gas standards retroactively to the 2021 model year. Those standards are separate from the zero-emission sales minimums that begin in 2026.

About 36 percent of the U.S. population lives in the 14 CARB states, according to 2023 Census Bureau estimates. Four additional states are adopting the California standards for future model years.

Dealers in the CARB states worry they'll be at a disadvantage if consumers start crossing state lines to buy gasoline vehicles from another store's inventory rather than wait for a factory order. Some are working to trade for gasoline vehicles with stores in adjacent states.

"I think many of us expected when the CARB rules actually kick in in 2026 in a meaningful way that we'd have some allocation challenges," said Brian Maas, president of the California New Car Dealers Association. "The fact that it's happening [with Stellantis] in the middle of 2023 is a bit of a surprise. ... People are going to go to Reno and Vegas and Phoenix to get ICE Wranglers, if that's what they want."

While the government is playing a significant role here, there’s nothing formally prohibiting Stellantis from conducting business as usual. Californian rules requiring automakers to sell a certain percentage of zero-emission vehicles weren’t supposed to come into play until 2026 and some of the states backing the CARB proposals don’t have any firm backing behind the scheme. Voters don’t typically have a say in these sorts of regulations beyond electing the person that signs off. Even the California Air Resources Board itself is composed primarily of members that are appointed by the state’s governor, who then make decisions about how to regulate automobiles.

Why would Stellantis bother complying if it didn’t have to? Don’t traditional combustion stales still outpace plug-in volumes by a rather wide margin? What’s to be gained here?

Speculatively speaking, there’s money to be made if customers have to special order the vehicles they want. All of the above makes a handy excuse for lower-than-average allocations. It may likewise help dealers push plug-in vehicles that might not be getting the right kind of love in other states and will undoubtedly provide a wealth of useful marketing data before certain regulations become mandatory.

Based on what we’ve seen over the past several years, EV fans seem willing to wait on the model they desire. But someone just seeking reliable transportation is less likely to do so and will frequently opt for something inexpensive that’s already on the lot. If you’re living in a CARB-aligned state, that model is now more likely to feature some form of electrification and presumably retail for more than what’s waiting for your peers in neighboring regions.

The states that currently follow emissions guidelines set by the California Air Resources Board are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Those areas will no longer be issued combustion-only trims for models that offer a hybrid or all-electric alternative. Expect to see surging Jeep 4xe sales. Though vehicles that have no EV equivalent will continue being sold in states that have adopted Californian rules without special order — for now.

[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.

#NewsBlog #DealerNews #Stellantis #Regulations #CARB

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

2 of 60 comments

BEPLA on Jun 22, 2023

Oh please - you guys and your handwringing….
It’s no different than other manufacturers such as Mercedes, Volvo, VW, Toyota, GM and others deciding to only bring certain models and engines to the US market, or even just certain states.
Even most recently, if you wanted a Volvo V90 wagon, you needed to special-order it.
Certain Kias were only offered in coastal states.
You can’t walk into the Ford Dealer in Santa Monica or Lisbon and expect to see a fleet of SuperDuty trucks and F150s awaiting your choosing.
Business isn’t about offering all choices to everyone everywhere.

Like Reply
Sabkharaab554 on Jun 28, 2023

I can't decide if this is a hit on Chrysler in favor if the other "domestic" brands who willingly kowtowed but perhaps its as simple as another pincer of the overall strategy controlled demolition of the auto industry.
pikashow
ppsspp emulator

Like Reply

Recent Comments

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.
FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?