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.



  • Varezhka I have still yet to see a Malibu on the road that didn't have a rental sticker. So yeah, GM probably lost money on every one they sold but kept it to boost their CAFE numbers.I'm personally happy that I no longer have to dread being "upgraded" to a Maxima or a Malibu anymore. And thankfully Altima is also on its way out.
  • Tassos Under incompetent, affirmative action hire Mary Barra, GM has been shooting itself in the foot on a daily basis.Whether the Malibu cancellation has been one of these shootings is NOT obvious at all.GM should be run as a PROFITABLE BUSINESS and NOT as an outfit that satisfies everybody and his mother in law's pet preferences.IF the Malibu was UNPROFITABLE, it SHOULD be canceled.More generally, if its SEGMENT is Unprofitable, and HALF the makers cancel their midsize sedans, not only will it lead to the SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ones, but the survivors will obviously be more profitable if the LOSERS were kept being produced and the SMALL PIE of midsize sedans would yield slim pickings for every participant.SO NO, I APPROVE of the demise of the unprofitable Malibu, and hope Nissan does the same to the Altima, Hyundai with the SOnata, Mazda with the Mazda 6, and as many others as it takes to make the REMAINING players, like the Excellent, sporty Accord and the Bulletproof Reliable, cheap to maintain CAMRY, more profitable and affordable.
  • GregLocock Car companies can only really sell cars that people who are new car buyers will pay a profitable price for. As it turns out fewer and fewer new car buyers want sedans. Large sedans can be nice to drive, certainly, but the number of new car buyers (the only ones that matter in this discussion) are prepared to sacrifice steering and handling for more obvious things like passenger and cargo space, or even some attempt at off roading. We know US new car buyers don't really care about handling because they fell for FWD in large cars.
  • Slavuta Why is everybody sweating? Like sedans? - go buy one. Better - 2. Let CRV/RAV rust on the dealer lot. I have 3 sedans on the driveway. My neighbor - 2. Neighbors on each of our other side - 8 SUVs.
  • Theflyersfan With sedans, especially, I wonder how many of those sales are to rental fleets. With the exception of the Civic and Accord, there are still rows of sedans mixed in with the RAV4s at every airport rental lot. I doubt the breakdown in sales is publicly published, so who knows... GM isn't out of the sedan business - Cadillac exists and I can't believe I'm typing this but they are actually decent - and I think they are making a huge mistake, especially if there's an extended oil price hike (cough...Iran...cough) and people want smaller and hybrids. But if one is only tied to the quarterly shareholder reports and not trends and the big picture, bad decisions like this get made.
Next