The government is not mandating these changes (or decisions about Jailbreak etc...). That is pure corporate decision making driven by customer demand (the market place is shifting, whether we like it or not). Is government helping this along, yes; but it is a sign of shifting political and economic priorities. Very rarely can regulation effectively mandate fundamental changes - it can help promote, but not drive. During madcow, there was a strong urge for governmental regulation to make sure the meat was handled in the safest way possible to prevent the spread of the disease. The meat packing companies fought this tooth and nail for years and did not comply, saying it was inefficient, excessively costly, and would ruin the market. When McDonalds, which started freaking out about declining burger sales (which their research showed was being driven by the madcow issue), and said "if you want to sell to us you have to [harvest and process as the regulations require]" the packing companies complied within weeks (and did not go out of business). Same thing with some ridiculous allegations that the government somehow promoted or mandated companies to shift production overseas. Never happened - I was on the inside of decision making like this in the tech sector and government played zero role. This was all maximization of profit at the acceptance of inferior quality. Now, the companies lobbied for law changes that made it easier for them to do this, but those law changes had nothing to do with whether or not it was going to happen. For some short term gain to the rich (the prices consumers paid did not decline - but profit more than doubled) we've helped build China into the most powerful and worst enemy we have ever faced.
While this is logically true in the above case, and likely many others, I dont dispute the above, but I think it doesnt necessarily represent whats going on in with the auto industry and phasing out the ICE and the end of the HC. I agree the govt is not mandating these changes, BUT they are "nudging" society hard in that direction by creating regulations and rules that are economically forcing automakers onto this path. So while its not a mandate by law, what would you call it when there is no alternative? Its like the Covid Shot, of course the govt isnt forcing you to get it you silly person, but if you dont, you cant work at your agency, or in your career field anymore, and must get out of the military etc. What else would you call it when there is no choice or alternative? I also disagree this is being done because of "customer demand" There is a market for EVs which will grow as the tech improves, but there is also a big market for high horsepower, society at large is not crying for the change. The govt, big tech, the media are and make it seem that way. A small segment of society is EV friendly but I think if that were true on the whole, hellcats and other high HP/Low MPG cars would be lingering and discounted like a 70 Superbird on a lot in 1974.
The bullshit climate change agenda has demonized anything that uses fossil fuels as a source of energy (including energy production) as the cause of the imminent end of the world while glorifying the EV and green energy as our savior and completely ignoring ITS own destruction of the environment in its creation, cost, and inefficiency. The govt hands out $$$ to people to buy EVs so they are more price competitive. How many hundreds of millions of $$$ in carbon credits did FCA have to buy from Tesla to offset them not meeting MPG standards imposed by the govt because their lineup is hemi centric which sells? The govt actually Created that scheme. The current administrations actions have made it significantly MORE expensive to remain on that path and LESS profitable for Stellantis to keep the HC around. How many more millions of $$$ will Stelantis now pay under the new ratios? Stellantis is a Euro based company who is way more on the woke green agenda than we are so natrually the are going to want to end ICE and bring on EVs. I think FCA was more than willing to let Dodge do their thing because lets face it the HC et all are moneymakers, the carbon credit taxes were still sustainable and gas prices were low. All that has changed in one year, and the coming draconian penalties for not sacrificing correctly at the green alter will be such that CEOs and shareholders will not stand for losing that much $$$. So they and other MFRs are willing to force the change because they see that while the cars are moneymakers on one end, the govt forces them to give up most of those profits on the other. Beancounters and CEOs dont like that and are afraid that there will be a sea change to EV and they will be left out of the next big money grab. If Trump were elected and the rollback of a lot of this stuff didnt happpen, the HC might have soldiered on to 2028 with more HP and variations before eventually morphing to something more efficient. Change is inevitable but the speed at which that happens, whether naturally or forced is a different story.
Maybe Im mistaken, but I think the whole Jailbreak idea and no lift shift program was probably a lot better conceived under FCA, however executed under Stellantis, ended up getting neutered after launch once Stellantis realized what FCA was going to unleash previous to their takeover. Overall with removing nearly all options from ALL the lower hellcat trims making them completely unappealing, and forcing you to pay extra for the jailbreak and then limiting the # they can sell seems designed to limit HC sales while still making it look like you can have anything you want. (oh wait they arent limiting the number they will build, or that you can buy, they will just not give dealers allocations to order any, see no mandate) They save $$$$, and then When sales tank because you cant order one, or afford one, then they can justify to us that they had to cancel it because it wasnt selling and wasnt profitable. but here, heres an EV. Its lipstick on a pig.