In February, I received a letter from Chrysler saying that our 2017 Pacifica Hybrid was subject to a new recall. Several of the minivans had inexplicably caught fire and, given the evidence, the automaker suspected it might have to do with the high-voltage battery pack. The recall notice told us not to recharge the vehicle or park it near a house or garage — or any other building, for that matter.
The fix? The company didn’t have one nor could it tell me when it might.
Having covered recalls like this before, I figured we’d be in it for the long haul. And I was right. A few days ago, nearly eight months after the recall first went out, Stellantis, Chrysler’s parent company, said it had a fix. There would be a software update and dealers would inspect and replace any suspect batteries.
Troublingly, the automaker still hasn’t found what caused the dozen fires, but it said the fixes would prevent them from happening.
Yes, I’m glad that Chrysler and Stellantis have a remedy (which they’re legally obliged to provide) that (I hope) will eliminate a very serious fire risk. Obviously, I’d prefer if the remedy were also accompanied by an explanation for the blazes — I wouldn’t want to learn firsthand if the forthcoming fix doesn’t address the cause. But Stellantis assured me that it has been validated to address the conditions under which fires have occurred.
As the energy transition continues, there are going to be bumps in the road, and I understand that it’s impossible to design an entirely problem-free vehicle. But recalls that prevent EVs and plug-in hybrids from charging result in additional pollution. Maybe there should be consequences for that.
Part of the reason we bought this van is because driving on electricity is cheaper than gas, and the minivan’s 30-mile range is enough to cover most of our driving. The savings would have been especially welcome these last few months when gas prices surged.
Yet we were never offered any compensation, despite the fact that the company apparently has been mailing $200 gift cards to squeakier wheels. I’ve called Chrysler twice inquiring about the recall and when a fix would be ready, and the reps didn’t offer me compensation either time. (For the record, I placed those calls as an owner, not a journalist. I never mentioned my occupation — that would be unethical.)
What’s more, all those Pacifica Hybrids that were supposed to run emissions-free for a majority of their miles are now burning the same amount of gas as their fossil-fueled counterparts. Consumers have been burdened financially, and the entire world has been bearing an additional pollution burden.
Chrysler isn’t alone, of course. Chevrolet recently underwent a costly recall spurred by a rash of fires. After a lengthy investigation, the company discovered that they had been caused by faulty separators in some cells. During that time, Bolt owners were instructed to not charge above 90% and not let the state of charge dip below 70 miles of range remaining.
Some owners were not happy about this, and Chevrolet reportedly offered them $46 per day for a rental car. First, good luck getting a rental car for that price. Second, if you could, it’s definitely a gas-burner. It’s unclear how many Bolt owners took Chevy up on the offer. Probably some. (The company ended up replacing the battery pack in every Bolt it ever made. LG, which made the defective cells, will foot nearly all of the estimated $2 billion bill.)
Chrysler also reportedly offered rental reimbursement to some owners who didn’t want to drive the vehicle until it was fixed. Since there aren’t any other minivans on the market with a plug, those rentals probably burned gas, too.
Both the Bolt and Pacifica Hybrid recalls dragged on for months with little communication from the automakers. Chevy had some additional motivation to solve the problem — it had to stop selling the Bolt until it could provide a fix. Chrysler did not have to issue a stop sale because the recall covered only the 2017 and 2018 model years. Its main motivation has been government regulations that require automakers to fix recalled vehicles.
Automakers already devote considerable resources to recalls, but because of the additional pollution burden, maybe they should be incentivized to devote even more to EV and plug-in hybrid recalls that result in do-not-drive orders.
As it stands, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can fine automakers for failing to notify consumers and complete repairs in a timely fashion. In 2015, Stellantis’ predecessor, Fiat Chrysler, was fined $105 million for not completing 23 recalls encompassing 11 million vehicles.
But car companies generally aren’t subject to fines if recalled vehicles result in significant additional pollution. I say “generally” because there has been at least one notable exception: Volkswagen, which was caught cheating on emissions tests for several of its diesel engines, had to issue a series of recalls and was fined tens of billions of dollars.
The Environmental Protection Agency, one of two federal agencies that regulate fuel economy, evaluates such recalls “on a case-by-case basis,” said Shayla Powell, an agency spokesperson. (NHTSA, the other relevant agency, referred me to the EPA for comment.) If the automaker can’t produce a fix, then the EPA can recalculate fleet average greenhouse gas emissions and levy a fine if they exceed the required minimum.
But, Powell said, “if vehicles are remedied through a recall, the EPA does not typically require a manufacturer to account for the excess emissions between the time a non-compliance occurred and the when recall is performed.”
Maybe it should. Recalls of EVs and plug-in hybrids have environmental repercussions in addition to safety risks. Today, those vehicles are in such short supply that recalls involving do-not-charge orders result in additional pollution; pollution that wasn’t originally considered by either the EPA or NHTSA. If the recall causes an automaker to dip below the federal target, then it should be subject to fines; the same as it would have been if it hadn’t met it in the first place.
That won’t help speed fixes if the automaker remains above the target, but it would be better than the status quo.
Comment