ARTICLE
By Mike McManus, Director of Engineering Construction & Industry Relations (Published in Monday Morning Quarterback December 1, 2025) Several months ago, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opened an antitrust investigation into the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB's) agreement with the four large truck manufacturers - Daimler Trucks, International Motors, PACCAR, and Volvo Group - who collectively control 99 percent of the heavy-duty truck market in the United States. These are the parent companies for the familiar truck brands such as Peterbilt, Freightliner, and Kenworth. The agreement with CARB, called the Clean Truck Partnership (CTP), was signed in July 2023, prior to Trump winning the presidency in 2024. The agreement forced truck manufacturers to produce zero-emission engines rather than internal combustion engines, and kept these output restrictions in place even if the CARB regulations were later invalidated. The FTC’s position was that the CTP agreement was a threat to competition in the heavy truck market and was unenforceable under antitrust laws. Antitrust laws were created to prevent monopolies and cartels that harm consumers through higher prices and limited choices. They were a response to the rise of powerful corporations and trusts during the 19th century that were seen as a threat to fair competition, the economy, and the public interest. By promoting competition, these laws aim to ensure a marketplace where companies are motivated to provide better products and services on favorable terms. The terms of the CTP effectively created a ‘trust’ of corporations that, under the agreement, stopped competing and started acting collectively. As a result of the FTC investigation, the four manufacturers changed course and committed to rescinding the agreement and refraining from entering into similar agreements with any state again. The manufacturers filed a federal lawsuit immediately to invalidate the CTP and clarify their obligations under federal and state law. CARB then filed its own breach-of-contract lawsuit in state court in October. CARB’s case was filed in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging that the truck manufacturers are opposing an agreement (the CTP) that is mutually acceptable, valid, and enforceable. One of the core arguments of the manufacturers, in federal court, is that they are caught in a cross-fire between state regulators, CARB in other words, and the federal government. The federal government, through Congress, rescinded the CARB zero emission vehicle mandates earlier in 2025 under the Congressional Review Act, which was voted for by the House and Senate and then signed by Trump. At this point, CARB’s zero-emission mandates are no longer lawful, and truck fleets are no longer mandated to purchase zero-emission trucks. Therefore, the CTP agreement’s mandates on the manufacturers mean they are producing zero-emission engines in a market that will have no demand for them. Meanwhile, they cannot sell internal combustion-powered trucks. Last week, a preliminary injunction was issued in the federal case that will stop CARB from enforcing the CTP. The judge seemed to feel the manufacturers’ case had merit and likely would prevail. However, this is just an opening skirmish. This fight will likely go on for years.
By Mike McManus, Director of Engineering Construction & Industry Relations (Published in Monday Morning Quarterback December 1, 2025)
Several months ago, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opened an antitrust investigation into the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB's) agreement with the four large truck manufacturers - Daimler Trucks, International Motors, PACCAR, and Volvo Group - who collectively control 99 percent of the heavy-duty truck market in the United States. These are the parent companies for the familiar truck brands such as Peterbilt, Freightliner, and Kenworth. The agreement with CARB, called the Clean Truck Partnership (CTP), was signed in July 2023, prior to Trump winning the presidency in 2024. The agreement forced truck manufacturers to produce zero-emission engines rather than internal combustion engines, and kept these output restrictions in place even if the CARB regulations were later invalidated. The FTC’s position was that the CTP agreement was a threat to competition in the heavy truck market and was unenforceable under antitrust laws. Antitrust laws were created to prevent monopolies and cartels that harm consumers through higher prices and limited choices. They were a response to the rise of powerful corporations and trusts during the 19th century that were seen as a threat to fair competition, the economy, and the public interest. By promoting competition, these laws aim to ensure a marketplace where companies are motivated to provide better products and services on favorable terms. The terms of the CTP effectively created a ‘trust’ of corporations that, under the agreement, stopped competing and started acting collectively. As a result of the FTC investigation, the four manufacturers changed course and committed to rescinding the agreement and refraining from entering into similar agreements with any state again. The manufacturers filed a federal lawsuit immediately to invalidate the CTP and clarify their obligations under federal and state law. CARB then filed its own breach-of-contract lawsuit in state court in October. CARB’s case was filed in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging that the truck manufacturers are opposing an agreement (the CTP) that is mutually acceptable, valid, and enforceable. One of the core arguments of the manufacturers, in federal court, is that they are caught in a cross-fire between state regulators, CARB in other words, and the federal government. The federal government, through Congress, rescinded the CARB zero emission vehicle mandates earlier in 2025 under the Congressional Review Act, which was voted for by the House and Senate and then signed by Trump. At this point, CARB’s zero-emission mandates are no longer lawful, and truck fleets are no longer mandated to purchase zero-emission trucks. Therefore, the CTP agreement’s mandates on the manufacturers mean they are producing zero-emission engines in a market that will have no demand for them. Meanwhile, they cannot sell internal combustion-powered trucks. Last week, a preliminary injunction was issued in the federal case that will stop CARB from enforcing the CTP. The judge seemed to feel the manufacturers’ case had merit and likely would prevail. However, this is just an opening skirmish. This fight will likely go on for years.