The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has concluded its investigation into a group of major truck and engine manufacturers that agreed with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The probe involved companies such as Volvo Group, Daimler Truck, International Motors, and PACCAR. This initiative, named the “Clean Truck Partnership,” was designed to align with California’s rigorous emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks, but federal legislation questioned its compatibility with national laws.
Previously, the CARB’s regulations, including the Advanced Clean Trucks and Advanced Clean Fleets mandates, required manufacturers to significantly reduce emissions via zero-emission trucks. However, in June 2025, former President Trump nullified CARB’s special waivers, sparking a wider legal debate about the state’s authority to impose stricter regulations than those at the federal level. This legislative action intensified the conflict between federal and California policies over environmental standards for trucking.
What Prompted the FTC Investigation?
The FTC’s probe was largely motivated by antitrust concerns, considering the prominent market share these companies possess—comprising up to 99% of the U.S. heavy-duty truck sector. The agreement to adopt similar emissions caps under government auspices potentially reduced competition and risked increasing prices. The companies assured the FTC, through written letters, not to impose the partnership’s terms on other manufacturers, easing the FTC’s antitrust concerns.
How Did Truckmakers Respond to the State’s Regulations?
The truck manufacturers registered their opposition via a lawsuit against California’s emissions standards, suggesting that they were in a “difficult position” due to the conflicting federal and state mandates. Citing irreconcilable regulatory requirements, the companies argue that California’s enforcement of its regulations imposes undue challenges, given the revocation of essential EPA waivers by federal authorities.
An FTC statement highlighted the investigation’s findings, stating:
“The antitrust concerns are obvious: a group of competitors controlling essentially all of a market contemporaneously signed a self-styled “Agreement” under the auspices of government that contains caps on the sales of certain products in that market and collectively adopted emissions limits that, in practice, would similarly limit production. Our antitrust laws take the dimmest possible view of agreements among competitors to restrict output or otherwise to cease competing.”
Taylor C. Hoogendoorn, Deputy Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, further elaborated on the Commission’s stance:
“CARB’s regulatory overreach posed a major threat to American trucking and, in our view, presented serious antitrust concerns. The Bureau is pleased that the leading heavy-duty truck manufacturers agreed to a course correction. The Commission’s swift action will put the Clean Truck Partnership squarely in the rearview mirror and prevent repeats of CARB’s troubling regulatory gambit.”
Given the legislative complexities, Volvo Group acknowledged its difficult position, stating in an announcement that the conflicting federal and state demands placed them in an untenable situation. The company’s spokesperson remarked:
“We are caught between conflicting federal and California regulatory enforcement efforts, so we have joined other concerned parties in filing a lawsuit to clarify our legal obligations under federal and state law and to enjoin California from enforcing regulatory programs preempted by federal law.”
A detailed examination reveals the legal and environmental friction characterized by this case, emphasizing the challenges of balancing environmental goals with market economics and competitive laws. These developments add layers to the ongoing discourse surrounding environmental regulation and their intersection with commercial operations in the trucking industry. Decisions taken in this space could set key precedents for both corporate practices and regulatory frameworks, influencing future collaborations between governmental bodies and the private sector.
