“California demands that OEMs follow preempted laws; the USA maintains such laws are illegal and orders OEMs to disregard them,” explains the lawsuit. “This case isn’t tenable.”
California’s plans to proceed its push to zero-emissions heavy-duty trucks through a previous agreement with truck makers is facing challenges from the Trump administration in addition to the truck makers themselves.
At issue is the validity of a 2022 agreement between the California Air Resources board and truck OEMs called the Clean Truck Partnership. After Congress yanked Environmental Protection Agency waivers for more stringent California truck emissions rules this summer, state regulators have indicated they expect truck makers to proceed to honor the agreement.
Truck makers disagree. So does the Department of Justice. Each are difficult the California Air Resources Board in court.
As well as, the Federal Trade Commission just wrapped up an investigation into the agreement, saying it raised quite a few antitrust concerns, with truck makers agreeing to not abide by the Clean Truck Partnership or sign any such private agreements in the long run.
What’s the Clean Truck Partnership Agreement?
Because the federal government revoked California’s EPA waivers for its Advanced Clean Trucks and NOx regulations, the state has nevertheless expected truck and engine makers to proceed along the state’s path due to Clean Truck Partnership agreement signed in 2023.
The Clean Truck Partnership agreement was a commitment from the OEMs to satisfy California’s zero-emission vehicles mandate, “no matter whether some other entity challenges California’s authority to set more stringent emissions standards under the federal Clean Air Act.”
In return, CARB agreed to change its regulations for nitrogen oxide emissions to higher align with federal standards for 2027 engines, to work with manufacturers to provide them reasonable lead time to satisfy CARB’s requirements and before imposing latest regulations, and to support the event of obligatory ZEV infrastructure.
California has a suit pending against the federal government contending that the motion taken to revoke its Clean Air Act waivers for the Advanced Clean Trucks act and omnibus NOx regulations was illegal.
The Western States Trucking Association also has challenged the Clean Truck Partnership in a lawsuit.
The most recent challenge to the Clean Truck Partnership agreement got here in the shape of a lawsuit filed August 15 by the U.S. Department of Justice.
“The choice whether to ban internal-combustion engines in heavy-duty trucks rests ultimately with the federal government. And it has declined to take such a far-reaching step,” the Justice Department said.
The Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division filed the complaints with motions to intervene in pending cases within the Eastern District of California and Northern District of Illinois, based on a DOJ news release.
“Agreement, contract, partnership, mandate — whatever California desires to call it, this illegal motion attempts to undermine federal law,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of ENRD, in a news release.
The Illinois grievance alleges that “in a surprising act of defiance, the State of California is attempting to make use of its own vehicle and engine emissions standards through a so-called ‘Clean Truck Partnership’ to ban internal-combustion engines in heavy-duty trucks, notwithstanding duly enacted federal statutes specifically providing that those regulatory standards are preempted.”
Truck Makers: Clean Truck Partnership Agreement is Void
On August 11, Daimler Truck North America (which makes Freightliner and Western Star), International Motors, Paccar (parent of Kenworth and Peterbilt), and Volvo Group North America (parent of Mack and Volvo), filed suit against the California Air Resources Board, CARB’s executive officer, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Within the lawsuit, the businesses requested a declaratory judgement against CARB and Newsom, in addition to injunctive relief.
“California demands that OEMs follow preempted laws; the USA maintains such laws are illegal and orders OEMs to disregard them,” explains the lawsuit. “This case isn’t tenable.”
Antitrust Concerns About Clean Truck Partnership
The FTC in its investigation said that the structure of the Clean Truck Partnership raised several antitrust concerns:
- The agreement forced manufacturers to supply “zero emissions” engines relatively than internal combustion engines, and these output restrictions remained in place even when the CARB regulations were later invalidated;
- The agreement didn’t foreclose one truck manufacturer from enforcing its restrictions against a competing truck manufacturer; and
- The agreement locked in place terms with limited political accountability and opportunity for elected officials to change them.
Because the FTC opened its investigation, CARB’s waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency were rescinded, and the manufacturers largely have disclaimed the Clean Truck Partnership agreement.
Daimler Truck, International, Paccar and Volvo Group wrote letters to the FTC to resolve the antitrust concerns, saying the Clean Truck Partnership is unenforceable within the wake of the waiver cancellations. They said that they had not and won’t try and implement the Clean Truck Partnership’s terms against one other manufacturer.
The manufacturers also agree to not enter any restrictive agreement with a U.S. state regulator or government permitting cross-enforcement amongst competitors or containing an agreement to comply with regulatory limits a state has no authority to impose or implement.
The Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association, which represents a bigger range of truck manufacturers and was involved in negotiating the Clean Truck Partnership, also agreed not to barter or enter into future agreements just like the Clean Truck Partnership on behalf of its members.
“CARB’s regulatory overreach posed a serious threat to American trucking and, in our view, presented serious antitrust concerns,” said Taylor Hoogendoorn, deputy director of the Bureau of Competition.
Truck Makers ‘Caught within the Crossfire’
Nonetheless, California regulators don’t agree that the agreement has been nullified by the revocation of the EPA waivers, and the truck makers are fighting back.
Within the lawsuit against CARB, filed within the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, the OEMs say they’re “caught within the crossfire” between the Trump administration and California regulators.
The truck makers say the state has threatened OEMs with civil sanctions and unfavorable regulatory treatment if the OEMs refuse to comply with CARB regulations.
The U.S. Department of Justice, alternatively, issued stop and desist letters to the OEMs, telling them to stop complying with California’s mandates, contending that they at the moment are illegal.
“The OEMs are subject to 2 sovereigns whose regulatory requirements are irreconcilable and who’re openly hostile to at least one one other,” the suit explains. “Each wields a hammer to implement its will on industry, leaving OEMs — who simply seek to sell heavy-duty trucks in compliance with the law — unable to plan with the obligatory certainty and clarity where their products must be certified on the market and by which regulatory authority.”
The OEMs say they should know inside a matter of weeks whether they have to obtain a model 12 months 2026 certification from CARB to lawfully sell their products in California and other opt-in states, which together represent roughly 25% of the national market for brand spanking new vehicle registrations for heavy-duty vehicles.
Critics Accuse OEMs of ‘Cynical Reversal of Course”
Statements from plenty of environmental groups say “the lawsuit paints wealthy truck manufacturers as victims.”
“Imagine being a truck company, working for years towards an agreement with the world’s fourth largest economy that helps you sell electric trucks and finance infrastructure despite federal uncertainty… after which burning your regulators and destroying shareholder value by blowing up that agreement,” said Craig Segall, former deputy executive officer of the California Air Resources Board.
Guillermo Ortiz, senior clean vehicles advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the lawsuit “a cynical reversal in fact.”
“These firms helped negotiate the Clean Truck Partnership to secure regulatory certainty. Now they’re attempting to dismantle the very deal they shaped,” Ortiz continued. “That is bad faith, plain and straightforward, and it raises questions on whether these manufacturers are serious about their ability to deliver clean trucks to the worldwide stage.”
Updated 12:45 p.m. August 13, 2025, so as to add information in regards to the FTC investigation.
Updated August 18, 2025, so as to add information in regards to the Justice Department legal challenges.
Originally posted on Trucking Info
This Article First Appeared At www.automotive-fleet.com
