CARB Rule Discussed at Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee Hearing

The hearing included remarks from Association of American Railroads (AAR) President and CEO Ian Jefferies; American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) President Chuck Baker; Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Legislative Officer Alan Abbs; and Dr. Tyler Dick, Texas Railway Analysis & Innovation Node (TRAIN), University of Texas.

“The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposal by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that could cripple the national freight network,” said Investigations & Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Jay Obernolte in his opening statement.

According to the subcommittee, CARB is seeking a waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require all locomotives manufactured after 2035 that travel through the state to operate in a zero emissions configuration. Additionally, CARB wants to ban the use of any locomotive over 23 years old.

“Buying a locomotive is not like buying a car. The average Class I freight locomotive has a service life of 40 to 50 years. Locomotives are multi-million-dollar investments that only make sense if used for extended periods of time, similar to an aircraft or a large container ship,” said Obernolte.

“For many short line railroads in my state, buying new locomotives is simply not an option. Forcing them to do so means that they will have to simply cease operations,” he added.

“The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee is meeting today to talk about science and technology. We are here to analyze where the science and technology of rail is currently at and what steps can be taken to reduce emissions and other particle pollutants in a smart and responsible way,” concluded Obernolte.

Following are excerpts from the four witnesses’ testimonies. The full testimonies are available to download below.

Ian Jefferies, President and CEO, AAR

“In the past, railroads and CARB have worked collaboratively to drive significant reductions in emissions These initiatives have helped pave the way for more sustainable rail operations across the nation. It is deeply unfortunate that CARB has decided to forego the proven path of collaboration in favor of flawed assumptions, regulations that lack legal authority, and a casual and willful disregard for technological realities. While the spirit behind CARB’s regulation is consistent with the rail industry’s environmental commitment, the regulation itself is unworkable and infeasible. EPA should therefore deny the authorization needed for CARB’s regulation to be enforced,” said Jefferies.

Chuck Baker, President, ASLRRA

“The title of the hearing says it all—the CARB In-Use Locomotive Rule will have dire consequences for short lines, and will cripple the U.S. rail network,” said Baker. “In the rulemaking text, CARB directly acknowledges its understanding of the impact, ‘If these businesses are unable to pass on the costs of the Proposed Regulation to customers, it is possible some of these businesses would be eliminated.’ “What they have failed to recognize is the broad reaching, national negative impact of that reality to shippers, the economy—particularly in small town and rural America—and to the American public due to tens if not hundreds of thousands of additional heavy trucks on the nation’s highways as the freight we carry is displaced.”

In written testimony, ASLRRA details the many ways that this rulemaking will impact California’s economy, including the loss of efficient transportation for shippers, forcing some out of business or spurring others to relocate out of California; the U.S. economy as jobs are lost on the railroads and the industries that support them; and the disruption to the seamless movement of goods on rail across state lines.

“In addition to the dire real-world economic and environmental consequences of this rule, we object to this rule for two other critical reasons. One, it is preempted by federal law. No state should be able to regulate the national rail network, which is what this rule does. And two, it is arbitrary and capricious, calling on the rail industry to upend its financial underpinnings and common operating practices to adopt technology that is in its infancy and not ready for prime time,” said Baker. “Zero emission freight locomotives don’t exist in a commercially viable form, and don’t yet have the power to do the job needed in the varied, harsh freight railroad operating environments. And even if those challenges were magically resolved, the locomotives wouldn’t be remotely affordable for short lines.”

The testimony also notes that CARB and ASLRRA members are aligned in one area—the need to continually reduce emissions. Short lines, ASLRRA says, are making significant investments to better the already low (only 1.8% of the transportation system’s greenhouse gas emissions and about 0.6% of the nation’s total emissions) environmental impact of rail. These investments include upgrading locomotives to lower-emissions options, testing fuel injectors and alternate fuels, and demonstration projects including battery electric and hydrogen fuel powered locomotives, as well as technology and operational practices that reduce idling.

ASLRRA offered several ways that Congress could support the U.S. freight rail network in further improving its already notable environmental record while remaining a driver of economic prosperity, including:

• “Calling on EPA to deny CARB’s request, preserving EPA as the regulator of locomotive emissions.
• “Continuing to fund the CRISI program, which short lines have embraced to move more freight to rail and to upgrade to cleaner locomotives.
• “Ensuring freight rail remains a key strength of the nation, supporting reasonable regulations focused on proven benefits, and avoiding excessive subsidization of trucking via increases to truck size and weights and massive general fund infusions into the Highway Trust Fund.
• “Supporting basic R&D activities at the Department of Energy and Department of Transportation to advance the economy-wide transition to battery, electric, hydrogen, renewable diesel, and other cleaner power over time in a realistic and affordable fashion.”

Alan Abbs, Legislative Officer, Bay Area Quality Management District

“CARB’s Locomotive Regulation does not set emission standards on new locomotives. Nor does it mandate use of zero emission technologies by 2030 or 2035. CARB’s regulation calls instead for a steady reduction of locomotive emissions over the next 30 years allowing for existing technologies to be used while new and more advanced zero emission technologies are developed and deployed. Advances in battery and hydrogen fuel cell technology now provide railroads with pragmatic options to pursue to meet these standards. Rail providers could make significant strides in meeting regulatory requirements and protecting public health just by upgrading existing equipment to 2015 EPA standards,” said Abbs.

“While the Regulation does not require the purchase of new zero-emission locomotives, it is worth noting that such locomotives are available for purchase today, and could be used now in trains running between the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and San Bernardino or Barstow. These zero-emission locomotives have sufficient power, range, and traction to entirely replace the diesel locomotives even along that very steep route—a route that runs through some of the most heavily polluted areas in California.”

Abbs concluded by stating that “zero-emission rail transportation is nothing new. Electrified rail is more than 100 years old and is widely used around the world today. Nearly every locomotive operating today runs on fully electric motors and could be powered using a source other than its diesel generators, which emit a toxic air contaminant for which there is no known safe level of exposure.”

Dr. Tyler Dick, Professor, TRAIN, University of Texas Austin

“Freight railroads must be allowed to decarbonize at a pace that respects the current state of zero-emissions locomotive technology, and in a safe manner consistent with the operational realities of an integrated North American rail network. Unfortunately, the aggressive timeline and scope mandated by the CARB In-Use Locomotive Regulation cause concern on both of these fronts,” said Dick.

Dick went on to describe three zero-emissions locomotive technology options, including traditional electrification through overhead wire, battery-electric locomotives (BELs) and hydrogen fuel cell locomotives.

“Further research and extensive testing are required to prove the viability of these more flexible concepts and overall deployment strategies that better fit railway operating patterns across mainlines of different traffic density. Unfortunately, the CARB regulation does not afford railroads the time or flexibility required to achieve this more likely multi-technology implementation scenario,” Dick concluded.