The hearing, entitled, “An Examination of the CARB In-Use Locomotive Regulation,” included remarks from Dillon Olvera, President and CEO, Modesto and Empire Traction Company (the MET), on behalf of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA); Roger Nober, Director of GW Regulatory Studies Center and Professor of Practice at the Trachtenberg School, George Washington University; Ural Yal, Senior Vice President – Corporate Preconstruction Group, Flatiron Construction, on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California (AGC California); and Heather Arias, Chief, Transportation and Toxics Division, CARB.
“While this hearing has been called to discuss CARB’s request for authorization for a state-based regulation, we should be very mindful that this proposed regulation is not just confined to California. It’s national in both impact and intent,” said Subcommittee Chair Troy Nehls (R-Tex.) in his opening remarks. “According to CARB’s own analysis, the rule would require both BNSF and Union Pacific to replace their entire fleet of locomotives nationwide to comply with the regulation, which will cost billions of dollars and will make freight transportation and the costs of goods [dramatically] more expensive.
“We are also concerned about the rule’s impact on short line operations, which Mr. Olvera will highlight for us in his testimony. As the United States rail transportation system is intrinsically linked and vital to the safe and efficient movement of freight and passengers in interstate commerce, other rail operators would also be forced to adjust their own operations.
“Moreover, CARB’s proposal would fail any meaningful cost-benefit analysis. It also fails to fully consider costs associated with the acquisition of still non-existent—and I am going to repeat this point—non-existent zero emissions locomotives.* The cost of building out, much less permitting the necessary infrastructure, including energy infrastructure, is likewise enormous. It is for these reasons that a broad coalition of railroads, shippers, and union organizations have come out in strong opposition to this rule. This regulation must be rejected by EPA and accompanied by a return to sanity in both Sacramento and in Washington.”
*Editor’s commentary: Nehls is sadly mistaken in saying that zero-emission locomotives are “non-existent.” Progress Rail, Wabtec and other builders have developed and deployed battery-electric locomotives in limited service (such as classification yards and switching and terminal railroads) in the U.S. and abroad. Such equipment when operating is, in fact, zero-emission. The CARB regulation is indeed non-sensical, impractical and harmful in many respects, but Nehl’s uniformed statement doesn’t help. – William C. Vantuono.
Following are excerpts from the four witnesses’ testimonies.
Dillon Olvera, President and CEO, the MET, on Behalf of ASLRRA
In written testimony, Olvera 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.”
According to ASLRRA, more than 25 national and 50 state agriculture groups—from California and throughout the country—have written to the EPA deeming CARB’s rule a “significant danger to U.S. agriculture and the broader U.S. supply chain.” The agriculture industry is joined by hundreds of other business groups, manufacturers, energy firms, defense groups and the National Association of Counties.
“Like us, these groups all rightly predict that this rule would lead to the elimination of shipping options and increased costs that will come with whatever shipping options remain—costs that would have to be passed on eventually to consumers,” said Olvera.
Short lines in California and across the country, however, are working on their own and in partnership with the state and federal government to reduce their carbon emissions in realistic ways, including upgrading to cleaner locomotives and testing new technologies, ASLRRA noted. Olvera describes the efforts the MET has undertaken to upgrade nine locomotives from Tier 0 to Tier 3—locomotives that would have to be scrapped if the company were forced to comply with the CARB rule’s requirements, even though these newer locomotives have decades of useful life left.
“As we have demonstrated, the MET, and short lines in general, are perfectly willing to work with CARB and other similar agencies to reduce emissions when they offer reasonable paths forward, but this rule is just not feasible for short lines,” said Olvera.
ASLRRA’s short line members, including the MET, “provide customers with a low-carbon freight logistics option that is more environmentally friendly than competing forms of transportation over land, preventing costly damage to pavement that would be borne by often cash-strapped state and local agencies. We are proud of how we relieve traffic congestion, cutting emissions of harmful pollutants while reducing deadly crashes,” said Olvera.
In his testimony, Olvera urged Congress to support the U.S. freight rail network in further improving its already notable environmental record while remaining a driver of economic prosperity, by:
- “Calling on EPA to deny CARB’s request, preserving EPA as the regulator of locomotive emissions.
- “Fully funding the CRISI program, which short lines have embraced to move more freight to rail and to upgrade to cleaner locomotives, and EPA’s Clean Ports program and its Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program.
- “Supporting 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.”
Roger Nober, Director of GW Regulatory Studies Center and Professor of Practice at the Trachtenberg School, George Washington University
“While I understand that many Members of the Committee may believe that locomotive emissions can and should be further curtailed, particularly in California, there are effective and importantly, non-preempted ways for the EPA and CARB to do so—EPA can open a Tier 5 locomotive rulemaking and CARB can continue its efforts to reach voluntary agreements with freight railroads operating in California,” Nober.
Nober went on to highlight several reasons why he is concerned about the situation as a matter of “regulatory policy.”
“First, the CARB regulations are technology forcing, as they require railroads to adopt technology that does not yet commercially exist, by a future date certain with the aim of spurring technology innovation and adoption,” said Nober. “While it may be well-meaning, as a general matter adopting technology forcing regulation raises the question of whether an agency is improperly requiring the adoption of equipment which is neither technologically nor economically feasible. CARB tries to preemptively address this reality by including periodic, future “progress reviews” to evaluate the state of zero emissions technology. Looked at another way, CARB effectively acknowledges the current infeasibility of the equipment it is requiring. Yet this kind of process—legally requiring the deployment of technology that is not yet available and providing for a discretionary waiver of that requirement if meeting the requirement by the adoption date become infeasible—is the wrong way to encourage the adoption of new technology. Rather than focusing on realistic and tangible improvements, this type of regulation encourages strong opposition and in my opinion is a deterrent to the adoption of new technology.
“Second, CARB is, obviously, a California State agency, and in adopting regulations CARB is only required to evaluate effects in the State of California, even when, as here, the clear impact of its action is nationwide. EPA, by contrast, is a national regulatory agency and must consider the nationwide effects of its actions and evaluate and respond to all comments. Considering the full effects of regulatory actions is the proper way to regulate national industries.
“Finally, if adopted and enforced, the CARB regulations would likely increase emissions and pollutants in other jurisdictions by diverting cargo to other locations and through mode shift to trucks. Neither is in the national interest but could in theory meet California’s desired goals. National policymakers should not let California regulators take steps to reduce emissions in California by increasing them elsewhere without consideration of those effects,” said Nober.
“While recognizing that decreasing emissions from locomotives is a laudable goal, I ask the Committee to remember that there are better and more effective ways to do so than improperly delegating the ability to regulate locomotive emissions standards to one state,” Nober concluded.
Ural Yal, Senior Vice President – Corporate Preconstruction Group, Flatiron Construction, on behalf of AGC California
“While AGC of California supports the goal of a more environmentally friendly state, CARB’s In-Use Locomotive Regulation, if granted, will have significant adverse effects on infrastructure development, the construction supply chain, and job creation,” said Yal.
Yal went on to describe these “adverse effects,” including how the regulation would “further increase [construction] costs and the costs to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure;” “jeopardize planned infrastructure projects,” such as BNSF’s Barstow International Gateway Project; and “contradict state priorities.” Yal noted that LA Metro, Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), Amtrak, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Metrolink and Caltrain, which account for the majority of passenger rail in California, have expressed the “severe burden that would result of such accounts.”
“In conclusion, while the goals of CARB’s In-Use Locomotive Regulation to reduce emissions and promote environmental sustainability are commendable, the proposed Spending Account and Useful-Life Requirements present significant challenges that cannot be overlooked. These measures impose undue financial and operational burdens on our transportation agencies, complicating compliance with existing federal standards and diverting critical funds from essential infrastructure projects,” Yal said.
“While construction materials are shipped by virtually every mode of transportation, constraining the rail industry’s ability to operate in the state of California could have ripple effects across the country. In addition, AGC is concerned about other states following suit and mandating zero emission locomotives like how they followed California’s vehicle emission standards.
“The construction industry, which is pivotal to rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure, stands to be severely impacted. The burden and uncertainty of the CARB regulation could disrupt supply chains, delay construction projects, and jeopardize construction jobs. This, in turn, undermines the ability of the construction industry and its agency partners to build and maintain the infrastructure that supports our communities,” Yal concluded.
Heather Arias, Chief, Transportation and Toxics Division, CARB
“Railroad operators in California continue to use—and are increasing use of—some of the oldest and most polluting engines in California. Although Tier 4 locomotives have been available since 2015, railroads have continued to operate locomotives in California with emissions control technology over 20 years old—technology that produces over 80% more emissions than the current U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standard. Even worse, railroads continue to operate locomotives in California that are up to 50 years old with no emission controls at all. And in the past several years, the average emissions of their locomotive fleets operating in California have been getting worse—not better,” said Arias.
“CARB’s Locomotive Regulation follows California’s expressly preserved authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions from locomotives operating in the State. It does not set emission standards on new locomotives. Nor does it mandate the purchase or use of zero emission locomotives. Operators may continue to operate Tier 4 locomotives for decades to come. And because nearly every locomotive operating today runs on fully electric motors and could be powered using a fuel source other than its diesel generators, operators may continue using their existing locomotives by configuring them to run on a zero-emission power source. The regulation allows ample time for emission control technologies to continue to advance and for market efficiencies to put downward pressure on prices.
“It is important to note that zero-emission rail transportation is nothing new. Electrified rail is more than 100 years old, and we once had electrified tracks throughout the nation, coast to coast. Advances in battery and hydrogen fuel cell technology have given railroads more options than 100 years ago. It is embarrassing and inexcusable that railroads remain some of the top polluters in the state given all of the tools available to them to do better,” continued Arias.
“California’s passenger vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, ocean-going vessels, and heavy off-road equipment, among other emissions sectors, are all doing their part. It is past time that the railroads did their part to clean up the air we breathe,” Arias concluded.
The testimonies of the four witnesses are available to download in full below:
Further Reading:
