CARB Now Trying to Ruin Rail

Considering California’s less than glorious experience with its high speed rail program, one would think it would be wise for the state to stay away from the whole railroad thing entirely.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB)  has been called many things during its existence, but wise is not one of them, hence its request to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to demand railroad locomotives be replaced with newer, cleaner equipment.

Equipment, by the way, that isn’t really technologically, let alone economically, extant quite yet and will almost certainly remain relatively unavailable by CARB’s deadline of 2030.

Last year, CARB approved its “In-Use Locomotive Regulation” that would force railroads to stop using any locomotive it has that is more than 23 years old and replace said locomotive with a zero-emission version.

Until then, a railroad can either try to buy what are called “Tier 4” locomotives – tier 4 locomotives and other types of tier 4 engines are meant to reduce particulate matter in the air and nitrogen oxide at the ground level, among other things – or it can pile money into a “spending account” to “fund their own trust account based on the emissions created by their locomotive operations in California. The dirtier the locomotive, the more funds must be set aside.”  

CARB passed the new rule despite the fact that it cannot enforce said rule without getting a waiver from the EPA  – they actually regulate rail emissions – to do so.  CARB submitted their request, a public hearing was held last month, and the EPA will make a decision soon, though no timeline is set yet.

According to the American Short Line and Regional Rail Association (ASLRRA), which has filed, along with others, to stop the new regulation, “zero emissions locomotives (required by 2030 by CARB) are not currently commercialized and are in a very few pilot programs in the United States.”

If this sounds familiar, that’s because CARB pulled a similar move regarding requiring that same “category tier 4” classification of motor in all harbor craft (pretty much all boats except fishing boats) starting in December.  

Again, the technology simply does not really exist to follow CARB rules.

“Operators of harbor craft in California (other than fishing boats, which are exempt) have until December 2024 to have all their boats operated with Tier 4 engines outfitted with diesel particulate filters (DPFs), attachments designed to burn particulate matter (soot) before it exits into the atmosphere,” wrote Waterways Journal  .“The problem is that such DPFs do not exist and cannot be developed by that target date.”

Even the Coast Guard is saying “no” to CARB and will not enforce the boat new regulation. 

As to the locomotive issue, that is even more complicatedly absurd.  For example, trains do things like cross state lines, for one, so if California had its own rule locomotives would have to swapped out at the border.

Due to its crucial place in the goods movement system – more than half of all those containers from the Far East that come in through the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach leave the state – such a rule in California would be devastating to a national supply chain already stressed by the lingering impacts of the pandemic response and shaky economies.

While every form of railway would be impacted – the tier 4 locomotives, if they can be found, run at least $4 million each – the short lines, the “mom and pop shops” of the industry – would feel it the hardest.  There are 25 such lines in California and the ASLRRA estimates that, nationally, many would be forced out of business, shifting the goods they carry onto trucks which, per pound moved, emit far more pollutants. And, due to their tight budgets, most short lines that already buy their locomotives used from larger railroads could simply not afford the new (if it existed) tech.

And as for larger railways, it has been estimated that they could be forced to put about $800 million per year into the “spending accounts” CARB is demanding be set up to pay for the switchover.

“For all intents and purposes, CARB is attempting to eliminate diesel-powered railroad locomotives through discriminatory emissions charges, artificial and completely contrived maximum locomotive lifespans that ignore a railroad locomotives true economic life,” the ASLRRA told the EPA at last month’s hearing.  “CARB also disregards the limited technology and availability of zero-emissions locomotives. Zero-emissions locomotive technology is far from any industry-wide rollout and is currently limited to pilot trials in selected low-intensity switching applications. It is not a fully formed, off-the-shelf technology, and CARB seems to believe that simply mandating that such locomotive should exist and should be economical for railroads will magically cause such locomotives to appear in numbers sufficient to meet short line needs at prices that short lines could afford. CARB’s blithe disregard for the practical realities of technology readiness is patently capricious.”

There is also the issue of what happens if a waiver is approved.  Currently, a number of other states follow CARB’s lead, often because they have state laws that require them to do so. For example, Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia was stunned to find out his state will institute the same “only electric cars can be sold new in 2030” as California has done.  Therefore, this waiver could have a cascade effect throughout the nation.

Creating a patchwork of railroad regulations would be disastrous for the industry, wrote a dozen U.S. Senators to EPA Administrator Michaely Regan just last week:

“The national rail network is an interconnected system of over 144,000 track miles that spans the United States, Canada, and Mexico. It is for that very reason that Congress has passed laws which unequivocally state that, as an intrinsically interstate form of transportation, the rail industry must be regulated at the federal level and not subjected to a patchwork of varying state and local regulations as trains move goods across the continent. Attempts to create state-specific operational rules, such as those envisioned by CARB, would jeopardize the interoperability of the national network and would threaten the overall health of the supply chain,”  the letter states.  “CARB has stated its goal is to force the railroads to convert their national fleets to the currently unavailable and untested zero-emission locomotives. The CAA does not grant EPA the authority to allow states to mandate specifications for the design and manufacture of locomotives – which is precisely what CARB seeks in its authorization request.”

For its part, though, CARB is not backing down.

“Despite the availability of cleaner options, railroad companies have failed to make investments to replace their outdated, dirty locomotives that contribute to the state’s air quality problems and endanger the lives and health of Californians,” said a CARB spokesperson.  “It’s time for the rail industry to join and work with us to become part of the solution rather than focusing their efforts on litigation and PR campaigns.”

CARB maintains the technology exists to make the switch and that railroads have other options, including electrification of their whole systems.

But, this being California, eight days after the railroads go “all -electric,” Governor Gavin Newsom will ask them to not run their trains between 4 and 10 p.m.

The letter from the senators can be read here:  https://www.ricketts.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/04.16.2024-Letter-to-EPA-Re-CARB-In-Use-Locomotive-Regulation.pdf 

And here’s a PDF of the ASLRRA’s lawsuit: