Rail groups report opposition to CARB's zero-emissions locomotive rule

Three railroad associations have filed comments with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as it considers a waiver request from the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) for zero-emissions locomotive regulation.

Designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, CARB's rule would ban any locomotive that is 23 years or older from operating in the state starting in 2030 — prematurely retiring viable locomotives that help make rail the most fuel-efficient way to move goods over land. Starting in 2030 for switch, industrial, and passenger locomotives — and 2035 for line haul locomotives — new locomotives can only operate in the state if they are zero-emissions locomotives, according to an American Association of Railroads (AAR) news release.

In order for CARB's rule to take effect, the EPA must grant a waiver from the federal Clean Air Act.

The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) and the California Short Line Railroad Association are urging the EPA to deny the waiver request as "CARB has not met the criteria under federal law to warrant the EPA authorization CARB seeks," according to the ASLRRA.

The associations outline the reasons that EPA should deny the waiver request. ASLRRA's and CSLRA's comments can be read here. 

Because of the interstate nature of railroad operations, California’s regulation amounts to a national rule, AAR officials said in a press release. For critical reasons, including protection of the healthy and efficient flow of national commerce, regulation of the national rail network is a federal matter, they added. AAR also said that complying with the CARB regulation’s timeline is impossible given the current state of research and development into zero emissions locomotive technology.

"Railroads continue to invest billions to reduce their environmental impact, a major reason why carriers contribute less than 1% of all U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions," said AAR President and CEO Ian Jefferies. "Yet California insists on using unreasonable, flawed assumptions to support a rule that will not result in emissions reductions."

AAR's comments filed with the EPA can be read here.