Railroad Industry Sues to Block California’s Aggressive Locomotive Emission Rules

A train operator dismounts a Union Pacific locomotive while another operator climbs up, at a rail yard in Council Bluffs, Iowa., on June 6, 2014. (Nati Harnik/AP Photo)

Railroad industry representatives filed a lawsuit on June 16 to block new emission rules in California they say would disrupt the rail industry and force the premature retirement of about 25,000 diesel-powered locomotives nationwide.

The new rules would ban the use of locomotives more than 23 years old starting in 2030 and would force railroads to set aside more than $1 billion a year starting in the fall to purchase zero-emission locomotives and related equipment, but industry officials say there aren’t enough zero-emission vehicles available to replace the ones that would be retired.

Due to California ports’ crucial role and the way railroads pass off trains to each other, the state’s mandate would have significant effects nationwide.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court, the industry says the technology for zero-emission locomotives hasn’t been sufficiently tested and won’t be ready to deliver more than 30 million carloads of freight nationwide each year.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference in Richmond, Calif., on May 25, 2023. (Adam Beam/AP Photo)

Challenge to Authority

The lawsuit asks a judge to declare that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has no authority to issue these rules. The trade groups say that only the federal government can regulate railroads because it is an interconnected industry that crosses state lines. They note that more than 500 companies share 180,000 miles (289,682 kilometers) of track across 49 states, Canada, and Mexico.

“While the urgency to act is real and unquestionable, CARB (the California Air Resources Board) uses unreasonable, flawed assumptions to support a rule that will not result in emissions reductions,” Ian Jefferies, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, said in a statement. “Railroads are working toward reliable, efficient zero-emissions technologies; however, they cannot simply be willed into immediate existence by policymakers.”

The railroad groups say in their lawsuit that the rules show regulators’ “lack of experience with and understanding of the railroad industry.”

Opponents of the California rule argue that transporting goods through railways contributes fewer emissions than if those goods were trucked.

CARB spokesperson Lys Mendez said the board had not yet seen the lawsuit and would not comment on it.

In April, Governor Gavin Newsom announced an award of more than $690 million to 28 new public transportation projects, with $3.2 billion invested in 2023 to improve transit and passenger rail service.

“California is making a multiyear, multibillion-dollar investment to transform and modernize our transportation infrastructure, creating jobs, alternatives to driving, and reducing pollution,” Newsom said in a statement at the time. “Our state is prioritizing investing in public transportation projects that aim to shift away from fossil fuels while making public travel more rider friendly. Today’s announcement not only provides better travel alternatives but also helps to speed up our transition to a cleaner, healthier transportation future for all Californians.”

CARB passed a rule to reduce emissions from locomotives when operating within the state and will be required to pay into a spending account where companies can use the funds to upgrade to cleaner locomotive technologies.

Opposition to California State Laws

This isn’t the first time an outside entity has tried to stop a California law over concerns about how the state regulation could disrupt a nationwide industry.

Earlier in June, 11 Republican governors joined together to ask Congress to overturn a California law that the governors say will disrupt the pork industry and hurt the nation’s food supply.

On June 13, the governors signed a letter (pdf) to Congress urging officials to protect the agricultural industry and reintroduce the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression Act, which would ban individual states from imposing regulations on agricultural production in other states.

“Despite California’s reliance on its fellow States for food, Proposition 12 threatens to disrupt the system Californians depend on for their pork supply. Its strict, activist-drafted requirements for pig farming sharply depart from the lawful practices in our States,” the letter read.

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5–4 to uphold California’s Proposition 12, a law requiring all pork producers wishing to sell pork in California must provide their breeding pigs with at least 24 feet of floor space.

Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen expressed his concerns over the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“I am proud to partner with Governor Reynolds in leading this initiative alongside this group of governors,” Pillen said in a statement. “Congress needs to protect our nation’s agricultural interests from states that are working to put onerous and unfounded regulations on livestock producers that will ultimately increase food costs and hurt farming operations.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.