SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The rail industry has suffered a setback in its efforts to block California rules that would require the use of zero-emission locomotives in the state by 2030, as a federal judge stayed the case while awaiting a federal ruling on the state’s application to regulate older locomotives.
Courthouse News Service reports that U.S. District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta also denied the request by the Association of American Railroads and American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association for a summary judgment in the case, while granting a state request to strike part of the suit — which would ban trains from idling for more than 30 minutes — for lack of standing.
The AAR and ASLRRA are suing because they say rules adopted by the California Air Resources Board would mandate premature replacement of the nation’s locomotive fleet and because the zero-emission units required have not been sufficiently tested and are not commercially available [see “Railroads file suit over California’s new locomotive emissions regulations,” Trains News Wire, June 16, 2023]. The ASLRRA has argued that the requirement to buy new locomotives would drive some short lines out of business.
Calabretta’s ruling found that federal law “preempts state regulation of emissions for new locomotives” but not older ones. The state has asked the federal Environmental Protection Agency for permission to regulate those older units; the EPA is expected to decide whether the state needs permission, and if so, whether to grant it. The judge wrote that a stay of the case is required “so the Court may have the benefit of the EPA’s decision before proceeding further. … the Court finds that ruling on the Plaintiff’s Motion now would be premature and would risk disrupting the regulatory scheme that Congress has put in place for regulating locomotives and their emissions.”
The eventual EPA ruling will also play a factor in the rail groups’ argument that the California regulations are preempted by federal law, including the Clean Air Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, Calabretta wrote: “The Court agrees that, if the EPA grants authorization, such authorization will not displace the ICCTA. Rather, to the xtent that the CAA and the ICCTA conflict, the Court will need to harmonize them.”
This case could end up being impacted by the recent US Supreme Court decision that the courts are no longer to automatically bow to a government agency’s rules when arriving at a legal decision.
Even as bad as some federal court decisions have been in the past, one would have to bet Calif. looses this case. At least you should hope they do. The proposed law ranks of idiots of liberal minds in the legislature who have no idea of the financial harm this legislation would do to everyone in the state. So in some way it would be great to see them try to live there under the law.
I would not call it a setback. The court’s ruling is appropriate to harmonize the pending actions and does not any way prejudice the railroads prevailing. It’s not as if these regulations were taking effect immediately.
Californians obviously do not want or need railroads. Pull up the track, demolish the bridges, yards. and go scorched earth. Now. Don’t wait until 2030. Never to return. Teach voters and government a lesson.
And BNSF, frget about the massive investment for the SoCal inland port facility. Don’t spend a nickle.