How do you raise the cost of living in California? By creating unproductive, expensive regulations.
“The Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association may proceed on several of its claims that the state’s in-use locomotive rule — adopted April 2023 by the California Air Resources Board — conflicts with federal law. The associations say the Clean Air Act preempts the rules, which they say also put a significant burden on interstate transportation.
Freight rail transport comprises about 40% of long-distance ton-miles, meaning the shipping of a ton of product a mile. Also, the associations say that transport makes up only 1.7% of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.
Get John Kerry out of his private planes, stop the EV mandates that are hurting the environment. Government needs to make rules that can be enforced because the technology exists.
Judge greenlights fight over California rules on idling trains
The Association of American Railroads claims that California’s in-use locomotive regulation is preempted by federal law, and may unfairly burden operators.
NATALIE HANSON, courthousenews, 2/16/24 https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-greenlights-fight-over-california-rules-on-idling-trains/
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — California must face several claims that its in-use locomotive regulation may unduly burden interstate train operators, in a case targeting trains running in the Golden State.
The Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association may proceed on several of its claims that the state’s in-use locomotive rule — adopted April 2023 by the California Air Resources Board — conflicts with federal law. The associations say the Clean Air Act preempts the rules, which they say also put a significant burden on interstate transportation.
Freight rail transport comprises about 40% of long-distance ton-miles, meaning the shipping of a ton of product a mile. Also, the associations say that transport makes up only 1.7% of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.
In a 22-page order filed Friday, U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta granted only some parts of the board and Attorney General Rob Bonta’s attempt to dismiss the claims.
The judge said that he would allow claims against the state’s idling requirements, reporting and record keeping requirements and a provision for administrative payment to proceed.
He agreed with the plaintiffs that the latter provision may independently violate the Dormant Commerce Clause as it “imposes an annual flat fee of $175 per locomotive operated in California,” which “penalizes interstate travel and imposes an impermissible burden on interstate commerce.”
The plaintiffs’ claims that the state’s requirements for record keeping could place undue burden on interstate commerce were supported by enough evidence, he added. They can also pursue their claim that the current idling requirements — making sure that a locomotive is shut off no more than 30 minutes after it becomes stationary — are preempted.
However, the judge dismissed three claims regarding the spending account and in-use operational requirements on ripeness grounds, though the claims may be revised. He dismissed the third claim of standing, giving plaintiffs three weeks to amend.
“The court agrees with defendants that plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege or show an economic injury,” the judge said. “Given that federal law appears to already mandate the activity that falls under LIA preemption (that is, the locomotive equipment aspects of the regulation), plaintiffs fail to establish what operational and training costs their members already incur to maintain AESS equipment, and what additional costs they will incur comply with the regulation.”
“Even if the EPA concludes California is not regulating ‘new’ locomotives, the EPA must still consider whether to grant authorization for the Spending Account and In-Use Operational Requirements under the other two statutory bases for denial, i.e., whether ‘the determination of California is arbitrary and capricious,’ and whether ‘California does not need such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions which again, will be a question of first impression for the EPA,” he added.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The judge on Jan. 18 heard the plaintiffs’ arguments that they are already suffering under the California regulations. They currently must deposit billions of dollars into an account under the regulation’s spending account requirements, regardless of when the law goes into effect.
As to the merits of the case, Calabretta said he’d defer any decision on them until a hearing on summary judgment. That hearing has been pushed to April 25.
