https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/04/28/california-to-require-zero-emissions-passenger-trains-after-2030-freight-2035/
California to Require ‘Zero Emissions’ Passenger Trains After 2030, Freight After 2035
by Joel B. Pollak 4.28.23
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has enacted new regulations that will require “zero emissions” trains to be introduced after 2030, focusing on a sector often seen as a “green” alternative to cars and trucks.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Under the new regulations, zero-emissions models will be required for all switch, industrial and passenger locomotives built after 2030 and for all freight line locomotives built after 2035. Any non-zero emissions locomotive that is 23 years old or more will not be allowed to operate in the state past 2030.
The regulations also require train operators to open a spending account by July 2024 that they must deposit into every year to purchase or lease cleaner diesel trains and buy zero-emissions infrastructure. Operators that generate more pollutants are required to deposit more into the spending account, and the amount required to be deposited would also increase every year.
It is unclear how the new regulations on trains would affect interstate commerce, which is regulated by Congress under the U.S. Constitution, since many trains in California also travel through other states.
More at URL above...
Where does California get the electricity for electric trains from? Buy it from Arizona as the usually do? Also expect a bottleneck at Needles, Yuma, or any point on the CA stateline transferring from diesel to electric.
I think they are setting an aspirational goal. Also the PTC law set a drop dead date, but when it was realized that it was impossible to meet, the date was reset at least twice to a realistic time line.
The zero emissions push sounds more like an ideological goal than an aspirational goal.
Erik_MagThe zero emissions push sounds more like an ideological goal than an aspirational goal.
Note the new wrinkle here. The zero-carbon choices for large road power are basically hydrogen-carrier or ammonia cycle... both of which require a provisioning architecture far beyond the cost of equipment and maintenance. The Europeans building hydrogen battery trains understood this and cogently made it a priority. California, cleverly realizing it can try to compel instead of trying to help develop, proposes the strategy that it will compel railroads to pay a pro-rata share of the somewhat inchoate cost of 'zero-carbon' intrastate (with all that that implies regarding power swapping near state borders). It then shoots itself, in the other foot from the one it shot by restricting trucks purely by age, by imposing the 23-year locomotive restriction together with a ban on the sort of clever rebuilding that got railroads more or less en masse from having to implement Tier 4 final with SCR/DEF.
Note that there is established precedent for both CARB imposition of special equipment and maintenance instate and bans on operating equipment based only on build age. Only Federal legislation overruling interference with interstate commerce is likely to prevent the mandatory finance plan -- that, or permit some sort of tax break overcoming what is basically a heavy state tax no less onerous for being put in escrow rather than appropriated and spent. I think either of those is unlikely to be achieved at present... in part, I look at the shenanigans around getting the national strike stopped, and the growing push to fabricate a safety-based reason to hit railroads up for big fines, as an indication of how far actual help would be undertaken. [I, personally, would love to see most railroad taxes specifically earmarked for dual-mode-lite electrification -- apportioned at state and local level, too -- but will not be holding my breath while I wait.]
The aspirational model was, we might remember, explicitly rolled into the form of the Esch Act ATC mandate. At the beginning of the plan, a mandate for one passenger division to be test-equipped was set 'three years out', with additional divisions at similar intervals. The idea was that the aggregate demand would support both experimentation and practical mass production and parts support via free-market supply and demand -- and indeed we see this happening (one very good lens being the archives of Frank Sprague's ATC company, arguably the best contemporary solution engineered by one of our best electrical engineers).
The catch here is what happened to all the ATC efforts when the Government slowed the 'mandatory adoption' in 1928 (concentrating its safety efforts on grade crossings instead... which was imho sensible).
It remains to be seen whether railroad economics under PSR can successfully absorb the zero-decarbonization costs through rate increases and 'fuel surcharges'. While it is unfair to presume that the long and miserable history in this country of allowing cost increases but not rate increases would continue... the current rumblings about reimposing regulation would spike, I suspect dramatically once that approach came to be implemented.
This will kill every short line in California.
Their financial model is blown up by this mandate.
Better relocate 3751 too.
kgbw49This will kill every short line in California. Their financial model is blown up by this mandate.
It's the long-distance and interstate traffic that most suffers. But even there,
One might suspect that limiting the 'pro-rata buy-in' for the escrow payments might easily be adjusted to give shortlines lower contribution... or perhaps having different contribution 'tiers' for Class II and IIIs, or operations outside a AQMD.
The article that appeared in this morning's SD Union-Tribune quoted Yasmine Agelidis (senior associate attorney for Earthjusticw) as stating "Locomotives have not been regualted by any entity at the state, federal or local level in the last 15 years". There two possible take-aways from her statement with the most generous is that she is incompetent and he other is that she is flat out lying.
I was disappointed that the reporter writing the story, Tony Briscoe of the LA Times, took her at her word and didn't bother fact checking her statement.
I am also very dubious about the health benefits claimed by the state for the new rules. IMHO, the state would be better off in minimizing the acreage burned by wildfires with better land management.
Better yet move 3751 to the GCRy shops in Wiliams
She's never heard of the various TIERS on diesel engines - which sacrifice performance for lower emission.
California isn't the home of Fantasyland for nothing.
I wonder how many more Californians are putting Atlas Van Lines on speed-dial?
Erik_Mag The zero emissions push sounds more like an ideological goal than an aspirational goal.
Not long ago, GM was introducing their latest EV. The company flack was asked where the power to charge the car's battery came from. "This building..." When pressed, she didn't know where the building got its power from.
A local official later confirmed that the electrical power for the building (and the entire complex) came from burning coal...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68Not long ago, GM was introducing their latest EV. The company flack was asked where the power to charge the car's battery came from. "This building..." When pressed, she didn't know where the building got its power from.
It's shocking (no pun intended) how many people think electricity comes from the hole in the wall with NO idea of the backstory. Then again a lot of people have no idea of the backstory behind anything.
Personally I think there's a lot more wrong with a lot of schools nowadays besides what's grabbing the headlines, which I find even more disturbing than the headline topics.
Flintlock76It's shocking (no pun intended) how many people think electricity comes from the hole in the wall with NO idea of the backstory.
I usually reference "the electricity fairy..."
Just like food comes from the grocery store. Recent meme - kid mentions to dad that it's funny that an animal (chicken) has the same name as a food (chicken). It concluded with dad saying (as an aside) that the kid was in for a rude awakening...
Not that different from when we were Puerto Vallarta on vacation and while we were riding the bus Lynn asked me what that guy was going to do with the chicken he had slung over his shoulder. I replied that he'd probably eat it.
tree68 It concluded with dad saying (as an aside) that the kid was in for a rude awakening...
Dad's got his work cut out for him. Someone's got to explain how the world really works and it's obvious no-one else is doing it.
OldEnginemanIt is unclear how the new regulations on trains would affect interstate commerce, which is regulated by Congress under the U.S. Constitution, since many trains in California also travel through other states.
That is the key point because earlier California mandates were not challenged does not mean this one escapes a challenge. If the Feds challenge it based on impeding Interstate Commerce..........thats the end of the regulation by the state.
In my view the state passing unfunded mandates applying to railroads that cross state lines is enough to challenge the mandate.
CMStPnPIn my view the state passing unfunded mandates applying to railroads that cross state lines is enough to challenge the mandate.
I would opine that the first railroad to be dinged under said mandate will be the one that will fight it - probably on the interstate commerce aspect, if that applies.
The power for my EV comes from panels on my roof. But I live in California. Might be problem in Minnesota, for example.
This seems to me a plan by the State of California to accelerate railroad abandonment.
Ed KyleThis seems to me a plan by the State of California to accelerate railroad abandonment.
This is the state, remember, that thought Federal contributions for HSR could be captured for political expediency instead of actual railroad construction... well, a feast of consulting about actual railroad construction.
To be honest, reading the actual CARB statement about this, I'm reminded of a thread here about the air-pollution at Roseville, which significantly affected 'communities of color'. I don't expect a reasoned analysis of the actual NOx or microparticulate contribution from railroad sources to actual air quality measurements -- particularly as HC, the required 'other half' of photochemical smog due to NOx, is supposed to be radically decreasing -- but it is entirely plausible to me that aspects of it are in fact important in a range of locations in California.
If there were not such a 'push' to be perceived as being on the zero-carbon bandwagon, I suspect you'd see restrictions on the type and operation of power within the established designated air-quality management districts, with the ball being put in the railroads' court to handle the motive-power, logistical, and other issues to make operations work. But that doesn't make for as effective a press release as the one we're discussing, or facilitate the agendas of people like the one mentioned.
We are now hearing from the railroad industry. The AAR is going to challenge. The ASLRRA is going to challenge - they see it as an existential threat to many short lines as it will wreck the financial viability of them. This will be challenged and quite likely ultimately make its way to the Supreme Court.
One wonders if Mexico will ever look to find a way to better connect Tijuana to the national railroad system, so that they could build their own version of Deltaport.
Has there been any estimates about how much this adds to the cost and time of completion for the now infamous High-Speed line currently under construction?
diningcarHas there been any estimates about how much this adds to the cost and time of completion for the now infamous High-Speed line currently under construction?
On the other hand, I expect to see furtive hands stretched out toward any 'escrow' or 'trust' account intended to further electrification expense, in order to build the HSR electrification infrastructure or "help" with the impossible construction debt that can't be recovered by subsidy... that's just the sort of thing I've come to expect from the type of people running things there.
I know that OOIDA and the ATA are both looking at going after Carb for their latest round of emissions reduction regulations plus their plan to eliminate all diesel engine powered trucks in California by 2035. Something interesting to consider. We all have seen how Tesla is delivering their electric trucks. We're also getting the idea of the power needed to recharge those things. PepsiCo and Nabisco are trying to get the needed infrastructure installed at the places the have these things. For a 50 truck site it's 5 Megawatts of power draw. Most cities these distributors are in have 2 MW grids. Each battery has a weight of 8k pounds and they carry 2 of them. The state of California is going to lose and lose big time in federal court. To the point they may lose their special exceptions in the clean air and water act.
For those who are interested, here is the 'official' text of the proposed CARB section 2478 revisions (PDF, courtesy of RyPN):
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/locomotive22/appa.pdf
J. BishopThe power for my EV comes from panels on my roof. But I live in California. Might be problem in Minnesota, for example.
And the solar panels on your roof come from.....
It can go on forever back to the first ameba on Earth. Generally it is a circular argument designed for people that like to argue vs debate an issue.
All passenger trains electric by 2030? What a laugh. Just to pothole 120 foot separations for casions to support CAT would take 15 years Big problem is on ex SP rail lines "Sprint" communication lines along side the tracks. That along other utilities ===impossible.
If this was to go thru (doubtful). That is not to say where to start? So Cal or Nor CAL? Cal Train is at least a start
Flintlock76 It's shocking (no pun intended) how many people think electricity comes from the hole in the wall with NO idea of the backstory. Then again a lot of people have no idea of the backstory behind anything.
I used to own a Tesla (had to sell it when we moved to Eastern Europe because the charging infrastructure here isn't quite up to par yet). My shock came from the opposite phenomenon: people would pompously inform me that the power to charge my car wasn't necessarily green -- as though that was some great revelation that would never have occurred to me without their help. My reply was basically "well, duh!!!" The sanctimonious declarations tell me that the people in question probably didn't have a clue about that until they heard it on Fox News.
I don't give a flip where the power is coming from, but you can't be throwing out edicts like this without an immediate and massive surge in generation capacity. My understanding is that their generation versus consumption is already a razor thin margin.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.