Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Economy

Hidden in the New EPA Rules: A Turning Point for Zero Emissions Trains

In its new draft rules on vehicles, EPA signals it might let California finally regulate rail.

A locomotive.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Buried at the bottom of the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft rules on greenhouse gas limits for cars and trucks was a proposal related to another highly polluting form of transit: trains.

The EPA said Wednesday it was considering giving states more authority to regulate locomotives, specifically citing concern that its current policy could impede California’s “exploration of regulations” for trains and train engines. The Golden State has been lobbying the EPA to tighten its standards for locomotives, or to allow it to do so, for years. However, a 1998 rule limits states' ability to regulate emissions for a range of nonroad vehicles, including trains.

I’m not going to pretend this could be a huge deal for climate change. Trains are responsible for just 2% of transportation emissions in the U.S. This is, however, a huge deal for public health and environmental justice. Exposure to diesel exhaust causes lung cancer. Trains also emit nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, which irritate the lungs, exacerbate respiratory diseases including asthma, and contribute to premature deaths. Rail yards are often located near densely populated areas and disproportionately neighbor low-income communities that suffer from a combination of economic, health, and environmental burdens.

But while public health is the most urgent reason to cut pollution from trains, the most promising solutions to address that pollution — batteries and hydrogen fuel cells — will also pretty much eliminate the climate impacts of trains, as a treat.

California petitioned the EPA to tighten its standards for trains back in 2017. “We cannot deliver on our collective responsibility to improve conditions on the ground for overburdened communities without new action by U.S. EPA to require a transition to zero and near-zero emission locomotives,” wrote Mary Nichols, then-chair of the California Air Resources Board, or CARB, the state agency that regulates emissions.

CARB’s concern isn’t just public health, but federal compliance. The state is not on track to meet federal air quality standards. California’s rail yards are already a major source of pollution, and rail operators are planning expansions. The state expects freight rail to increase 50% in the next seven years.

“Locomotives are so dirty that state regulators identified reducing their pollution as the biggest single strategy in their plan to reduce smog to federal health standards by 2037 — responsible for more than 30% of the emissions cuts needed, more than any other sector, including all cars and trucks on the road,” the Los Angeles Times’ editorial board wrote in a recent piece on the need to clean up the rail industry.

“California is a leader on climate,” said Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, a statewide organization working on air quality issues. “The problem is that we still have the dirtiest air in the nation.”

Part of the challenge is that trains are incredibly durable. They are typically “remanufactured,” or repaired and restored, every seven to 10 years, but can otherwise stick around for decades. EPA tightened its emissions standards for locomotives in 2008, but “remanufactured” trains aren’t required to upgrade to the highest standards. Chavez said that in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, a region that encompasses Orange County and much of Los Angeles, some 30% to 50% of the trains still only meet the dirtiest, lowest-level EPA standards. “Those are the most polluting engines that are available and they’re in the dirtiest air basin in the country.”

Under the Trump administration, California’s petition went unanswered. But late last year, Biden’s EPA finally responded. Though it didn’t commit to tightening standards for trains at the federal level, the agency said it had assembled a “rail study team” to evaluate technologies to reduce train emissions, as well as policy options to get the industry to turn over its fleet to trains with newer, cleaner technologies more quickly. It also hinted that it was planning to clarify its policy on state-promulgated regulations.

California hasn’t been idly standing by. State regulators determined that although they had no authority to regulate the manufacture of locomotives, they could issue rules for railroad operators and the types of equipment they use. Next month, CARB is expected to vote on a set of new rules designed to force the industry to begin retiring its oldest trains and replacing them with newer, cleaner models, and by 2035, with zero- or near zero-emission trains that are powered by batteries, overhead electric lines, or hydrogen fuel cells. While the regulations would pertain to trains that are “in-use” in California, it would have implications for the whole of North America, since the rail system is interconnected, and trains frequently travel far beyond their owners’ tracks.

The Inflation Reduction Act could help. The legislation included $3 billion for grants and rebates to reduce air pollution from ports and $60 million for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program, which funds pollution reduction projects related to transportation in low-income and disadvantaged communities.

CARB’s rules are sure to face litigation from the rail industry, which claims that the “entire proposed regulation is preempted by federal laws and regulations.” The Association of American Railroads says the industry is already working toward zero-emission rail, with major railroads like BNSF and Union Pacific piloting battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell trains, but that these solutions won't be commercially available “for the foreseeable future.” But the EPA could soon strengthen California’s case.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

An Energy Developer Is Fighting a Data Center in Texas

Things in Sulphur Springs are getting weird.

Energy production and a data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Library of Congress, MSB Global, Luminant

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is trying to pressure a company into breaking a legal agreement for land conservation so a giant data center can be built on the property.

The Lone Star town of Sulphur Springs really wants to welcome data center developer MSB Global, striking a deal this year to bring several data centers with on-site power to the community. The influx of money to the community would be massive: the town would get at least $100 million in annual tax revenue, nearly three times its annual budget. Except there’s a big problem: The project site is on land gifted by a former coal mining company to Sulphur Springs expressly on the condition that it not be used for future energy generation. Part of the reason for this was that the lands were contaminated as a former mine site, and it was expected this property would turn into something like a housing development or public works project.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Who Really Speaks for the Trees in Sacramento?

A solar developer gets into a forest fight in California, and more of the week’s top conflicts around renewables.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Sacramento County, California – A solar project has become a national symbol of the conflicts over large-scale renewables development in forested areas.

  • This week the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to advance the environmental review for D.E. Shaw Renewables’ Coyote Creek agrivoltaics solar and battery project, which would provide 200 megawatts to the regional energy grid in Sacramento County. As we’ve previously explained, this is a part of central California in needs of a significant renewables build-out to meet its decarbonization goals and wean off a reliance on fossil energy.
  • But a lot of people seem upset over Coyote Creek. The plan for the project currently includes removing thousands of old growth trees, which environmental groups, members of Native tribes, local activists and even The Sacramento Bee have joined hands to oppose. One illustrious person wore a Lorax costume to a hearing on the project in protest.
  • Coyote Creek does represent the quintessential decarb vs. conservation trade-off. D.E. Shaw took at least 1,000 trees off the chopping block in response to the pressure and plans to plant fresh saplings to replace them, but critics have correctly noted that those will potentially take centuries to have the same natural carbon removal capabilities as old growth trees. We’ve seen this kind of story blow up in the solar industry’s face before – do you remember the Fox News scare cycle over Michigan solar and deforestation?
  • But there would be a significant cost to any return to the drawing board: Republicans in Congress have, of course, succeeded in accelerating the phase-out of tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act. Work on Coyote Creek is expected to start next year, in time to potentially still qualify for the IRA clean electricity credit. I suspect this may have contributed to the county’s decision to advance Coyote Creek without a second look.
  • I believe Coyote Creek represents a new kind of battlefield for conservation groups seeking to compel renewable energy developers into greater accountability for environmental impacts. Is it a good thing that ancient trees might get cut down to build a clean energy project? Absolutely not. But faced with a belligerent federal government and a shrinking window to qualify for tax credits, companies can’t just restart a project at a new site. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on decarbonizing the electricity grid. .

2. Sedgwick County, Kansas – I am eyeing this county to see whether a fight over a solar farm turns into a full-blown ban on future projects.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

How to Build a Data Center, According to an AI-Curious Conservationist

A conversation with Renee Grabe of Nature Forward

Renee Grebe.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Renee Grabe, a conservation advocate for the environmental group Nature Forward who is focused intently on data center development in Northern Virginia. I reached out to her for a fresh perspective on where data centers and renewable energy development fits in the Commonwealth amidst heightened frustration over land use and agricultural impacts, especially after this past election cycle. I thought her views on policy-making here were refreshingly nuanced.

This transcript was lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow