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

Is North Dakota Turning on Wind?

The state formerly led by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum does not have a history of rejecting wind farms – which makes some recent difficulties especially noteworthy.

Doug Burgum.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Library of Congress

A wind farm in North Dakota – the former home of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum – is becoming a bellwether for the future of the sector in one of the most popular states for wind development.

At issue is Allete’s Longspur project, which would see 45 turbines span hundreds of acres in Morton County, west of Bismarck, the rural state’s most populous city.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Two Fights Go Solar’s Way, But More Battery and Wind Woes

And more of the week’s top news about renewable energy conflicts.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Staten Island, New York – New York’s largest battery project, Swiftsure, is dead after fervent opposition from locals in what would’ve been its host community, Staten Island.

  • Earlier this week I broke the news that Swiftsure’s application for permission to build was withdrawn quietly earlier this year amid opposition from GOP mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa and other local politicians.
  • Swiftsure was permitted by the state last year and given a deadline of this spring to submit paperwork demonstrating compliance with the permit conditions. The papers never came, and local officials including Sliwa called on New York regulators to reject any attempt by the developer to get more time. In August, the New York Department of Public Service gave the developer until October 11 to do so – but it withdrew Swiftsure’s application instead.
  • Since I broke the story, storage developer Fullmark – formerly Hecate Grid – has gone out of its way to distance itself from the now-defunct project.
  • At the time of publication, Swiftsure’s website stated that the project was being developed by Hecate Grid, a spin-off of Hecate Energy that renamed itself to Fullmark earlier this year.
  • In a statement sent to me after the story’s publication, a media representative for Fullmark claimed that the company actually withdrew from the project in late 2022, and that it was instead being managed by Hecate Energy. This information about Fullmark stepping away from the project was not previously public.
  • After I pointed Fullmark’s representatives to the Swiftsure website, the link went dead and the webpage now simply says “access denied.” Fullmark’s representatives did not answer my questions about why, up until the day my story broke, the project’s website said Hecate Grid was developing the project.

2. Barren County, Kentucky – Do you remember Wood Duck, the solar farm being fought by the National Park Service? Geenex, the solar developer, claims the Park Service has actually given it the all-clear.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

Should the Government Just Own Offshore Wind Farms?

A chat with with Johanna Bozuwa of the Climate and Community Institute.

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Johanna Bozuwa, executive director of the Climate and Community Institute, a progressive think tank that handles energy issues. This week, the Institute released a report calling for a “public option” to solve the offshore wind industry’s woes – literally. As in, the group believes an ombudsman agency akin to the Tennessee Valley Authority that takes equity stakes or at least partial ownership of offshore wind projects would mitigate investment risk, should a future Democratic president open the oceans back up for wind farms.

While I certainly found the idea novel and interesting, I had some questions about how a public office standing up wind farms would function, and how to get federal support for such an effort post-Trump. So I phoned up Johanna, who cowrote the document, to talk about it.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow