Description: Challenge to the California Air Resources Board's “In-Use Locomotive Regulation."
-
Association of American Railroads v. Randolph
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/05/2024 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Defendants filed memorandum in support of cross-motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative motion for a stay or dismissal under the primary jurisdiction doctrine and opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. 03/05/2024 Opposition Download Defendant-intervenors filed opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. 02/16/2024 Order Download Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part. California Federal Court Allowed Some Industry Claims to Proceed Against CARB’s “In-Use Locomotive Regulation”. The federal district court for the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part California officials’ motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) “In-Use Locomotive Regulation,” which included four primary components: (1) Spending Account requiring annual deposits for use only for certain categories of projects related to clean locomotives; (2) In-Use Operational Requirements restricting use of older locomotives starting in 2030; (3) Idling Requirements regulating function and maintenance of locomotives; and (4) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for annual reports of emissions information for non-zero emissions locomotives. In addition, the regulation’s Administrative Payment Provision requires an annual payment to CARB of $175 per locomotive that operates in the state. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims challenging the Spending Account and In-Use Operational requirements were not ripe, including a dormant Commerce Clause claim and claims that those requirements were preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) and Clean Air Act. The court found that the plaintiffs could not show that enforcement of these requirements was “sufficiently concrete or imminent” because California could not enforce them absent approval by EPA under Clean Air Act Section 209(e)(2), which is interpreted to bar California from regulating new locomotives. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege an economic injury for their Locomotive Inspection Act preemption challenge to the Idling Requirements because they did not allege how the purportedly preempted provision would impose news costs on the plaintiffs. The court found that the plaintiffs did have standing for their ICCTA and dormant Commerce Clause challenges to the Idling Requirements. The court dismissed facial ICCTA preemption and dormant Commerce Clause challenges to the Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements but allowed as-applied challenges to proceed. The court also found that the plaintiffs stated a dormant Commerce Clause claim challenging the Administrative Payment Provision. 11/24/2023 Motion for Summary Judgment Download Motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs. 11/10/2023 Motion to Dismiss Download Motion to dismiss filed. 06/16/2023 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Railroad Groups Challenged California’s Air Regulation for Locomotives. Two associations representing freight and passenger railroads filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of California challenging the “In-Use Locomotive Regulation” adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on April 27, 2023. The associations asserted that the regulation was preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, as well as the Clean Air Act and Locomotive Inspection Act. They also asserted that the regulation violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. The complaint alleged that freight rail, “[d]espite its significance to the U.S. economy, … accounts for just 1.7% of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions” and that “railroads have continued to explore and invest in emissions-reducing initiatives.” The associations contended that the CARB regulation’s “dictates are unworkable and counterproductive” because the mandates were “premised on unrealistic technology forecasts” regarding when zero-emissions technology would be available. The complaint alleged that the regulations would “disrupt railroads’ existing investments in safety and the environment and because the compliance burdens imposed make the industry less competitive in relation to other forms of freight and passenger transportation that produce far greater levels of criteria, toxic, and climate pollutants, such as trucks.”