Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Federal, state environmental regulations clash in California locomotive case

The judge in the case said attorneys should consider which claims are dismissed, and which remain, as they move toward a hearing on summary judgment.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A Sacramento federal judge questioned whether he could rule in a case targeting locomotives in California, as the regulation in question isn’t yet in effect.

U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Calabretta heard arguments Thursday on a motion to dismiss in Association of American Railroads, et al. v. Randolph, et al. The association argues that the judge should put the brakes on the in-use locomotive regulation, adopted last April by the California Air Resources Board.

Federal law, including the Clean Air Act, preempts it, the association says. It also puts a significant burden on interstate transportation.

Freight rail transport comprises about 40% of long-distance ton-miles — shipping a ton of product a mile. Also, it makes up only 1.7% of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, the association writes.

An attorney for the association, Brian Burgess, said Thursday the state regulations require his client to allocate money to a specific account, as well as maintain records about when locomotives are idling.  

However, Calabretta questioned if the association faces any injury, as the California regulation isn’t currently enforced. The federal Environmental Protection Agency must first approve the regulation before that can happen.

“I just don’t see how these are ripe,” the judge said, adding later: “It just seems like an advisory opinion for me to say, yes, this law is valid; it’s unclear if it’ll ever go into effect.”

Liane M. Randolph, chair of the state air resources board, argues in the motion to dismiss that Calabretta lacks jurisdiction, as any question about an Environmental Protection Agency decision would go to an appeals court. Also, presaging Calabretta’s statement, Randoph said the issue isn’t ripe.

“Specifically, they have not alleged that any of their members plan to violate the parts of the regulation they claim are preempted,” Randolph writes.

Burgess argued that his client is already suffering under the California regulations. They must deposit billions of dollars into an account under the regulation’s spending account requirements, regardless of when the law goes into effect.

Locomotive operators must place funds in an account starting July 1, 2026, basing them on an estimate of health costs that can be attributed to their emissions in California the prior year.

According to Burgess, locomotive operators have those spending account obligations before the Environmental Protection Agency makes its decision on the California regulations.

“That you might suffer,” the judge replied, inferring the federal environmental agency may never act.

Attorney Margaret Meckenstock, representing Randolph, pointed to the July 2026 start date for the spending account requirement, saying plenty of time remains for the federal agency to reach a decision before those affected need to worry about enforcement.

The spending account was one injury Burgess highlighted. Recording idling times was another. He argued the association would need to develop new technology and have more personnel to meet the recording requirement.

However, Meckenstock questioned what additional requirements the association faced under the California rules that it didn’t already have under federal law. Calabretta noted that the association must show it would incur higher costs to have standing in the case.

Pivoting to the merits of the case, Calabretta said he’d defer any decision on them until a hearing on summary judgment.

“I look forward to learning a lot more about all these laws,” he quipped.

A hearing on a motion for summary judgment — filed by the association and initially set for Thursday — has been pushed to April 11.

Discussing the motion to dismiss, Calabretta indicated he may dismiss some claims while allowing others to proceed. He advised the attorneys to consider that as they move toward the summary judgment hearing.

Categories / Economy, Environment, Law, Regional

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...