‘I Brought You A Little Gift’: Jay Obernolte Shows EPA Head Opposition Letters From Constituents

5 months ago

During a House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing earlier this month, Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) questioned EPA Administrator Michael Regan about locomotive regulations and EPA waivers.

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00 The gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California,

00:04 Representative Obernolte, for five minutes of questioning.

00:07 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Administrator Regan. Thank you very much for

00:11 your testimony today. I'd like to discuss something that is a vital consequence to my constituents

00:19 in California's 23rd District. Recently, the California Air Resources Board applied to the EPA

00:26 for a waiver that would allow them to implement what they call the in-use locomotive rule in

00:32 California. They're seeking to require all line locomotives to operate in a zero emissions

00:40 configuration starting in the year 2035 and to prohibit the use of any locomotive that's older

00:46 than 23 years old. The problem with that is that there are currently no locomotives available that

00:54 are even close to meeting the definition of that requirement. If you just look at the amount of

01:01 energy required to move, the weight that those locomotives move, a diesel locomotive has the

01:08 equivalent of about 100 megawatt hours of energy. The best all-electric locomotives that we have now

01:14 that are in testing are around the order of five to eight megawatt hours. So, we're not even close

01:20 to even having a locomotive available that will meet that rule. Another problem, and this is one

01:26 that affects my constituents directly, is that BNSF Railways is in the process of constructing

01:32 a new one and a half billion dollar intermodal transfer facility in my district in the town of

01:38 Barstow. That's going to add about 20,000 jobs to my district. It's also going to have the effect

01:45 of taking millions of truck hours off the roads in California because it will allow freight to

01:51 be offloaded off of ships in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, transferred by rail to

01:57 the intermodal facility in Barstow, and then distributed by rail to other parts of the country

02:02 instead of being on trucks. And as I'm sure you're aware, given your position, it's about 10 times

02:08 more efficient to transport freight by rail than by truck. It's much less carbon in the atmosphere.

02:13 It's better for everyone to do this. The problem is if you, if the EPA approves CARB's waiver

02:19 request, BNSF is not going to build that transfer facility in Barstow because they would be required

02:25 to have all electric locomotives that don't exist. And so, they're going to put that facility in

02:30 Arizona. So, in a way, I should thank CARB. I've gotten more constituent engagement on this issue

02:36 than on any other issue in my 19 years in elected office. And I brought you a little gift here.

02:41 This is several thousand letters from my constituents that they've written in, all of

02:47 them opposing the waiver request from CARB that they would need to implement this. So, first

02:55 question for you, can you tell me what the timing is on the EPA's ruling on the waiver request on

03:00 this issue? Well, I can tell you that all of the issues that you've raised, we're hearing as well.

03:07 And listen, by law, California has the right to submit these waivers. There are eight waivers that

03:13 are before us, including this locomotive waiver. And so, we're working with CARB to try to prioritize

03:18 these waivers because they require, as you've just laid out, a lot of technical rigor and the

03:23 appropriate resources to make the right decision. I'll have my team follow up with you on the timing

03:29 for all of the waivers, including locomotive. But I can tell you that we're going through a very

03:33 thorough evaluation right now, and we've got a lot of things to consider.

03:37 Thank you. Do you have a timing on whether or not, on when you're going to make a decision on the

03:43 waiver? I'll have our teams connect on that. I don't have the specific timing of that waiver

03:47 and where it is in that process. All right, thank you. I appreciate that. As you have just pointed

03:53 out, CARB has the right to make the request, but the EPA has the right to approve or deny the

04:00 requests. And the Clean Air Act explicitly preempts state regulation of interstate commerce assets,

04:09 such as locomotives. Why on earth would we, as a federal government, allow a state to create their

04:15 own regulations? I mean, wouldn't that, when we have 50 different state regulations on locomotives,

04:21 wouldn't that completely destroy our ability to have a locomotive go from state to state?

04:27 One of the reasons that we are spending time and giving careful consideration to these waivers is,

04:32 I have pledged, and so have my team members, to follow the science and follow the law.

04:37 We have to be sure that any action that we take does both of those things, especially follow the

04:42 law. And so we're giving some careful consideration to these waivers. They're going through the

04:46 evaluation process. I don't want to get ahead and project or predict whether we're going to deny or

04:51 approve. I will say that we're going to go through a thorough process. It'll be transparent, and I'd

04:55 love for our staffs to keep working with yours on where we are in the process to be as transparent

05:00 as possible. Well, I look forward to doing that, and happy to partner with you on that issue.

05:04 I am confident that if we follow the science, it's going to be very clear that, first of all,

05:11 the technology to implement this does not exist. And second of all, that forcing freight off of

05:18 ports onto trucks instead of being transported by rail is actually much worse for the climate

05:24 than trying to force electric locomotives that we currently don't have the technology to

05:31 comply with in the first place. So I've sent yesterday a letter to you, signed by 74 members

05:38 of Congress. Every single member of the Republican California congressional delegation has sent you

05:45 a letter on this issue. Over half of the members of this committee have sent you a letter on this

05:49 issue, including all of the Republican members. And so I would ask that you work with us on this

05:56 and recognize the serious consequences of allowing CARB to go forward with this very

06:02 misguided proposal. You have my commitment to work with you all, be transparent, and be fair.

06:08 And so we're going to, again, go through this process, evaluate it very carefully,

06:12 and there will be no surprises. Right. I look forward to that. Mr. Chair, I yield back. Thank

‘I Brought You A Little Gift’: Jay Obernolte Shows EPA Head Opposition Letters From Constituents

Category

Transcript

Recommended