    [Senate Hearing 118-224]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-224

                   CLEANER TRAINS: OPPORTUNITIES FOR REDUCING
                     EMISSIONS FROM AMERICAS' RAIL NETWORK

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE,
                               AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 26, 2023

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    54-688                    WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia,
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                         DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                         JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

                 Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                                  ----------

             Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety

                   EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma,
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Ranking Member
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex       JONI ERNST, Iowa
        officio)                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
                                         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
                                             Virginia (ex officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 JULY 26, 2023
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator from the State of
      Massachusetts..................................................     1
    Ricketts, Hon. Pete, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska.....     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Rosen, Carl, General President, United Electrical, Radio, and
      Machine Workers of America.....................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    29
    Torres, Ivette, Community Research Lead, People's Collective for
      Environmental Justice..........................................    31
        Prepared statement...........................................    33
    Jefferies, Ian, President and CEO, American Association of
      Railroads......................................................    56
        Prepared statement...........................................    58
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    69

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Statements:
        Cheiron; Railroad Employees National Health and Welfair Plan
          and National Railway Carriers and United Transportation
          Union Health and Welfare Plan..............................   102
        Robert E. Green, Founder and CEO, American Solar Rail........   164
        Chuck Baker, President, American Short Line and Regional
          Railroad Association (ASLRRA)..............................   171
        AlRusso, Director, Railroad Department International
          Brotherhood of Electrical Workers..........................   183
        Bill Moyer, Co-Author of the 2016 book Solutionary Rail, and
          Executive Director of Backbone Campaign, based in Vashon,
          WA.........................................................   186
        Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (WABTEC).....   188
        .............................................................   195

      CLEANER TRAINS: OPPORTUNITIES FOR REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM AMERICA'S
                                  RAIL NETWORK

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2023

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                            Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate,
                                            and Nuclear Safety,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
    Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety
    Washington, DC.
        The committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Markey, Ricketts, Carper, Kelly, Padilla,
    Lummis, Boozman.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Markey. Good afternoon, everyone. I am pleased to
    call the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on
    Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety to order for this
    important hearing. This is going to be an absolutely
    fascinating subject for people.
        Thank you for joining us today on our hearing on Cleaner
    Trains: Opportunities for Reducing Emissions from America's
    Rail Network.
        Thank you to my Ranking Member, Senator Ricketts, and to
    the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Environment
    and Public Works, Senator Carper and Senator Capito, for their
    partnership in holding this hearing. It is my pleasure to
    welcome our three witnesses.
        Railroads were once the crown jewel of America. They were a
    product of the industriousness and talent of American workers.
    Massachusetts is proudly home to some of the earliest
    railroads. The completion of the Western Railroad in 1843
    connecting Boston to the Berkshires conclusively demonstrated
    the feasibility of freight rail in the United States of
    America.
        One hundred and eighty years later, unionized American
    workers stand at the ready to build today's green locomotives.
    But our railway system is blocking the crossing. In the midst
    of America's Green Revolution, our railway operators have lost
    their taste for American innovation.
        Today's new locomotives are built to emission standards set
    by the Environmental Protection Agency which were last updated
    in 2008 and have not been revisited for 15 years. The EPA
    predicted that with the adoption of the next generation clean
    locomotive technology, these standards could prevent thousands
    of deaths and hundreds of thousands of lost work and school
    days.
        However, we have not stayed on track with EPA's
    projections. Railroad operators have been reluctant to invest
    in those clean, new locomotives, derailing our pathway to
    emissions reductions. Nearly half of the Class One railway
    fleet of locomotives is more than 20 years old, old enough to
    vote. Those old trains emit almost seven times as much nitrogen
    oxide and 13 times as much soot as new, cleaner locomotives.
        Since the 2008 rulemaking, we have seen more and more
    evidence that these pollutants are poisoning communities along
    railways and beyond. These pollutants affect the rail workers
    who breathe the diesel fumes day in and day out, taking home
    higher cancer risk and mortality. These pollutants affect the
    communities who live and work and play next to these railways,
    burdened with elevated risk of heart and lung disease.
        And those pollutants affect the ability of States and
    municipalities to uphold their responsibility to provide
    residents with healthy air. We have low emissions technology,
    and it is built by union workers. We even have zero emissions
    technology, and it is built by union workers. Railroads powered
    America's past, but they can also supercharge our future.
        We have the technology, we have the work force to make our
    railroads safe, efficient, and clean, moving goods and people
    where they need to go.
        I am a huge supporter of American railroads and rail
    workers. I have introduced the BRAIN TRAIN Act, to connect
    Massachusetts by rail. I have introduced the Freedom to Move
    Act, to support fare-free transit to get Americans onto our
    trains and our buses. And I have supported increased funding
    for high-speed rail and I have introduced the Safe Freight Act
    to support the safe operation of railways for rail crews and
    railside communities.
        I believe in American rail. I believe in the workers that
    build and operate it. Rail can again become a beacon of
    American ingenuity, American innovation and capability,
    uplifting the talents and industriousness of the hard-working
    people who build these next generation locomotives.
        Today we will learn about how our outdated regulations have
    left our communities, our workers, and our rail industry
    vulnerable. By updating regulations to better reflect the harms
    of air pollution, and technological advances on locomotives, we
    can get back on track. I look forward to hearing from all of
    our witnesses about how we can continue to move forward to
    clean trains, healthy communities, and a strong union work
    force.
        Before we hear from our witnesses, however, let me turn to
    recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Senator
    Ricketts.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE RICKETTS,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

        Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Chairman Markey, for
    initiating this important hearing. I liked how you worked in
    the railroad terms into your opening statement. I am going to
    have to talk to my team about that when we have those
    opportunities. Thank you as well to our witnesses who are here
    with us today to talk about these important issues.
        This hearing serves as an incredible opportunity to share
    the investments and innovations that are being made in our
    entire rail system. Nebraska has a long history of railroading
    and much of our development is intertwined with rail expansion
    in the west. Today, the rail industry employs over 8,000
    Nebraskans. Rail ships grain, biofuels, and feed ingredients
    out of Nebraska while also importing coal, fertilizer, and
    steel. What I am getting at here is that rail volume is
    critically important to the economy of Nebraska.
        A point that is likely to be reiterated throughout this
    hearing: U.S. freight railroads can move one ton of freight
    more than 500 miles, or nearly 500 miles, on a single gallon of
    fuel. Now, put in that perspective, that is able to cross the
    entire State of Nebraska, from Iowa to Colorado. So that is a
    pretty incredible efficiency, to be able to move a ton of
    freight across the entire State of Nebraska with one gallon of
    fuel.
        Nationally, rail makes up about 28 percent of the freight
    movement by ton miles. But railroads only account for 1.7
    percent of the total U.S. transportation-related greenhouse gas
    emissions. To give you another perspective, it would have taken
    almost 2 million additional trucks to handle the 34.5 million
    tons of freight that originated by rail in Nebraska in 2021
    alone.
        America's railroads have already taken steps to further
    reduce emissions, including increasing the uses of biodiesel
    and renewable diesel. In some cases, renewable diesel and
    biodiesel can reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent.
        Utilizing more renewable diesel and biodiesel is a win-win
    scenario. Renewable diesel and biodiesel are produced from
    agricultural byproducts, wastes, and residues such as soybeans,
    echinacea and corn oils, animal fats, and used cooking oils.
    Creating value through byproducts sustains value for farmers
    across the country, decreases emissions, and supports renewable
    refining jobs across rural America. Renewable fuels are the
    here and now solution to maintaining rail efficiency while
    decreasing emissions.
        There are ongoing efforts to push toward the
    electrification of our entire rail system. However, there are
    also many concerns with this approach. As you all know, the
    freight rail industry is an interconnected system of the seven
    Class One railroads and hundreds of short line railroads that
    own and maintain over 180,000 route miles of track throughout
    North America. At any given moment, 5 to 10 percent of the line
    haul locomotives being operated by the seven Class One
    railroads are actually owned and leased by another railroad.
        As Class One railroads utilize one another's tracks and
    cars, this system is wholly reliant on the interoperability of
    technology. The deployment of unique locomotive technology
    would create captive fleets that serve small geographic
    regions, harming the efficiency of railroad operations and
    disrupting entire supply chains.
        Electrification of our Nation's freight rail network would
    also require building and maintaining a reliable high-voltage
    catenary system. This kind of system would require
    infrastructure through cities, deserts, plains, rivers, rail
    tunnels and bridges. Estimates put the cost of electrification
    at millions of dollars per railroad track mile.
        I am supportive of and excited for the industry to lead
    innovation in this space. North Platte is home to the Bailey
    Yard, the world's largest classification yard. The Bailey Yard
    is responsible for sorting and building trains covering 2,850
    acres and including more than 300 track miles.
        The Bailey Yard will be home to four battery electric
    locomotives in the coming years, where the feasibility, safety,
    and reliability will be put to the text in Nebraska's hot
    summers and cold winters. This kind of industry innovation will
    ensure that our rail industry can make decisions that best
    support their workers, customers, and supply chain as a whole.
        State and Federal regulations cannot put the cart in front
    of the horse when it comes to reliability and safety. It is
    important that our railroads maintain their interoperability,
    efficiency, reliability and safety.
        I look forward to hearing our witnesses' testimony and
    finding ways we can work together. I also have an introduction
    for Mr. Jefferies, unless you are going to introduce him, in
    which case I will defer.
        Senator Markey. We are going to introduce all the witnesses
    and then hear their testimony in order.
        Senator Ricketts. I am on a roll.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Markey. At this time, you should introduce Mr.
    Jefferies.
        Senator Ricketts. Very good.
        All right, so, Mr. Jefferies, thank you for joining us. Mr.
    Jefferies serves as the President and CEO of the American
    Association of Railroads, where he advocates for and works with
    member railroads to ensure the continued viability of America's
    railroad industry. Prior to this role, Mr. Jefferies was the
    senior vice president of the AAR's governmental affairs, where
    he led the development and promotion and implementation of
    legislative priorities for the AAR.
        Before joining the AAR, Mr. Jefferies worked within
    government for more than a decade, including as a senior policy
    advisor to the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on
    Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In this role, he
    provided policy guidance on a host of transportation issues,
    including railroad and economic regulation and rail safety and
    passenger rail.
        Mr. Jefferies began his career in government serving as a
    senior advisor to the mayor of Lexington, Kentucky, before
    transitioning to the Federal Government. Prior to serving in
    the U.S. Senate, he worked for the U.S. Department of
    Transportation, Office of the Inspector General, and the U.S.
    Government Accountability Office.
        Again, thank you, Mr. Jefferies, for being here. I look
    forward to having you answer our questions.
        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        Let me continue by also introducing Carl Rosen. Mr. Rosen
    is the General President of United Electrical, Radio, and
    Machine Workers of America. UE represents 35,000 workers across
    America, including railway crew drivers and machinists that
    build next generation clean locomotives. Mr. Rosen has been a
    member of UE since 1984, when he joined as a rank-and-file
    members.
        We will also hear from Ms. Ivette Torres. Ms. Torres will
    be joining us virtually. She is the lead Community Researcher
    at the People's Collective for Environmental Justice. Ms.
    Torres has been raised in freight communities her entire life.
    She is an expert on the environmental impacts of freight
    movement on southern California communities.
        Finally, we will hear from Mr. Ian Jefferies, who you just
    have heard introduced by Senator Ricketts.
        So with the conclusion of the introductions, Mr. Rosen, you
    are up.

    STATEMENT OF CARL ROSEN, GENERAL PRESIDENT, UNITED ELECTRICAL,
                 RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA

        Mr. Rosen. Thank you very much, and thank you for having
    this important hearing today.
        Our union represents thousands of workers in the rail
    industry, both those who manufacture locomotives and parts and
    rail crew drivers who work in rail yards across the Country. We
    are unequivocally in favor of stricter emissions standards for
    rail. Stricter standards would be good for workers and good for
    the economy, and can be met using existing technology.
        In 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency instituted a
    tier-based system for regulating the emissions of locomotives.
    Modern Tier 4 locomotives have been in production since 2014
    and became the standard for all newly built locomotives in
    2015. They are estimated to emit 90 percent less particulate
    matter and 80 percent less nitrous oxide than Tier 2
    locomotives, those built before 2012.
        When the EPA issued the Tier 4 standard, it estimated that
    by 2023, over 30 percent of the locomotives on the rails would
    be Tier 4. However, the railroads have been slow to upgrade to
    this cleaner and greener technology.
        As of 2021, the most recent data for which the Bureau of
    Transportation Statistics data is available, less than 10
    percent of the Class One railroad locomotive fleet was Tier 4,
    while over three-quarters was still Tier 2 or lower. Without
    action by our government officials, the railroads will keep
    those dirty locomotives running for years, if not decades to
    come.
        Rail yards are well known as hot spots for pollution. In
    urban areas, they are often located in low-income communities
    of color. Neighborhoods surrounding high traffic yards in
    California have a significantly elevated rate of cancer.
        When wind carries air from a yard into a residential area,
    airborne black carbon spikes to twice the normal level for an
    urban area. Children living near rail yards have twice the
    incidence of asthma of those living at least four miles away.
        Hundreds of UE members work in these unhealthy environments
    on a daily basis. Many of them live there as well. It is
    unconscionable that we let this go on, when existing technology
    can mitigate the issue, and now commercially viable
    technologies like battery locomotives can all but eliminate it.
        Setting stricter emissions standards for locomotives is not
    only the right thing to do for workers and communities around
    the railroads, it will also stimulate American manufacturing,
    as new requirements for railroads to fully modernize their
    fleet will spur demand.
        Essentially, all manufacturing of locomotives for the U.S.
    market takes place domestically, and much of it is union, with
    family supporting wages and benefits, such as at the UE
    represented plant in Erie, Pennsylvania.
        A recent report by the University of Massachusetts Amherst
    shows that if the Erie plant were to be utilized to its full
    capacity, building clean locomotives, it would create thousands
    of quality, family supporting jobs in a Rust Belt city that has
    been hit by both de-industrialization and job loss associated
    with our transition away from fossil fuels.
        The existing regulations are outdated and full of
    loopholes. There is no mechanism to enforce the adoption of new
    green technologies. We need stricter, enforceable standards. We
    need to allow States to take the lead, as California is
    attempting to do, in protecting the health and welfare of its
    residents. But we also need action on the Federal level to
    ensure that the benefits of new standards are shared across our
    Nation.
        Tier 4 locomotives have been in production for almost a
    decade. The zero-emissions battery operated locomotives have
    been in use for years in rail yards. These are proven
    technologies. Their adoption is not a matter of technological
    feasibility, but of priorities.
        What is more important for our Country, clean air,
    addressing the climate crisis, and good jobs, or corporate
    profits, executive bonuses, and payments to Wall Street?
        The Class One railroads, which own 90 percent of the
    locomotives on the rails, are enormously profitable. However,
    we need look no further than the disaster in East Palestine to
    see an example of how they prioritize profits over the public
    good. The bottom line is that they will not make this
    investment in our shared future unless our Country requires
    them to.
        Setting stricter emissions standards for the rail industry,
    requiring that they quickly upgrade their cross-country fleets
    to Tier 4 and use zero-emission locomotives in rail yards is
    the right thing for workers, the right thing for the planet,
    the right thing for working class communities and communities
    of color, and the right thing for building greener, cleaner
    manufacturing in the U.S.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rosen follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Rosen.
        Ms. Torres, if you are ready, we can proceed with your
    testimony at this time.

    STATEMENT OF IVETTE TORRES, COMMUNITY RESEARCHER LEAD, PEOPLE'S
                  COLLECTIVE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

        Ms. Torres. Thank you, Chair Markey, Ranking Member
    Ricketts, and the Clean Air, Climate, and Nuclear Safety
    Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works
    Committee, for inviting People's Collective for Environmental
    Justice to testify today.
        My name is Ivette Torres. I am the Lead Community
    Researcher at the People's Collective for Environmental Justice
    in San Bernardino, California and a Ph.D. student in
    environmental engineering at the University of California
    Berkley. PCEJ is a community-based environmental justice
    organization in the Inland Empire in southern California. We
    fight against pollution and environmental racism caused by the
    freight and logistics industry.
        I am a member of the Moving Forward Network. MFN is a
    network of over 50 member organizations led by environmental
    justice communities representing over 2 million members working
    to eliminate the deadly public health and environmental impacts
    caused by the freight transportation system.
        I want to thank the members of MFN who are here today and
    those who share their stories in my written testimony. I want
    to honor those who are not able to be here because of their
    health and those in the fight who have left us too soon because
    the regulators and rail industry failed to protect our
    communities from the environmental burdens those same diesel-
    fueled industries caused.
        I was raised in freight communities my whole life. The
    Inland Empire is made up of San Bernardino and Riverside
    Counties. We have desert, forest, and beautiful mountain
    landscapes. Picturesque hills surround our communities. Our
    elected say these same hills and mountain ranges trap the L.A.
    smog and cause the Inland Empire to have the worst ozone
    pollution in the Nation.
        What our elected officials fail to see and what the
    community has been pleading for years is that the logistics and
    freight industry is the real reason our communities suffer from
    the worst air quality in the Nation.
        Freight communities are hubs for the logistics industry. We
    see 40,000 diesel trucks come in and out of our neighborhoods
    every single day, and thousands of diesel trains that are miles
    long carrying tens of thousands of heavy containers coming into
    rail yards near our homes.
        Cargo air freight is also presently expanding. All these
    cumulative impacts are slowly killing my community and many
    others across the Nation. The whole freight system is
    interconnected. It is poisoning us left and right.
        The California Air Research Board ran a rail health impact
    study with community advocates and found that anyone living
    close to a rail yard, rail line or port is most likely to have
    a lower life span due to risk of cancer, dubbing these
    communities, our communities, cancer clusters. I worked with
    community members who lived by the San Bernardino Intermodal
    Facility to monitor both indoor and outdoor air quality.
    Community-collected data that revealed, inside their homes,
    where they should feel comfortable and safe, the levels of
    particulate matter were ten times higher than the EPA standard.
        Communities having to monitor the pollution is not unique
    to San Bernardino. MFN members across the Nation are collecting
    their own data. This is because the railroads refuse to share
    any data with us. It is impossible to know when locomotives
    will idle for more than 30 minutes. When locomotives idle, they
    create a safety hazards. Communities like Colton, California
    are locked in, trapped by rail lines and truck traffic. Idling
    trains prevent emergency vehicles from being able to get to the
    hospital. We have also seen children jumping over trains to get
    to school.
        Over 13 million of us in the United States live and work
    near rail yards, rail lines and ports. That is 13 million
    people who are most likely to be black and brown communities
    dealing with these realities day to day. But the last time EPA
    updated its emissions standards was 15 years ago. We continue
    to suffer.
        There is no reason why our communities must suffer. The
    technology is here for locomotives and rail yard machines to
    switch to zero emissions. One-third of the world's rail lines
    are electrified. Electric rails have been used for hundreds of
    years and transports the heaviest freight cargo, which use
    technology like overhead catenary in the United States. Yet we
    have outdated diesel locomotives still operating today that are
    older than many of us in this room.
        Our goal is not to stop freight as we know it. But this
    movement is an essential part of our Country's lifeline. We
    want to transition our communities to safer, zero-emission
    technology. Many of us are products of the freight industry.
        I want to ensure we create more employment and investment
    opportunities in my community. But that should not mean it
    should cost our lives. We can create opportunities while
    prioritizing community health and safety.
        EPA must adopt a zero-emissions locomotive standard.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Torres follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Markey. Thank you so much for your testimony.
        And now, having already been introduced, we welcome you,
    Mr. Jefferies. Whenever you feel comfortable, please begin.

       STATEMENT OF IAN JEFFERIES, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
               OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

        Mr. Jefferies. Chair Markey, Ranking Member Ricketts,
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    speak with you today about the freight rail industry's
    environmental profile and how we can work together to drive
    down transportation-related emissions.
        You have heard the stat today: a Class One railroad on
    average moves one ton of freight about 500 miles on a single
    gallon of fuel. To use a different city pairing, that is
    farther than the distance from Boston to Washington, DC. using
    I-95. Railroads do this on infrastructure they own, and they
    maintain, spending some $25 billion of their own money per year
    on the network.
        Pick your stat: the numbers recognized by the White House's
    Decarbonization Blueprint speak for themselves. While
    transportation is the largest source of U.S. emissions, rail,
    which moves approximately 40 percent of long-distance freight,
    is less than 2 percent of those total emissions. Rail today is
    three to four more times fuel efficient than trucks. And the
    possibilities are exciting as well. If just 10 percent of the
    freight that currently moves across the Nation's highways moved
    by rail instead, annual emissions would fall by roughly 20
    million tons, equivalent to taking 4.1 million cars off the
    highways every single year.
        None of this is by accident. It is a result of innovation,
    vigorous spending, and an understanding of the societal and
    economic benefits of continued environmental progress. Over the
    last 20 years, railroads consumed 11.8 billion fewer gallons of
    fuel and emitted 133 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide than
    they would have if they had not improved their efficiency.
        These gains emanate from buying or retrofitting better
    locomotives, incorporating anti-idling technologies, fine-
    tuning fuel management systems, and increasing the use of low-
    carbon fuels. Simply getting trucks in and out of yards quicker
    through technological innovation has made a marked impact as
    well. The result is a strong foundation for the future.
        The next wave of progress on the main line and in yards is
    in sight, as railroads are using more zero-emissions cranes,
    purchasing electric switcher locomotives for yard use, and
    testing battery and hydrogen powered locomotives in revenue
    service. While the latter technologies are in pre-commercial
    stage, observers are justifiably encouraged.
        Yet progress does not stop, especially in driving further
    gains for particulate and overall emissions. We understand the
    urgency, including for fence-line communities closest to rail
    operations. Progress will be best realized through practical
    policies grounded in data and collaboration as a necessity.
        Some policies are easy wins, and we just saw that this
    morning in this committee. We encourage Congress to reauthorize
    and continue the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act and to support
    relevant grant and loan programs particularly those most
    critical to short lines to help modernize their equipment.
        We also encourage Congress to support mode neutrality and
    sustainable fuel programs and to ensure research in this area
    considers the broadest possible base of feedstocks and
    resources.
        Other measures, however, are bigger lifts, namely, the need
    to reestablish a user pay system in transportation in a way
    that removes market distortions and uncompetitive subsidies for
    competing freight modes with higher emissions. We were
    encouraged to see the chair of this committee's call this week
    for DOT to make progress on a national vehicle miles traveled
    pilot program. Most of all, we must be pragmatic.
        On the contrary, proposed mandates like what we have seen
    in California, which would force the adoption of technology
    that is not commercially viable at odds with Federal law does
    not add up. While regulators in that State may think they are
    expediting decarbonization, in fact they are diverting
    resources that could be used in accomplishing shared goals.
        The impact on small business alone with this proposed rule
    would be staggering, with 25 percent of short lines in the
    State of California expected to go out of business. The result
    of that, additional trucks on the highway, is not something
    that I think is the goal of CARB.
        Much of the same can be said about the widespread catenary
    electrification ideas. This notion is simply unrealistic on a
    142,000-mile network operating 24-7 in all climates across
    tunnels and bridges and all topographies.
        However, expressing concern is not obstinance, it reflects
    reality. We cannot ignore the industry's measurable actions
    today and to date and let the hope of perfection stand in the
    way of continued meaningful progress made together.
        We are proud of our progress in this area, and will
    continue to drive down emissions.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jefferies follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Jefferies.
        Now we will turn to questions for the panel. Let me begin
    by recognizing myself.
        The Environmental Protection Agency hasn't updated its
    locomotive standards in 15 years. A lot has happened in 15
    years. The science connecting air pollution and health impacts
    is stronger. And our clean technologies are much cheaper and
    better.
        During that same period, the EPA strengthened or proposed
    to strengthen emissions standards for trucks and cars at least
    five separate times.
        We are taking action on emissions across the transportation
    sector, and our workers and companies are on the road to
    success. But our railroads have been left to fall behind.
        In 2008, the EPA set longer-term standards, known as Tier 4
    standards for newly built locomotives that reflected the
    advanced State of high efficiency technologies in 2008. It also
    tightened standards for existing locomotives when they are
    remanufactured to varying degrees.
        But those standards made key assumptions that railroad
    operators would continue business as usual rather than pumping
    the brakes on innovation.
        Ms. Torres, do the locomotive emissions standards
    established in 2008 meet the needs of communities today?
        Ms. Torres. No, unfortunately not. Tier 4 is still diesel-
    fueled. Our communities have been suffering and continue to
    suffer. We know that the technology is here, and it is
    feasible, economically feasible to go completely zero-
    emissions. We need standards that are higher and better than
    the 2008 standards.
        Although it was adopted 15 years ago, and I know others may
    say that is something that could have helped us then,
    technology has moved and will continue to move toward zero
    emissions to make it feasible.
        So we need something that is not diesel-fueled for Tiers.
        Senator Markey. Mr. Rosen, can you describe what a Tieri 4
    locomotive is, just so everyone can understand who is watching
    this across the Country?
        Mr. Rosen. Sure. The Tier 4 locomotive became the standard
    for locomotives in 2014. It reduced particulate matter by 70
    percent. It reduced nitrogen oxide by 76 percent. It is a very
    substantial step up on any of the other diesel locomotives that
    are out there.
        I would agree with Ms. Torres that we have the ability to
    also be moving toward zero emissions. But there is an awful lot
    of very old locomotives on the rails right now that could be
    quickly replaced in terms of the cross-country piece by Tier 4,
    while we get zero emissions over the coming period to cover
    that also eventually.
        But certainly in urban areas, there is no reason we
    shouldn't be using the zero emissions locomotives right now.
        I will also point out, they need higher crash standards,
    too. There were better crash standards put into place in 2009,
    and by continuing to have the overwhelming majority of
    locomotives out there being older locomotives means that there
    is continued danger both to the communities where crashes might
    take place as well as of course the workers.
        Senator Markey. Just expand, what zero emissions options
    are available for the railway industry to adopt for
    locomotives?
        Mr. Rosen. Sure. So right now, the company where we
    represent workers has developed what they call the FLX
    locomotive, which is a battery locomotive, which can operate
    independently. There are other companies that have battery
    locomotives, which can certainly operate very well in rail
    yards where they can be recharged there.
        They can also operate while going cross country in what
    they call a consist, which is basically in tandem with a diesel
    locomotive, ideally a Tier 4 locomotive. And you can really
    bring the emissions down farther. Then when you get into the
    cities, shut off the diesel altogether and run off just the
    battery locomotive at that point.
        Senator Markey. So let me ask this. In terms of these low-
    emissions and zero-emissions trains, are they commercially
    available right now?
        Mr. Rosen. They are.
        Senator Markey. Are there ways to purchase?
        Mr. Rosen. Orders have been taken for these battery
    locomotives. And in addition, they have run good tests with
    them in California. There was a famous example of that being
    done within the last couple of years to show how much better
    off they are.
        Then in addition, there are electric locomotives that are
    in use in a number of places in this Country, and very heavily
    overseas. Those are all available, too.
        Senator Markey. So where are these low-emissions and zero-
    emissions trains manufactured in our Country that are available
    now? Where are they made?
        Mr. Rosen. There are multiple locations, but the biggest
    source, especially for these battery locomotives, would be the
    large facility in Erie, Pennsylvania.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Ricketts.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Jefferies, some have accused the railroads of having
    opposed methods to reduce emissions. Can you speak about the
    industry's efforts to reduce emissions within their existing
    fleet of locomotive? Are there Federal programs that you
    support to help with these efforts?
        Mr. Jefferies. Sure, thank you, Senator.
        Well, I think we, it is not a joke, but if you want to
    reduce emissions right now, take trucks off the highway and put
    them on the rail, and you reduce emissions by three to four
    times. And again, truckers are our biggest partners and our
    biggest competitors as well. So I say that with a smile on my
    face. But it is fact.
        Railroads, as we mentioned, 40 percent of long-haul
    freight, less than 2 percent of transportation related
    emissions. And that is due to the investments we have made over
    the years. Certainly there have been billions invested into
    modernizing or re-equipping locomotives. Some of the examples
    about next generation locomotives were mentioned by my
    colleague, as far as getting battery electric into revenue
    service, proof of concept, working on hydrogen powered
    locomotives, in the yards, getting electric cranes, electric
    switcher locomotives.
        Even again, using technology to get the throughput faster
    in yards. Because idling trucks, for example, are leading to
    additional emissions, additional release of particulate matter.
    Anti-idling technologies in locomotives in yards as well.
        So I would also add that as a transition, as we move into
    the next generation of locomotives and of power, increasing the
    use of biofuels, whether it is renewable diesel, whether it is
    other renewable fuels into the feedstocks of how we are
    powering our locomotives is absolutely key as well. So it is
    certainly a multi-pronged approach.
        Senator Ricketts. Great. You know what, you just mentioned
    biofuels there. So according to a recent Blueprint for
    Transportation Decarbonization, biodiesel and renewable diesel
    can play a key role in reducing rail emissions, especially in
    the near and medium terms. Can you discuss how the industry is
    utilizing these fuels, and are there things Congress can do to
    ensure that these fuels are in sufficient supply and cost
    competitive?
        Mr. Jefferies. Sure. So, increasing the percentage of
    biofuels in our overarching power structure, and whether that
    is again a mix of renewable diesel or biofuels, an 80/20
    mixture there. What can Congress do? I think really hold a
    level playing field when it comes to how you approach
    sustainable fuel development, sustainable fuel subsidies,
    sustainable fuel feedstock, so that all modes have an
    opportunity to increase deployment.
        So you want to raise availability, decrease the price, and
    that will increase use overall across all modes.
        Senator Ricketts. Great. Then CARB is once again working
    toward a significant regulation to impact the transportation
    sector. How would the regulation being considered by CARB
    impact the functioning of the national network?
        Mr. Jefferies. Well, you hit the nail on the head when you
    said national network. Our network is over 140,000 miles that
    operates in an interconnected nature. So locomotives and trains
    on the west coast end up on the east coast and mixed and
    matched throughout the network.
        So really, when you are looking at a proposed regulation of
    that magnitude, it has national impacts, national consequences
    on the ability of the network to operate. We don't operate just
    within the bounds of one State. That is why we have Federal law
    that actually prohibits efforts along these lines when it comes
    to regulating new or retrofitted locomotives.
        We think the appropriate place to have this discussion is
    at the Federal Government. We are happy to play a productive
    role in that process.
        Senator Ricketts. Can you discuss what sort of impact this
    regulation would have on short line railroads?
        Mr. Jefferies. Well, it would be nothing short of a death
    knell to about 25 percent of the short lines in California.
        Senator Ricketts. Why do you say that?
        Mr. Jefferies. Because on average, estimates show that to
    comply with the regulation, about 40 percent of the average
    short line revenue, average short line's revenue, would be
    required and dedicated to complying here. Frankly, 25 percent
    of the short lines in that State, they can't function with that
    sort of cost structure.
        So what is the result? The result is that freight is going
    to get diverted onto the highways, increasing congestion, with
    less efficient, more emissions transmitting, modes of
    transportation. So I think that is the opposite of the
    direction we want to go to. Again, this should be a
    collaborative effort focused on what the market can support
    when it comes to production and what our small businesses can
    afford when it comes to transitioning to a cleaner future.
        Senator Ricketts. Are you familiar with what I mentioned in
    my opening remarks with regard to the Bailey Yard in North
    Platte and their battery electric locomotives? Are you familiar
    with that Union Pacific project by chance?
        Mr. Jefferies. Yes.
        Senator Ricketts. So how long do you think it would take,
    then, to get those implemented and be able to look at the
    feasibility with regard to those, and what they would be able
    to do going forward?
        Mr. Jefferies. Well, certainly we are already deploying
    battery electric, as I said, in yards. There have been orders
    made by the railroads. I know one railroad is only getting half
    as many as they have ordered, because of production capability
    and availability when it comes to the batteries required. So
    there is a bit of a long lead time there.
        But what we are really looking at is a generational fleet
    overturning, over a significant amount of time. These are long-
    life assets. We want to make sure we can continue to move
    America's freight. We all want to do a job in a way that
    reduces emissions and continually reduces our environmental
    impact. But it has to be done in a way that can allow us to
    continue to operate, serve our customers, serve our
    communities, and that the production market can actually
    handle.
        Thank you.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Jefferies. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        The Chair will recognize himself again. I am a
    technological optimist. It was the hydroelectric mills that
    brought my grandfather to Lawrence, Massachusetts, to work in
    the mills of Lawrence during the Industrial Revolution. Today
    we have new advances in battery technologies that we now
    celebrate. The American story is one of technological
    ingenuity.
        We have heard from Mr. Rosen about advances in battery
    technology and catenary lines to power our railways. Our
    technological optimism and our well-trained union workers are
    our best source of clean and renewable energy. Combined with
    our existing technologies we can protect community health and
    support American innovation.
        Ms. Torres, you painted this beautiful picture of a zero
    emissions future for communities. How far away from that are we
    in terms of the actual technology?
        Ms. Torres. The technology is here now. It is time to work
    with EPA, elected officials, the Class One rails, the workers
    and our community members to get that transition moving into
    our communities that are most impacted. We have, as mentioned
    earlier, overhead catenary that has been used and can be used
    as a bridge as well to still continue the work, and make it
    economically feasible as we continue with technology to
    advance.
        Specifically zero emissions technology, we can continue to
    come back to assess the current technology available. It is
    here now, it is economically feasible. CARD mentioned around
    $25 billion of savings, not to mention the health savings, to
    get to that.
        But there is a lot of unintended costs that are not talked
    about when we look at this. Thank you.
        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        Mr. Rosen, my father was actually a local vice president in
    the UE. Obviously, I am familiar with the work ethic, people
    want to go to work, make good money, take care of their
    families. My father's son is a United States Senator, so thank
    you, UE, for helping to get that funding.
        What kind of answer would you give to Mr. Jefferies saying,
    we just can't afford to, railroads have to purchase these more
    fuel-efficient trains in our Country. Workers want to make
    these trains, but they are saying, we can't afford to buy them.
    So what is your answer to him?
        Mr. Rosen. The money is certainly there in the railroads.
    These are very profitable industries. They have returned a
    great return to their shareholders, to Wall Street, to the
    executives. And it is a question of priorities. It is also a
    question of how they want to look at the costs and benefits,
    too, because in the longer term, with the fuel savings that you
    will see, with the greater durability actually of non-diesel
    locomotives, et cetera, it is an excellent long-term
    investment.
        The problem is, they are operating according to the
    mandates of Wall Street, which are not so interested in what is
    going to happen in the long term, but what is going to happen
    in the next quarter. That is why they really need to be given a
    directive at this point by the government, you have to do this,
    if they want to remain in business.
        They have shirked the responsibility for the last 8 years.
    They should have had 30 percent at Tier 4 already, and it is
    less than 10 percent. That would have made a huge difference
    right now. It would have also resulted in some of the slightly
    better but not worst locomotives being moved down into the rail
    yards, where we have, I believe, the figure in Ms. Torres'
    documents that were presented as part of her written testimony,
    something like two-thirds of the locomotives in the rail yards
    are Tier 0 or Tier 0-plus. These are 30, 40-year-old
    locomotives. It is outrageous.
        Senator Markey. So you are saying that the railway industry
    just isn't investing in these clean technologies? The union
    workers are ready to make, construct the new locomotive engines
    that would go to low or zero emissions standards, and the
    technology does exist. But the railways just refuse to do it,
    is that what you are saying?
        Mr. Rosen. Absolutely. There has been deep, deep reductions
    in the number of workers making locomotives in this Country.
    Not because they are being made overseas, they are not being
    made at all. The rail industry just stopped ordering new
    locomotives, and are running the old ones to death. But it is
    also to the death of the American population.
        Senator Markey. Yes. That is what it sounds like to me.
    These numbers are the most recent that I have. But only 7
    percent of Class One locomotives were Tier 4 locomotives in
    2020? Old locomotives that emit five times as much dangerous
    pollution as the current top tier of locomotives make up nearly
    one-fourth of all Class One locomotives? That doesn't sound
    like investment to me. That sounds like inaction to me, Mr.
    Rosen.
        Mr. Rosen. Absolutely. That is what our concern is, and I
    think that is what you are also hearing from Ms. Torres on
    behalf of the environmental justice communities, too, that the
    time has run out for the rail industry to do this voluntary on
    their own, driven by the market, whatever terminology they want
    to use. This is absolutely an area that is crying out for
    government intervention.
        Senator Markey. Senator Ricketts.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Jefferies, it has just been described about the
    locomotives and the claim that the railroads are not replacing
    their engines. What, do you have any knowledge of what would
    the estimate be of the average lifetime of a locomotive? How
    much do they cost and how long are they expected to last?
        Mr. Jefferies. An average locomotive costs about $4
    million, and upwards of a 40-year lifespan.
        If I could make one comment on the investment discussion
    that occurred. The rail industry, I mentioned in my opening
    statement, invests about $25 billion of its own dollars every
    year. The result of that is the highest-rated infrastructure of
    any type in this Country as graded by the American Society of
    Civil Engineers. Again, that is privately owned, that is
    privately maintained.
        It is not federally owned; it is not nationalized. Because
    take a look at that type of infrastructure, take a look at the
    northeast corridor, it is at about a $100 billion investment
    deficit. This industry invests almost 19 cents per revenue
    dollar, that is six times more than the average industry.
        So I don't want to hear that this industry isn't investing.
    We can talk about the turnover of the locomotive fleet, and
    absolutely, that is something we are interested in. That is why
    we have been out in revenue service when it comes to battery
    electric, when it comes to hydrogen. That is why we are
    deploying different types of power in our yards to reduce
    emissions.
        It doesn't add up that the investment is not occurring
    there. We are happy to have that discussion about a new Federal
    standard, absolutely. But it needs to be done in an achievable
    manner.
        Senator Ricketts. Also, one of the things that Mr. Rosen
    said was at the time the new regulations came out in 2014 it
    was estimated, and I presume it was by the EPA, that 30 percent
    of the Class One railroads would have Tier 4 engines by 2023,
    which is just next year.
        Was the railroad industry consulted, do you know, as part
    of those estimates? I can tell you based on my experience with
    the EPA, they don't talk to industry when they make
    regulations. But I was not personally involved in any of this.
    Do you have any knowledge of this, by chance?
        Mr. Jefferies. I certainly can't speak to the level of
    consultation or engagement that occurred. I know that based on
    my experiences with some other estimates that have occurred
    with other agencies, what is said and what is real doesn't
    always add up.
        But again, we are investing literally billions in the
    modernization of locomotives, new types of locomotives. And any
    sort of mandate or forcing into purchasing Tier 4s right now,
    for those that want to get away from diesel, all that does is
    lock in diesel power for the next four decades.
        So we are focused on the beyond. I think that is one area
    that Mr. Rosen and I can agree on, is that we do need to
    continue development of battery electric and we would say other
    alternate sources of power. We should all be working together
    toward that goal and figuring out the best way to get things
    into the marketplace at a faster clip.
        Senator Ricketts. If I could just add on, talking about
    biodiesel and renewable diesel, which also reduces emissions,
    as we talked about, the EPA set their goals in the RVOs, the
    renewable volume obligations for the oil industry, at below
    what the current industry is actually producing. So once again,
    the EPA, not talking to industry.
        But let's talk a little bit now about the catenary system
    that was described before for the electrification of it. What
    are your thoughts on this? Describe a little bit what would be
    some of the challenges to go to an electric system. Wouldn't
    you have to again build this through every one of those 144,000
    miles you were talking about?
        Mr. Jefferies. Absolutely you would, and you would have to
    develop the power stations and power sources along those.
    Often, as you know, in the great State of Nebraska, we operate
    across very rural areas, where power sources aren't readily
    available. That is grid development that we would be
    responsible for. You are talking about hundreds of billions of
    dollars. You would have to rework tunnels, rework bridges,
    thousands of bridges, never mind what needs to be done on the
    locomotives themselves.
        Certainly it works well in urban areas, up and down the
    northeast corridor. Absolutely. But you know, I take the train
    every time I go up to the northeast. But across a 142,000-mile
    network in a network that locomotives from one rail operate
    across another company's lines all the time, everything has to
    be interconnected, everything has to function seamlessly, that
    level of an endeavor, one, it is not realistic, and two, it
    just doesn't make sense for the future.
        Senator Ricketts. And the estimate to do that per mile, do
    you know?
        Mr. Jefferies. I think it is in the millions.
        Senator Ricketts. And do you know, has anybody actually put
    pencil to paper to do the calculation to say, hey, if we were
    going to electrify this entire system, how much power
    generation would we need and how long would it take to do it?
        Mr. Jefferies. I would venture to guess that no one has
    contemplated that. It is a leap of faith unlike any other.
        Senator Ricketts. Do you know how long, assuming we could
    meet the power generation standards, do you know how long it
    would take to actually do something like that, if you were
    going to try and do it?
        Mr. Jefferies. Decades.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much, Mr. Jefferies.
        Mr. Rosen, kind of the same question to you. Has anybody
    done the calculations to know how much power generation we
    would need if we were going to electrify the entire rail
    system?
        Mr. Rosen. There is actually somebody in this room who has
    done a lot of work on that from an organization called
    Solutionary Rail, who has some very creative ideas about how to
    do it. I will agree, this would be a project for the entire
    Nation that would probably take decades. It is probably the
    kind of investment that our Country needs to do. Whether the
    individual railroads would be willing to do that, left to their
    own, or whether it has to become something that the government
    has a direct role in is another question.
        It also doesn't require putting catenary on every single
    mile. Because you can use the battery electric locomotives for
    some in-between sections. They can get well charged in the
    sections where you have the electric lines up, and then coast
    through the other areas on the battery electric, including
    places like tunnels, et cetera.
        It does require probably rethinking the electrical grid. We
    need to do that anyway as a Country. We are converting our
    entire power system in this Country. We have to. This is not
    about, does it cost too much money or not. This is a question
    of, what is it going to cost the human race if we don't
    electrify everything.
        Senator Ricketts. I see I am out of time, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
        Senator Markey. The Senator from California, Senator
    Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In my limited time,
    I am going to try to get through a couple of important issues,
    beginning with Ms. Torres. I know you are joining virtually. I
    want to thank you for testifying on behalf of the communities
    who are on the front lines of California's air pollution
    crisis.
        I agree with how you described that rail pollution, it is a
    national issue with local impacts. While many Americans love
    getting untold numbers of products delivered to our doorstep,
    it does come at a significant cost to people who live near the
    ports and railroads that are the backbone, frankly, of
    America's goods movement infrastructure.
        Ms. Torres, your written testimony shares that despite the
    EPA's efforts 15 years ago to update locomotive regulations,
    there are somehow still locomotives in rail yards that are 60
    to 70 years old. So my question is, can you help explain how it
    is possible that a locomotive can operate its entire service
    life without having to reduce emissions?
        Ms. Torres. Yes. That loophole, there wasn't a phase-out of
    any older trains or older locomotives. A lot of that happens
    with the rebuilding. So because it is refurbished, it does not
    have to meet the new emissions standards of that current year.
        So if you are using older trains, and you are just
    refurbishing them, the standards are still from the 1960's,
    1920's, therefore allowing the loophole of the current
    standards from 2008 for Tier 4 to not have to be taken into
    consideration.
        Senator Padilla. Great. That is very important for this
    committee to understand, something that we should absolutely
    try to address.
        I also have, Mr. Chair, questions about our low-carbon fuel
    standards. California's low-carbon fuel standard is helping
    advance a wide range of clean fuels while at the same time
    keeping consumer costs down. California is probably the fifth
    largest economy in the world, on our way to becoming the fourth
    largest economy in the world, and in so doing, proving that it
    is possible to both grow our economy and reduce emissions. They
    are not mutually exclusive.
        California's tech-neutral approach, greater long-term
    predictability, and cost containment mechanisms have provided
    both certainty and flexibility. Now, this program has been so
    successful that jurisdictions are joining California as you can
    see in the Pacific Coast Collaborative, a regional agreement
    between California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia,
    to strategically align policies to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions and promote clean energy.
        Mr. Jefferies, it is my understanding that the majority of
    the rail industry's use of low-carbon fuels, such as renewable
    diesel, is in California. What role does California's low-
    carbon fuel standard play in driving the use of low-carbon
    fuels in the rail industry on the west coast?
        Mr. Jefferies. Well, certainly the use of low-carbon fuels,
    whether it is renewable diesel, whether it is biodiesel, is in
    heavy use in California. Of course, not exclusively in
    California. Something we are proud of across the Country, and
    something we are working to do more of.
        I can tell you this, that we absolutely support a mechanism
    at the Federal level that holds all modes equal when it comes
    to reducing the cost and increasing availability of low-carbon
    fuels. Because we absolutely think there is a big role to play
    there as we transition into the true next generation power
    sources.
        Senator Padilla. I think we just identified an area of
    agreement.
        Mr. Jefferies. That is why we are here.
        Senator Padilla. So as you work to increase the use of low-
    carbon fuels across the rail industry, do you believe it would
    be helpful to have a national low-carbon fuel standard? I
    imagine you would agree, this would also reduce emissions in
    the rail industry, if we applied it nationally.
        Mr. Jefferies. Well, we certainly support programs that,
    again, reduce the cost of renewable fuels and increase the
    availability. We do think it is critical at the Federal level
    that all modes be held equal.
        Senator Padilla. That we will call a Federal standard.
        Mr. Jefferies. As far as across different modes, the
    promotion, the incentives, et cetera, that will increase the
    use, that again, every mode is held harmless, held equal, and
    so that all, all modes can take advantage of this, and that the
    availabilities there add a price that incentivizes increased
    use.
        I think we use different terms, but we are trying to get at
    the same end game.
        Senator Padilla. I appreciate that. And again, with
    California's experience as a model, setting the standard,
    technology neutral, and you can achieve both reduced emissions
    and economic growth, which I imagine you would agree with that
    as well.
        And I emphasize this, Mr. Chair, because what I am hearing
    is that thanks to California's leadership in advancing a low-
    carbon fuel standard, the rail industry in California is moving
    to lower carbon fuels that result in these lower emissions.
        So the written testimony Mr. Jefferies provided says
    ``Policymakers should avoid imposing prescriptive means for
    reducing emissions in the rail industry.'' But I think the
    lesson here is that thanks to California's standard, the rail
    industry can and will reduce emissions. But without
    California's standard, industry would have just kept doing what
    it has always done in the past.
        So it is not too far of a leap to suggest the same can be
    accomplished nationally with tighter EPA emissions standards.
    Without the new standards, industry will just continue to
    behave like the status quo.
        So based on this committee's previous hearings on the low-
    carbon fuel standard and the testimony we have heard today, I
    see a clear need for a national low-carbon fuel standard. I
    hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can produce a bill in this
    committee to that effect.
        Also, just the need for EPA to get moving on updated
    emissions standards.
        Last but not least, Mr. Chair, I know my time is expired, I
    want to thank you for Kike returning to the Dodgers.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Markey. And on top of that, you are welcome for
    having Mookie Betts already be there to greet him from
    Massachusetts. We just hope it is the end of our generosity to
    L.A. It is hard to bear sometimes, watching those games.
        So we thank the Senator from Los Angeles, and you know,
    Senator, congressional expert is an oxymoron. There really is
    no such thing, it is like jumbo shrimp, oxymoron, Salt Lake
    City night life, no such thing.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Markey. But I am now going to recognize a man who
    was elected to Congress 40 years ago and he has taken the train
    every single day. So I give you an expert, Senator Carper, the
    Chairman of the committee.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much. I have shared this story
    with some of my colleagues before. When my sister and I, we
    were born in West Virginia, a coal mining town, Beckley, and
    even after we moved away we would go back and spend our summers
    and visit our grandparents, our cousins and all.
        One of our grandparents, my dad's parents, lived along a
    railroad track. We would almost faithfully every morning, when
    we were staying with those grandparent, about 10 o'clock in the
    morning, a freight train would come through. Probably not even
    as far as from here to that wall back there. My sister and I
    would stand at a fence that separated the rail track and my
    grandparents' house. We would stand at that fence, and as the
    train got closer and closer, we would try to get the attention
    of the engineer by jumping up and down and pumping our arms, so
    that he might blow his whistle and recognize that we were
    alive.
        One particular day this happened, and not only did he blow
    his whistle, but he stopped right in front of the house, I mean
    like right in front of the house. Off the train comes my
    grandfather, our grandfather, opens the gate and takes us by
    the hand, both of us, puts us up on the train, and we take off.
    It seemed like for about 500 miles, it was about 50 feet, maybe
    500 feet.
        And the train stopped, and my grandfather helped us get off
    the train and said, run back to the house, don't tell your
    grandmother.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. We ran back to the house, Grandma, Grandma,
    you will never guess what Grandpa did. And she said, oh, no he
    didn't do that, he'll go to jail. If he did it today, he would
    go to jail. And we might go with him.
        Anyway, my involvement with trains started at an early age,
    and my interest continues to this day. I rode down this morning
    in Amtrak to get here.
        I want to thank our chairman for holding the hearing today.
    Rail continues to be a key component of our U.S. transportation
    infrastructure and is the most fuel-efficient mode of surface
    land transportation that I think we have. I have used it for
    years.
        To ship by rail a ton of freight from Washington, DC. to
    Boston, Massachusetts, it takes about a gallon of diesel fuel.
    That is pretty good for the economics. I am told by the barge
    people that sending stuff on barges can be even more fuel
    efficient, so they probably have something to say there.
        But in everything we do, I think we ought to try to do
    better. The same is true for reducing emissions from all kinds
    of vehicles, including trains in our Country. Rail yards in
    particular often have a much higher density of local emissions.
    Reducing emissions at yards seems like low-hanging fruit when
    it comes to improving public health and climate outcomes.
        I have a question for Ms. Torres that relates to this, and
    them maybe one for Mr. Rosen as well. Ms. Torres, where are
    you?
        Ms. Torres. I am here, in San Bernardino, California.
        Senator Carper. You are in California?
        Ms. Torres. San Bernardino, California, yes.
        Senator Carper. Good. Thanks for joining us. Could you
    briefly elaborate for us on the disproportionate health and
    economic burdens that are faced by communities near rail yards?
    Go ahead and then I have a second half.
        Ms. Torres. Thank you for that question. Yes, for
    communities living by rail, kind of as you, you were growing up
    by a rail line, thank you for sharing that story, there is at
    least more than 90 percent of diesel exhaust, what I talked
    about earlier, particulate matter that is coming into our
    communities, not only from the rail line or rail yards, but
    what we like to call cumulative impacts as well.
        So when we talk about the locomotives that are coming and
    are idling for more than 30 minutes, that is 30 minutes of
    direct exposure of diesel particulate matter that community is
    suffering with. That is leading to cancer, cardiovascular----
        Senator Carper. I am sorry, I am being summoned to come to
    another hearing. The Finance Committee is meeting right now, we
    are having a live vote and a business meeting and they need my
    presence to come and vote with respect to pharmacy benefit
    managers. It is a big issue and I have to go.
        I am going to ask you to respond to the question for the
    record.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other questions for Mr.
    Rosen, and I apologize profusely. But I have been here for a
    long time and still haven't learned how to be in two places at
    once.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Thank you all. This is really important
    stuff, and I am grateful that you are holding this hearing.
        Senator Markey. He is not ubitiquous, but he is omniscient.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Markey. So now we will go back to the non-expert
    part of the hearing. I recognize Senator Ricketts for another
    round of questions.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much, Chair Markey.
        What I would like to do is for the record submit this
    letter from the diesel folks.
        Senator Markey. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much.
        I would actually like to talk a little bit more about what
    my colleague from California was talking about with regard to
    the renewable fuels, and just hit upon again how I think this
    is an area of common agreement that using more renewables is
    something that will help us reduce emissions, whether we are
    talking about biodiesel or renewable diesel, and the failure of
    the EPA to actually establish the renewable volume obligations
    at a level that we actually already produce in the industry
    today.
        What that does is it discourages more investment. In
    Nebraska, we have a soybean crush plant that is being invested
    in North Fork, and another one in David City. So the industry
    was making those investments. And now I am told with these
    renewable volume obligations that the EPA is failing to show
    that it even actually lives up to what we are doing already, we
    are going to see a curtailment of the types of investments like
    we see in North Fork and David City.
        So if we want to see more renewable diesel and more
    biodiesel, we are going to have to have the EPA collaborate on
    renewable volume obligations so the industry will continue to
    invest and be able to make sure that we have more available to
    be able to use. Because I think that is one of the things, as
    the Senator was talking about, we do find agreement, we may not
    agree exactly on how to implement it, but we certainly agree
    that encouraging more renewable fuels is something that is
    going to be important.
        One of the things I would like to hit upon, and Ms. Torres,
    I didn't get a chance to ask you, but if you knew, on that
    whole electrification, the catenary system, are you aware of
    anybody who has done some work, some pencil and paper work, on
    what it would take to be able to power that if we were to going
    to go down that path?
        Ms. Torres. For the United States, not the exact numbers.
    But we do have numbers that show it would be transitional, very
    feasible. That is in my written testimony.
        Senator Ricketts. OK, great. Thank you very much. I
    appreciate it.
        Now, one of the things that I wanted to hit upon is, when
    you are talking about your members considering the purchase of
    a new locomotive, Mr. Jefferies, can you give us some insights
    on some of the specifications that they are considering when
    they think about, OK, it is time to buy a new locomotive? What
    is the process? What do they consider? How do they do that
    investment?
        Mr. Jefferies. Well, first and foremost, demand. You have
    to have something to move with that locomotive. So the market
    has to drive those investment decisions. I am certainly not
    going to represent myself as having any sort of authority or
    expertise on the individual investment decisions that each of
    the railroads makes. Obviously, that is their prerogative.
        But you need to look at one, capability, does the
    locomotive have the ability to haul heavy freight long
    distances? What is the role of the locomotive, is it to be used
    in yard, is it to be used locally, is it to be used out on the
    national network for long freight? Do you have the ability to
    charge it, to power it appropriately?
        Really, we are looking at 40-year assets. So it is just
    like when we engage in infrastructure investment on the
    network. If you are taking a single track and you are double
    tracking that, that is an investment that has to be, the return
    on that occurs over decades and decades and decades.
        So these are very significant investments for very long
    periods of time. As we sit here today, railroads are investing
    upwards of over a billion dollars. I know one railroad,
    retrofitting, modernizing 600 locomotives, many of which I
    believe are being done by the company that Mr. Rosen's works
    at. And that is over a billion-dollar endeavor. And that is
    going to result in lower emissions of all kinds.
        Senator Ricketts. So you mentioned, though, that somebody
    had ordered the battery electric locomotive and only was able
    to get half as many as they ordered. Can you talk more about
    what is the cause of why they could want to order batter
    electrics and not get them delivered?
        Mr. Jefferies. I think it was due to battery availability
    that one of the OEMs was running into challenges with. But
    again, that is kind of how the process works at the outset.
        But the encouraging thing is, I think we do see a future
    there. One of my railroads had a long-term project that had a
    battery electric working with diesel out in revenue service, a
    proof of concept. The results were favorable. So the progress
    continues, and the work continues. So I think it is important
    that we keep an all-of-the-above strategy, whether it is
    renewable fuels, whether it is battery electric, whether it is
    hydrogen, whether it is alternate means, that allows us to
    continue to do R&D to identify what the best long-term
    prospects are. And again, keeping in mind that it is an
    interconnected national network where everyone's system needs
    to be able to function with the others in a seamless manner.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Senator.
        When I was a boy, I still live in the very same place, but
    when I was a boy, one block from my house to the left of our
    house was the electric trolley that went into Boston from
    Malden, all day, every day. We didn't have air conditioning, so
    especially in the summer it was like the sounds of the night
    was hearing those trolleys go in and out, electric trolleys, by
    the way. We had already invented the future and then tore it
    down and had diesel buses instead take people into Boston from
    Malden.
        On three blocks the other side of my house were the
    railroad tracks for the freight and the commuter rail to go
    from Boston to Lawrence and beyond all day long, every single
    day. So the sound of trains on both sides of my house, just so
    many nights I would just go to sleep listening to those trolley
    cars.
        I think everyone has a train story in their life. It was a
    big part of my life, that is for sure. The question really is,
    how quickly can we move to this new era.
        So I think what I heard was that the industry invests $23
    billion a year in infrastructure. I think that is what I heard
    you say, Mr. Jefferies. And you are proud of that. So that
    would be $230 billion in investment over a 10-year period.
        The new locomotive engines cost $4 million, not billion, $4
    million, and a $230 billion investment over a 10-year period.
    And that is investment that you are already making.
        So a reprioritization would clearly get a big payoff in
    terms of reduced emissions and this transition to the new
    technology. That is what is kind of hard to understand, the
    funding is clearly there. So I guess when I look at that very
    simple arithmetic, it is not calculus, it is not trigonometry,
    it is just $4 million for an engine, and $230 billion that you
    are going to invest otherwise.
        What percentage of that could be dedicated to this new
    mission?
        Mr. Rosen, again, why doesn't the railway industry want to
    make this transition? What is their problem?
        Mr. Rosen. I will add another piece of simple math I have
    just done in my head while sitting here, having heard earlier
    that the lifespan of a locomotive is up to 40 years. That means
    that 2.5 percent of the fleet has to be replaced every year.
    There has been 8 years since the new standard.
        Senator Markey. Good point.
        Mr. Rosen. Eight years times two and a half is 20 percent
    right there. And what they have been doing is upgrading very
    old locomotives which allows them to keep them at much lower
    standards, as you heard Ms. Torres explain, rather than moving
    to the newer ones. It is a simple reason, it is greed. It is a
    little cheaper, at least in the short run, at least in what
    they can show on their quarterly statements, than buying the
    new locomotives which will actually make a real difference in
    people's lives in this Country and will for a long time to
    come.
        Senator Markey. So according to my, I don't even call it
    math, it is just arithmetic, the industry makes about $20
    million a day in net profit, $20 million in a day. So if you
    just took 1 day's, that is five new trains, five new electric
    engines. Take 2 days, you get 10. Is that asking for too much
    out of the profit of an industry that they move in that
    direction?
        But what you are saying is, it is not benign neglect, that
    Senator Moynihan used to talk about when he was in the Senate,
    this is more designed neglect. They have a plan not to do this,
    not to upgrade, even though the technology is there, even
    though the rest of the world is moving rapidly technologically
    on all fronts. But the railway industry is stuck back in this
    ancient era.
        I love the sounds of the trains from my youth. But I can't
    believe that those same trains are still running on the tracks,
    and that 2.5 percent every year have to get replaced, and they
    are saying, we are not going to replace them.
        Again, you just come back, I guess it is a profit motive,
    is that all it is, Mr. Rosen?
        Mr. Rosen. I believe the railroads are in business to make
    profit, not to move transport. They move transport in order to
    make profit. This is a fundamental issue. It is the way our
    economy is structured. If we are going to have an economy
    structured that way, the government has to intercede in order
    to make sure they do what is needed by the greater society.
    Because they are not structured to worry about the society.
        Senator Markey. And the society, of course, does suffer. We
    know that there are higher asthmas, cancers, the closer you are
    to anything that is emitting these greenhouse gases.
        A fact sheet published by the Association of American
    Railroads states that the cost of converting half of the
    existing locomotive fleet to catenary rail would be $100
    billion. But Martin Oberman, who is the chair of the Surface
    Transportation Board, in a speech to the North American Rail
    Shippers Association in 2021, said Class One railroads have
    taken home an astounding $183 billion in buybacks and dividends
    since 2010.
        That is money not spent on safety, not spent on workers,
    not seen as cost savings to consumers. That is just money that
    goes back to the shareholders.
        So again, Mr. Rosen, why can't that money be used to invest
    in electrification? And I will ask you, Mr. Jefferies, why
    can't a certain percentage of that money be used for
    electrification? Mr. Rosen?
        Mr. Rosen. We would certainly say that it not only can be,
    it should be. If the railroads want to maintain themselves as
    private profit-making businesses, then they have to get a lot
    more responsible and have to stop standing in the way of what
    the society needs. If not, maybe we do need to look at the
    alternatives that have developed in many other countries, where
    because it is long-term investments involved, it has been
    decided it is going to have to be done on a national basis, and
    there has been nationalization of the railroads and other
    industries.
        I don't think that is what the railroads want to see. But
    if they don't start acting responsibly, I think it is what the
    people of this Country are going to demand.
        Senator Markey. Again, Mr. Jefferies, I have a nostalgia
    for the past, but at a certain point in time it has to be
    replaced with a vision for the future. And that vision has to
    be articulated by every American industry, knowing how serious
    climate change is and what the response is going to be.
    Especially if there are non-greenhouse gas emitting engines
    that are available and can be manufactured.
        My question to you is, that is a lot of dough. That is a
    lot of dividends. From my perspective, why can't that money be
    used to invest in electrification, Mr. Jefferies?
        Mr. Jefferies. So to go back to the beginning, it is
    average $25 billion a year in private investments, so you are
    right, over 10 years, $250 billion, and the result of that is
    the Nation's highest-rated infrastructure of any type. If my
    colleague wants to nationalize the rail network, I would just
    say take a look at the American Society of Civil Engineers'
    grades of publicly owned infrastructure, which pales in
    comparison to the grade it gives the Nation's freight
    railroads.
        Senator Markey. I don't want to get into a debate about
    nationalization. I want to get into a debate about why can't a
    much higher percentage of that $250 billion go over to $4
    million locomotives that are all ready? Why can't that happen?
    Why can't the industry just say, we are going to make a
    commitment to doing that because we want to pay our fair share
    in reducing the danger that greenhouse gases play, and
    especially the other emissions that go into the neighborhoods
    where the trains go by?
        Mr. Jefferies. So, 40 percent of long-haul freight, less
    than 2 percent of transportation related emissions. Again, we
    are not saying that is good enough. There is more work to do.
    That is why we have railroads investing over a billion dollar
    in new locomotive technology. That is why we are deploying and
    exercising battery electric out in revenue service. That is why
    we are putting battery electric switcher locomotives in yards.
    That is why we are using zero-emissions cranes.
        Is it going to happen overnight? Absolutely not. Even if we
    could flip a switch, the production capacity is not there.
        So to suggest that there is some sort of willful
    negligence, I think is frankly irresponsible, when you look at
    the environmental profile of the industry and the investments
    that are made compared to practically every other industry as a
    percentage of revenue.
        To be clear, I think we all have the same goals here.
        Senator Markey. I am just saying, every other industry is
    moving and they can articulate the plan. Electric has to be our
    future. And by the way, electric is the industry's past. So it
    is not like you don't know how to do this if you want to do
    this. It is just that you are kind of stuck in neutral on this.
        Mr. Jefferies. Every one of my railroads has emissions
    reductions initiatives, science-based target initiatives,
    including net zero emissions within the coming decades. So the
    commitment is there, the effort is there.
        Senator Markey. But the commitment to electric trains is
    not there. And that is the future. It will be the future of the
    world. We have workers ready to make them right now, and the
    engines are there ready to be----
        Mr. Jefferies. I think we would respectfully say that it
    needs to be a multi-pronged approach.
        Senator Markey. Oh, I get it. We don't want to take out
    your other prongs. We just want you to add this prong. We don't
    know why you are taking out the electric prong.
        Mr. Jefferies. I think our testimony reflects that it is
    absolutely part of the strategy. Maybe we are not buying----
        Senator Markey. No, you are not.
        Mr. Jefferies [continuing]. more than you would like, the
    production capacity has to be there, it has to make sense, it
    has to work, it has to move freight, we have to be able to
    serve customers, we have to be able to serve communities.
        Senator Markey. It is just a technologically retrograde
    industry. It is not moving to the future of technology. You are
    doing OK, but that is not what this era calls for. The ocean
    off of Miami Beach is 100 degrees right now.
        Mr. Jefferies. They should be moving more by freight rail.
        Senator Markey. Canada is on fire. Greece is on fire. It
    has been above 110 degrees in Phoenix for the last 4 weeks.
    Everyone else is paying attention to it. We just want the board
    of directors of your association to pay attention to it, too,
    and say, let's go back at the table, let's look at these
    engines, they are there, workers are ready to go, technology is
    ready to go, and we are just going to up our share of
    commitment to it. And you just seem to be saying, no, we are
    not going to.
        Mr. Jefferies. That is absolutely not what I am saying. The
    commitment is there.
        Senator Markey. A commitment to a much higher share of all-
    electric trains? Is that what you are saying, the commitment is
    there?
        Mr. Jefferies. I am saying, look at the investments, read
    my testimony.
        Senator Markey. You are not saying that. You are saying
    that, we have a multi-pronged approach to avoid the central
    question of this era, which is electric, are we moving there,
    are we going to do it. And here, it is not like we are waiting
    for Elon Musk to show up, it is already there ready to go. It
    is an existing technology.
        The Senator from Wyoming, I apologize for going on.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Jefferies, can you explain to me what the current
    commercial readiness is of zero emission locomotives?
        Mr. Jefferies. I will say we put battery electric out into
    revenue service with R&D with support of diesel locomotives.
    And we have been pleased with the returns on that R&D
    demonstration programs. We have deployed and purchased battery
    electrics, waiting on those to be delivered. Some have gotten
    into yards. Absolutely see promise there.
        But widescale production to replace thousands of
    locomotives is not a capability.
        Senator Lummis. How long would it take, reasonably based on
    today's current commercial readiness, how long would it take to
    replace all diesel locomotives with electric? How many decades?
        Mr. Jefferies. I would venture multiple decades. If you
    could flip a switch and the capability was there, yes.
        Senator Lummis. Have you done cost-benefit analysis,
    knowing that your emissions from rail collectively are about
    1.7 percent of all transportation related emissions of
    greenhouse gases, have you done a cost-benefit analysis for
    comparing rail to automobile to airlines in terms of the
    benefit compared to the cost of doing these kinds of
    conversions to electric?
        Mr. Jefferies. I opened the hearing by saying, and I think
    you hit the nail on the head, that 40 percent of long-distance
    freight, less than 2 percent of transportation emissions. You
    want to reduce emissions right now, move more goods by freight
    rail.
        Senator Lummis. Regarding California's Air Resource Board's
    move toward a regulation that would ban freight rail industry
    from operating a large portion of their locomotives in
    California based on its age unless the locomotive is zero
    emissions, how would that regulation impact the functioning of
    the national network and short line railroads?
        Mr. Jefferies. Well, national rail network is the key. It
    is an interconnected national network that operates in
    interState commerce, not strictly within the bounds of one
    State. That is why our regulations and the rules which we
    operate under are done at the Federal level. States do not have
    jurisdiction to determine the fate of our industry in
    interState commerce.
        With that, you also need to have the capability of doing,
    back to your first question, of a conversion. If you are going
    to require a zero emissions locomotive right now, you have to
    have the capability to produce that at scale. And that doesn't
    exist. We need to get there.
        I think we are all collectively working toward this goal,
    while it may not sound like it today. But again, we are proud
    of our environmental profile. We have more work to do, and that
    is why we are committed to doing that work and making the
    related investments.
        Senator Lummis. Do we have enough solar and wind related
    electricity to handle an entire fleet of locomotives that are
    zero emission, run on electricity?
        Mr. Jefferies. I certainly can't begin to answer that
    question. I know that the additional capacity required would be
    fairly dramatic.
        Senator Lummis. We have learned recently that the
    greenhouse gases that are emitted just in order to manufacture
    solar energy is three times more than the United Nations
    originally thought. Do you think that should be factored into
    the total emissions of greenhouse gases and the sources of
    them?
        Mr. Jefferies. Senator, I can only focus on my industry,
    and our efforts to reduce emissions. I think you are hitting on
    a broader question that is for folks to debate who are bigger
    experts than I by every stretch of the imagination. But
    certainly, we need to be aware of the broader impacts of policy
    decisions and not have on blinders.
        Senator Lummis. Mr. Rosen, in your written testimony you
    noted that over 75 percent of Class One railroad fleet was a
    Tier 2 locomotive, or an earlier model. With those locomotives
    being ineligible to operate in California soon, won't that
    result in a shift away from rail and to other modes? How would
    we get from the Long Beach Port to unload goods, how would we
    get that to the border of California and Nevada without rail?
        Mr. Rosen. Well, we won't. What you will see is that the
    locomotive manufacturers in this Country will actually start
    generating locomotives again. Right now, they aren't being
    ordered.
        The facility my union represents in Erie, Pennsylvania has
    a capacity, without any expansion, they have done this in past
    years, of 1,000 locomotives a year. We are probably a little
    over half of the total capacity in the Country right now. It is
    a little hard to tell, because everybody else is just flat on
    their back because the railroads have not been ordering new
    locomotives. They have not been ordering Tier 4 locomotives,
    which is why the numbers are so low.
        It is an outrage. And that could be done. They could have
    been doing it all these past years, as we have been discussing
    here. When there is demand, you get supply. And the same will
    be true in terms of being able to move over to, to the extent
    there is a holdup on battery locomotives because of batteries,
    I think you are seeing that enveloped in a number of
    industries. You are also seeing huge investments going on right
    now in part through programs that Congress funded, and you are
    going to see a tremendous expansion of capacity for producing
    batteries over the next couple of years.
        Senator Lummis. Well, I will tell you, being from Wyoming,
    I don't mind admitting that I am getting a little resentful of
    California not wanting to look at industrial-scale wind farms,
    because it destroys their viewshed. But they are perfectly
    willing to destroy the Wyoming viewshed with as many industrial
    scale windfarms as we can get transmission lines from Wyoming
    to California.
        It is interesting that the people who demand wind and solar
    energy do not want the industrial-scale energy produced in
    their State. They want it produced in my State. I am getting to
    the point where I am a little sick of it.
        But that is it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Senator.
        One argument against strengthening rail standards is that
    it will push more goods to be transported by trucks. However,
    we are strengthening the standards for our heavy-duty vehicles
    at the same time. So it stands to reason that railroads
    shouldn't be left to lead the race to the bottom. Everyone else
    is increasing their standards, we are promulgating regulations
    for everybody else. California is doing that as well. The
    railway industry wants to be on the side.
        Ms. Torres, the rail industry claiming that moving freight
    by rail is more efficient than move freight by truck, is that
    going to remain true in California, especially considering the
    recent agreement between the State and truck manufacturers to
    create a path to achieve 100 percent zero emission truck sales?
        Ms. Torres. As of this year, it will be cleaner and
    healthier for communities to transport by trucks.
    Unfortunately, rail is falling behind, its negligence to invest
    in zero emissions technology that is already here.
        We are not against rail or the freight system. We just want
    to electrify it to have some relief to our communities that are
    exposed to these carcinogenic diesels.
        Senator Markey. So you believe, Ms. Torres, that it is
    possible to address emissions from both heavy-duty trucks and
    from locomotives at the same time?
        Ms. Torres. Yes, it is. It is very possible and very needed
    to address both of those measures, not just looking at the
    greenhouse gases, but the health aspect, too, of what we call
    air pollutants.
        Senator Markey. Absolutely.
        Mr. Rosen, are the railroads buying green locomotives at a
    rate that is maxing out your production?
        Mr. Rosen. We are in the single digits, when we could be
    producing 1,000 of Tier 4 and some mix within that of green
    locomotives that aren't being completely non-emitting. But
    again, replacing the worst that is out there right now with
    Tier 4 as a stopgap while we make the bigger transition is well
    worth doing. They need to make up for lost time by doing that.
    But we could be starting to get a lot of the green locomotives
    out the door, and the orders aren't there.
        Senator Markey. Ms. Torres, could you briefly elaborate on
    the disproportionate health and economic burdens faced by
    communities near rail yards? Ms. Torres, could you hear my
    question?
        Ms. Torres. Yes, sorry, the hardware world, my apologies.
    Communities of color and low-income communities are the ones
    who deal with the diesel emissions at higher rates, both
    particulate matter and NOx. It is not just the diesel coming
    from the locomotives, but diesel coming from switchers that are
    as old, older than us in the room.
        The equipment that is being used in the rail intermodal
    facilities in the port, I know folks have mentioned that there
    is work to get those into low emissions. But the technology has
    been there for a lot of that here to be zero emissions. That
    could be something that eases a lot of that burden on
    communities. Not only are we seeing those impacts, like I
    mentioned, there is the noise, the light.
        And many of you all know, living by rail lines and rails
    that are still not looked into, a lot of our community grows
    vegetables and fruits. We don't know what is being contaminated
    by the diesel over the years going through their yards, if
    there is water pollution or soil pollution. Unfortunately, if
    the data is out there, we don't see it. We don't see data from
    the rail yards.
        So as of now, what is known is the air quality impacts,
    because we have done that research. I would love to see the
    rails' research on all the other impacts.
        Senator Markey. Yes. So we know it is real. When I was a
    boy, I grew up in Ward Two in Walden. Every city has an
    environmental sacrifice ward. So I grew up in that Ward. Trains
    were on one block this side, three blocks the other side. The
    Malden River was three blocks, and the train rode right next to
    the Malden River.
        But right next to the Malden River was also the coal
    company, the chemical company, every Converse All-Star was made
    right along the Malden River. There was always a big cloud over
    Ward Two with all the factories spewing toxics going up into
    the air.
        When you are 10 years old and your mother says, Eddie,
    whatever you do, don't swim in the Malden River, it made a lot
    of sense when you looked at it, because it was black with a
    pre-Jimi Hendrix purple haze over it.
        So I knew I wasn't Tom Sawyer on the Mississippi. I knew
    that. I also knew that I lived in that Ward. Ward Three wasn't
    like that, Ward Five wasn't like that. There were nice, tree-
    lined streets. But Ward Two, we had a different life. Trains,
    polluted river, factories.
        Obviously, the health consequences were run by people who
    lived in Ward Two, not Ward Three, not Ward Five, Ward Seven.
    It was right there in Ward Two. So we all know this now, in
    retrospect, how obvious that was. We can't use a river as a
    dumping ground for all this stuff. You can't use the air. You
    can't use the land to do it.
        I guess, Mr. Jefferies, that is all we are really saying to
    your industry. You just have to move with the times, you have
    to move with them. Electric is the future. We have to move much
    more substantially toward the mitigation of the harms which are
    run by those people who live in the environmental sacrifice
    zones. That is where your trains are, that is where the diesel
    trucks are. Across the board, we are trying to solve that
    problem, because we know that there are higher levels of asthma
    and cancers that people suffer from.
        While we know you have to have a bottom line and returns to
    shareholders, there is also a responsibility to deal with the
    consequences of the way in which you move your trains around
    the Country. So this is just going to be a spotlight that is
    going to increase in its intensity on your industry, Mr.
    Jefferies. That is all I want to tell you. It is not going
    away. Everyone else realizes that the time has come, the jig is
    up, we have to do something here to protect those people who
    live in those areas.
        Increasingly, even in Ward Two, they are now more Black,
    they are more Brown, they have replaced the families that have
    already moved on to Ward Three and Ward Five and Ward Seven. So
    that is really the challenge, these people who get left behind
    and suffer the consequences of it. We shouldn't accept that.
        We just hope your industry will go back and reevaluate this
    obstinate, obdurate opposition that you have, and denialism
    that you are bringing in terms of your goals. Because there is
    so much more than you could do and do it in a cost-effective
    way.
        Let me turn to you, Senator Ricketts.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Jefferies, it was referenced about the $25 billion that
    your industry invests on an annual basis, or the $250 billion
    over 10 years. Is that investment entirely locomotives?
        Mr. Jefferies. No, it is throughout the network, the
    infrastructure, equipment, et cetera.
        Senator Ricketts. So what are some of the other things that
    you have to invest in to run a railroad?
        Mr. Jefferies. A hundred and forty thousand miles of rail,
    ballast, ties, tunnels, bridges, technology.
        Senator Ricketts. So you are saying there is other
    infrastructure there, like, let's just take the rails. That
    seems like it is a pretty big job to invest in the rails to try
    to keep it as safe as possible, right? I know the railroads
    invest in additional technology to try and find defects in the
    rails, is that right?
        Mr. Jefferies. Absolutely.
        Senator Ricketts. And you have to replace parts of the
    rails all the time, right?
        Mr. Jefferies. Absolutely. There is core maintenance and
    there is CapEx expansion.
        Senator Ricketts. That is a significant part of that
    investment we are talking about, is that fair?
        Mr. Jefferies. One hundred percent. We are one of the most
    capitally intensive industries out there.
        Senator Ricketts. And the same thing for the rolling stock,
    not just the locomotives, but you have to have the cars to go
    along with it, is that right?
        Mr. Jefferies. Certainly, absolutely.
        Senator Ricketts. And you are investigating new technology
    to try and make those safer all the time, again, looking at and
    fixing wheels and things like that, and that all costs money as
    well, that is part of that investment? Is that right?
        Mr. Jefferies. Of course, yes. Absolutely.
        Senator Ricketts. So it is not just into locomotives that
    you are investing in, that is fair. It is just part of the
    overall mix of all the things it takes.
        Mr. Jefferies. It is part of the portfolio, absolutely.
        Senator Ricketts. So we also talked about the investment
    returns going on here, do you happen to know off the top of
    your head how much, we are talking about all the, we have
    publicly traded companies, Union Pacific, BNSF, how much of
    that stock is in the hands of everyday Americans through
    pension plans and 401(k)'s and stuff like that? Do you know?
        Mr. Jefferies. I would venture the vast majority.
        Senator Ricketts. So when we are talking about your
    providing shareholder returns, that is actually helping middle-
    income Americans retire, right?
        Mr. Jefferies. Absolutely.
        Senator Ricketts. So that is part of what we are talking
    about. Mr. Rosen, when you are talking about nationalizing
    railroads, I just looked at the example of Amtrak. I don't
    think that is a very successful standard, or you can look at it
    on bigger scales, like the Soviet Union, and I don't think that
    is necessary a solution, getting back to Mr. Jefferies' point
    about the quality of the infrastructure there.
        Mr. Jefferies, also when we are talking about like this
    battery technology, to your knowledge, has anybody done the
    estimate of how much we will need to have, how many batteries
    we will need to have if we were going to totally electrify, use
    all battery electric?
        Mr. Jefferies. I have not seen that.
        Senator Ricketts. So nobody has looked at it to see how
    much lithium, cobalt, graphite, anything like that?
        Mr. Jefferies. I would say it is a substantial amount.
        Senator Ricketts. It would be a substantial amount. And do
    you know where those things are primarily mined and processed?
        Mr. Jefferies. Well, I know a lot of it comes from
    countries that may or may not have our best interests at heart.
        Senator Ricketts. Absolutely. The People's Republic of
    China, specifically, I believe the number has about, for
    example, lithium has about 50 percent of it, mines and
    processes 50 percent and processes about 60 percent. I know
    that other rare earth elements it is an even higher percentage
    than that.
        That would make us dependent on our chief adversary in the
    world. We spent a lot of research and time and so forth with
    the shale revolution that made us not dependent on OPEC, and
    now we are talking about putting us, making us dependent on our
    chief adversary in the world which we know is trying to replace
    us as the global power by 2049. Xi Jinping has said that, I
    think we ought to take him seriously on it.
        So now we are talking about national security issues if we
    are going to make ourselves more dependent. Wouldn't it seem
    reasonable that if people would demand that we go to batteries
    that we actually have, I don't know, say some sort of inventory
    of where these rare earth elements are? Do you know, has
    anybody done that sort of thing?
        Mr. Jefferies. I don't, but I absolutely agree. Look, I
    support battery electric, let's be clear. But I also support
    opportunities to make sure we are acquiring necessary minerals
    and feedstocks from allies if not domestically. We have the
    strongest environmental laws of any country; we have the safest
    worker protection laws of any country on the globe. I don't
    understand why we wouldn't embrace the opportunity to get those
    resources from home or from allied countries or friendly
    countries.
        Senator Ricketts. I just had a meeting today with the Clean
    Freight Coalition, which actually had many of your competitors
    and partners in it, talking about some of these standards. One
    of the things they related to me was that California actually
    has the oldest trucking fleet in the Nation, because of the
    standards that they are doing.
        So you may say that all the new trucks that are going to be
    sold are going to be zero emission or whatever, but what that,
    at least in California, the trucking industry has demonstrated,
    according to the Clean Freight folks that I was talking to
    today, that they actually, they don't buy the new ones, they
    actually keep the older ones running around. Because maybe for
    some of the reasons you talked about, you just can't buy enough
    of them.
        I know that talking to some of the trucking companies that
    it is not feasible right now to run long-haul trucks across the
    road using battery because it just isn't devoted to the
    charging.
        So I think your concerns are well founded that we think
    about how is this all going to happen. And if we do want to
    have a bigger overall plan to address these things, whether it
    is going to be through electrification or battery electric or
    whatever it is going to be, somebody actually has to think
    about this to say, how feasible is this over what period of
    time before we drive regulations that are going to have
    unintended consequences, such as maybe what we are seeing here
    in California with the trucking industry.
        With that, Chairman Markey, I yield back.
        Senator Markey. We are going to conclude the hearing. We
    are going to give each of our witnesses 1 minute to tell us
    what you want us to remember about your testimony here today.
    Then I will turn to the Ranking Member for his concluding
    statement, and I will make mine.
        We will begin with you, Mr. Jefferies, we will begin in
    reverse order of the opening.
        Mr. Jefferies. This is a new one for me, at the end of a
    hearing, to talk.
        I think contrary to an observer of this hearing might think
    from today, I absolutely think we have the same goals. We all
    want the same outcomes here. I think it is a matter of how we
    get there and the paths by which we take.
        Certainly, I am proud of our environmental profile, I will
    say it one more time, 40 percent of long-haul freight, less
    than 2 percent of transportation related emissions. Work
    continues to drive that down, including other types of
    emissions as well. And we can debate, and we have debated,
    whether or not our approach is the most desirable approach
    amongst all stakeholders.
        But we feel strongly about where we are going. We have made
    strong commitments and we are going to live up to those
    commitments and continue to make the investments necessary to
    meet those commitments. At the end of the day, it is all about
    making sure we can serve the customers and communities that we
    operate and we support. We are going to continue to work to do
    that.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
        Senator Markey. Mr. Rosen, you have 1 minute.
        Mr. Rosen. Thank you very much, and thank you for holding
    this hearing today. I think it has been very useful for the
    American people.
        I would say there is a point of agreement here that all
    modes do need to be cleaned up. But trucks are being cleaned
    up. There are new regulations coming for heavy trucks, et
    cetera. We need to have this for rail also.
        I also would agree we want to move more off of the roads
    and onto rail, absolutely. Both passenger and freight needs to
    be done. But it needs to be done with an understanding that
    rails are going to be as clean as possible.
        We just don't see that is going to happen, given the
    structure of the rail industry, without Federal and State
    governments taking steps to ensure that it happens. So we are
    in favor of the EPA allowing States to set higher standards.
    But we would really love to see the EPA set higher standards at
    the Federal level, and we would love to see Congress take
    action on this overall, and to assist in making sure this
    happens.
        Last, I will say, I am apparently a lot more optimistic, as
    somebody who has actually spent my life around manufacturing,
    in the know-how of American companies to build the things that
    need to be built. Because I have heard a lot of excuses here as
    to why things just can't get done. We have good old American
    know-how. Everything that needs to be done has already been
    shown it can be done or will be in production very shortly. We
    should be looking ahead and making sure those get into place.
        Senator Markey. Ms. Torres, you have the final word.
        Ms. Torres. Thank you all for today. I hope we are
    committed to working together as Congress, as community
    members, as the Class One rails, as workers, to move the EPA
    toward the Tier 5 emissions standards all across the Nation.
        We heard it by several folks that it can't just be a State
    entity doing it. I would also urge EPA and for Congress to urge
    EPA to allow our [inaudible] in California and to follow that
    for the rest of our communities in the network and across the
    13 million that are working and living, dealing with cancer
    risk. Up to 22 years of their lives being taken out because we
    continue to run, again, zero, one and two rail in this Country.
        We are not against the rail or the freight system. We are
    made from that system. We just want to be alive to keep
    sustaining that system in a more cleaner and electric way. It
    is the future. We can't allow for only trucks and other modes
    to move toward electric and zero emissions. We need our rail
    systems, who have hardly any regulations, to move in that
    direction. Our communities' lives should not be put into a
    price.
        Thank you.
        Senator Markey. Thank you so much, Ms. Torres. Thank you to
    all of our witnesses.
        I will turn to Senator Ricketts for a closing statement.
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you very much, Chairman Markey, for
    holding this important hearing to talk about what the rail
    industry is doing with regard to innovation and reducing
    emissions.
        I do think it is important that as we think about the
    regulations that we don't do things that are going to have
    unintended consequences. While I am very confident in American
    know-how and ingenuity, we have to be able to plan. The reason
    we are successful is because we plan to be successful, not
    because we throw out things and see if it can happen.
        In fact, when you talk about the heavy trucks, in my
    conversations with Michael Regan at the EPA and Joseph Goffman,
    there has not been done any planning to figure out how we are
    going to address some of the issues, like two 8,000-pound
    batteries in a truck that is hauling freight which cuts its
    freight capacity in half, which means then you need to have
    twice as many trucks and twice as many truck drivers, when we
    have a shortage of truck drivers as it is.
        So I think there are issues that have to think through and
    be reasonable about what kind of timeframe we can actually
    expect. I think that is one of the things we found for the rail
    industry here today, is that while we all broadly have the same
    goal, reducing emissions, how we go about it and what kind of
    regulations are put in place to do that will have unintended
    consequences that could have adverse effects that need to be
    thought through and planned out.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I will turn it back over to you.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Senator.
        I am just going to followup for a second on what Mr. Rosen
    commented on earlier. This is a very, very profitable industry.
    Very profitable. Rail has a 41 percent operating margin, 41
    percent operating margin. Incredible. Seven billion dollars in
    net profit per year. Great business to be in 2023. And it costs
    $ million per new electric train.
        So a profit is really only what you have after you have
    already made all your necessary expenditures. Then what is left
    over is your profit.
        So if you decide to not invest in non-polluting electric
    trains, if you decide to just stick with those trains that are
    polluting, that is a decision. Therefore, your profits are
    higher.
        On the other hand, if instead of $7 billion a year,
    incredibly profitable industry, the industry only made $6
    billion a year but took $1 billion, put it into electric trains
    every year, that would be 250 new engines every year, 2,500
    over 10 years. Just $1 billion less in profits per year. Then
    the industry would be saying, well, that is the cost of doing
    business, then we take our profits after that.
        So it is a conscious decision which the industry has to
    make. I understand that there is going to be decisions that are
    made that are just totally, let's max out in terms of our own
    financial benefit, we who are the owners of the company, we who
    are running the company, we who are the principal beneficiaries
    of the wealth that is created by the company.
        But there are other responsibilities as well. And a
    responsible industry would say, yes, we know we have to do
    something about this, we are part of the community as well. And
    we can still get incredibly rich and reduce the harm that is
    caused to other people who live nearby.
        So I am a technological optimist. I believe we can do this.
    I believe that it is all there for America to be the lead. I
    believe in American innovation. I believe in American
    ingenuity. I believe in the American workers. I believe they
    can get this done for us.
        So I think that today we not only illustrated the problem,
    but illuminated the path forward. We need to modernize our
    emissions standards for locomotives to clean up our air, to
    protect the health of rail workers and communities and to
    revitalize American manufacturing and good union jobs.
        I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record additional
    materials submitted by our witnesses and stakeholders and other
    Senators that relate to today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Markey. For any Senators who wish to ask additional
    questions for the record, you will have 10 business days, until
    August 9th, 2023, at 5 p.m. in order to insert those questions,
    and then we would ask our witnesses to, in a timely fashion,
    return the answers to those questions to the committee.
        With that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:24 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                               [all]