[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]