Thread by @calelectricrail

Tweeting live from a @SouthCoastAQMD webinar on a proposed Memorandum of Understanding on railyard emissions, in lieu of a regulation. AQMD is making the case that the MOU is stronger than proposed rules

@SouthCoastAQMD AQMD: "It's very variable how railroads choose to comply with CARB's rule", they are hoping increase certainty.

Yeah that's the problem, you need to require catenary, not just "zero emissions" (aka bad faith hydrogen pilots that will fail).

@SouthCoastAQMD Where's the catenary??

AQMD hopes for a "collaborative approach" with railroads on zero emissions tech - the same railroads that publicly downplay catenary, the only mature zero emissions tech for freight locomotives.

Slides touting the enforcability of the proposed MOU

Comment from Tiff from @EYCEJ slamming the MOU, saying her community wants a strong Indirect Source Rule since 2001, East Side is also plagued by freeways and warehouse pollution.

@EYCEJ Response from AQMD that they have proposed previous rail indirect source rules that have not stood up legally and not been enforcable. Seem to be trying to avoid legal challenges (like AAR lawsuit currently challenging the in-use locomotive rule).

Comment from us asking for details about the "beyond tier 4" aspect, pointing out the flaws of hydrogen for freight.

Jesse from CFASE asking for stronger rule - says zero emissions locomotives are available today (cites battery & hydrogen, not catenary), wants to AQMD to consider more categories of emissions like refueling infrastructure.

Laura & Jasmine from @EYCEJ also asking for an indirect source rule due to increased enforcability. Says MOUs don't work or have the same reporting requirements and that AQMD is going back on promises for a ISR.

.@EYCEJ has 16 people here, all with similar demands for an ISR. One speaker slams last-minute rescheduling of this meeting, complains about prioritization of railyard/industry in the process.

Fernando from Earthjustice blasts lack of transparency, overturning of 2 years of community engagement on an ISR. Says that legal challenges to previous rules were from a different legal framework, Slams lack of zero emissions targets in MOU. 1/

Points out that BNSF and Union Pacific haven't applied for federal zero-emissions funds, questions their commitment to compliance. 2/2

Comment from Brian of @RailPAC (and us) saying overhead wire is the way to go for freight rail, citing decades old domestic & international examples. Calls for strong zero-emissions regs & electrification up to Barstow. Plugs a whitepaper available here: calelectricrail.org/documents/

Emily (from ?) calling for water testing at railyards (echoing a previous comment about pollution from dry chemicals in railcars). Also wants historic preservation, mental health, allergy impacts considered, wants AQMD to do canvassing.

Theral from West Long Beach Association opposes MOU, talks about vagueness of MOU

Marven with us says MOU is vague, need ISR. Regulation of only in-basin locomotives is a large loophole, AQMD needs to work with other agencies or railroads to fix this. Public investments need to go into catenary, no one has ID'd cost of battery or H2.

Paulette from EYCEJ (?) talking about plague of illnesses around industry, says she is a cancer survivor and many ppl in the community are dying too young.

"They're all in love with the Green Goddess and our lives don't matter"

Meeting adjourned; you can email imacmillian[at]aqmd[dot]gov to provide additional comments.