News & Reviews News Wire Utah bill aimed at Union Pacific switch engines placed on hold

Utah bill aimed at Union Pacific switch engines placed on hold

By Trains Staff | March 2, 2022

| Last updated on March 22, 2024


Legislation’s sponsor cites ‘productive’ conversations over pollution issues at yard in Salt Lake City

Yellow locomotives
Utah’s legislature has placed on hold a bill aimed at requiring Union Pacific to use reduced-emission switch engines in Salt Lake City. An earlier example of an effort to reduce locomotive emissions, a Railpower RP20BD genset unit, works in Dolton, Ill., in 2016. David Lassen

SALT LAKE CITY — A Utah bill which would require Union Pacific to use less-polluting locomotives in a Salt Lake City yard has been placed on hold at the request of the legislation’s sponsor, who says there have been “productive” conversations with the railroad.

The Deseret News reports state Rep. Mike Schultz, the House majority leader, asked the Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee to hold HB405.

Schultz said the railroad had agreed to remove three Tier 0 switchers from Salt Lake City’s Roper Yard by the middle of the year, replacing them with four locomotives meeting stricter Tier 2 pollution standards, and had agreed to work with lawmakers to bring Tier 4 diesels, those meeting the strictest current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards, to the yard. UP also “expressed willingness” to test electric technology for container movement within the next year or two.

The move to place the bill on hold came just a week after the legislation — which would require UP to use electric or hydrogen fuel-cell locomotives at the yard by 2028 — received expedited movement through committee and approval by the full House [see “Utah bill would require UP use of zero-emission switchers …,” Trains News Wire, Feb. 23, 2022]. At the time, Schultz voiced complaints that the railroad wasn’t considering Salt Lake City for the battery-electric switchers it has ordered, while other legislators indicated unhappiness with the railroad’s stance on other legislation.

Share this article