I think the notify-for-every-train bit went away in the final version of the bill, but the rest of the stuff is busywork that (applying tinfoil hat) is intended to make life difficult for railroads in hopes that they will decide that running oil trains is too much trouble. Oh yes, and adding a "fee" too. The fact that it's the DEMAND for oil, and the fact that using it will stabilize if not lower gas prices, is what generates the need for oil trains, seems to have slipped the politicians' tiny minds. Or has it - maybe if "they" think preventing use of domestic oil can make it cost enough that people won't drive so much the stone age can return sooner? Remember: almost all (state, at least) legislation is written by lobbyists, not the legislators or their staff.

The Guv could have (and probably did, some time ago) directed OES and others with an interest in the subject to develop response plans based on data about origins, destinations, and likely routes of trains carrying hazardous materials (not just oil) - which if asked nicely and with suitable security/confidentiality protections the railroads would probably have been happy to help with. That's what executive branch agencies are for - developing information and plans (and occasionally regulations, but OES isn't in that business). Legislation was not necessary. But that's over the dam - a court will now decide; in accordance with separation of powers, it will review the legislation and determine whether it's constitutional. Even if it's a California-based court (as the District and if necessary Appellate review would be), the Fed court system is less influenced by local crazies than you might think.