That's not a bad article. Fairly describes both sides in a limited amount of space, with enough jibes at both sides to keep it interesting.

NCRA isn't the only public railroad in CA that has used the preemption (or at least CEQA exemption) line. A key point in the ones I've seen is that they are operating railroads under FRA regulation (which NCRA technically is too, given activity at the south end) with actual right of way owned and previously developed (even if out of service so long the tinworms are starting to consider leaving California). If they are doing things within that right of way they clearly meet the basic terms for several exemptions, at least. I wonder how CAHSR is doing it, though, absent turning wheels other than construction equipment on any of the line, but they have high-priced lawyers to deal with that and now that construction has started can at least make an argument about being an operating railroad with right of way.

Unlike the tone of the article, I don't think dealing with CEQA is a death knell for HSR if the S.C. falls that way. They did Tier-1 CEQA documents for the planning work, and can do Tier-2's for the real work if they have to. It's not rocket science. But it does take time and (a lot of, if you include legal defense) money, neither of which are abundant. Things would be a lot cleaner if they only have to deal with FRA's NEPA stuff.

For NCRA, it's a little more existential - if they can barely keep the lights on and phone hooked up now, what happens if they have to do big CEQA documents for anything they propose and deal with the interminable lawsuits that accompany them? IMO they could still claim exemptions for a lot of stuff, but then they would have to defend that which is not easy in hostile courts.