That's the kind of letter I'd expect ARB to write; perhaps they drafted it? In any case, no legislative aide would know enough to adequately correct that letter anyway. Agree that it makes the Cal Legislature look batshit insane, but to a significant degree it is; it's just embarassing to have that demonstrated so clearly.

Yes, ARB. They hate, for some reason, traditional electrification, even though that's the most efficient way to power electric railroads and the only practical way to get enough power to operate at truly high speeds. The efficiency and pollution level (which of course vary wildly, depending on what turns the generators) of generating power in the first place sets a ceiling on efficiency; any conversion or storage after that, whether by electrolysis producing and delivering hydrogen or storage in a battery, introduces losses, plus of course whatever losses, weight issues, and other issues exist in the vehicles. So if we can use overhead wire to deliver the power, that should be done. But ARB in its wisdom (cough...) doesn't count overhead wire-powered trolley buses (or, it now seems, rail vehicles of any type) as "electric" for purposes of its dump-diesel mandate. Oh well ...

Luckily, most transit agencies are ignoring ARB. At the present state of technology, for rail at least, anything other than overhead-wire electric or diesel is experimental at best. All because somebody doesn't like to look at wires above tracks or the street? Or is into magical thinking about hydrogen and batteries because they've drunk the Tesla koolaid and it's the future for everything?