There are a couple of cases before the STB that could potentially result in rulings that could affect how railroads, specifically many shortlines, do business.

The first one is in regards to NWP/NCRA vs. SMART. As discussed earlier, for now the STB has accepted the status quo, but surprisingly is going to look far further into the issue - look at the list of questions they are asking in the linked document. Personally, I think that in this case it is a simple contractual issue. SMART owns the tracks in question, and the operating agreement prohibits the storage of hazardous material. I am surprised the STB is really getting involved much further, but potentially they could rule how storage cars, specifically hazardous material, are treated in the context are they part of interstate commerce or not, and to what degree they are or are not subject to regulation by state and local agencies. Best case scenario is that the STB rules that storage cars are an integral part of interstate commerce and not subject in any way to state and local restrictions or regulation, though the FRA may chime in to deal with this as far as safety regulations, real or imagined under political pressure. Worst case scenario is that the STB rules that car storage is not part of interstate commerce, making it a target to every state and local regulatory agency or NIMBY out there. If this happens to any substantial degree, this will put the several industries in a interesting situation as many railroads store or stage loaded or residue haz mat cars because the producers/receivers simply do not have the track space. In addition, a good percentage of the US car fleet is currently in storage due to lack of demand, and if local NIMBYs had there way they wouldn't be stored anywhere they might have to look at them. This could be interesting as the STB might be opening Pandora's Box, or after all this they may choose to sit it out. https://stb.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/WEBUNID/F44163E861C6BCB485258060006F8FB1?OpenDocument

A friend sent me this link that happens to be from the same day regarding a SJVR customer filing a complaint against UP for rate discrimination. To me this looks pretty blatant, and UP might be wise to quickly settle this lest the STB take this complaint up. Again, an eventual STB ruling could vary from little affect to a substantial affect regarding how Class 1's deal with shortline customers. I've worked on several shortlines where some enjoyed a decent relationship with their connections and prospered, and others that suffered because the Class 1 wanted the business for themselves or didn't want to bother at all. There is actually some pressure and proposals on this issue these days to allow greater access for customers to create additional competition. Personally I don't want to see the old ICC rules back, but something must be done to allow shortlines and their customers not to be at the mercy of the big railroads. Right now I'm hoping the STB will deal with this and slap UP up side the head for these practices and give SJVR and their customers unrestricted access to UP and BNSF. https://stb.gov/FILINGS/all.nsf/WEBUNID/265F194D44EA63E1852580600074C81B?OpenDocument