 |
Re: Some thoughts about the plight of Oregon Shortlines
Author: Dave Smith
Date: 01-13-2008 - 16:45
Little Lake Listener Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exercise of eminent domain might gain the state
> ownership of the tracks (expect a legal storm and
> where would the State get the $100s of millions),
> but under the Interstate Commerce Act, only the
> STB can convey authority to use those tracks (49
> USC §10502), much less to set rates and terms of
> common carriage. STB authority over railroad
> operations is exclusive and preempts all other
> local, state and federal law.
However, the Staggers Act contains competitive caveats that the STB has not enforced. If a state such as Oregon decides to play hard ball, can the STB disprove such a takeover without risking total discredit of it's very existence?
I believe the STB would have no choice but to approve such a use of Eminent Domain if it is done so to both keep a line alive and introduce competition.
> Also, unless a
> commodity has been specifically exempted from
> regulation, any rate that is higher than 180% of
> variable cost is subject to regulation (49 USC
> §10701). If the shipper knows or suspects he is
> paying 300% of VC, that shipper can file a
> complaint with the STB. The STB recently
> simplified its regulations governing the filing of
> small rate cases, making the challenge even easier
> (49 CFR §1111).
It will be interesting to see if rate challenges increase with the reduced filing fee. There's still the issues of the amount of time a shipper must spend before a decision is rendered, plus the ever present threat of retaliation by the railroad against the shipper.
Hey, if a handful of states (led by California) can force the feds to regulate a non-pollutant like carbon dioxide as a pollutant, surely a similar handful of states which are most affected by very real rail competition issues can force the feds to further deregulate that aspect of the rail industry!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exercise of eminent domain might gain the state
> ownership of the tracks (expect a legal storm and
> where would the State get the $100s of millions),
> but under the Interstate Commerce Act, only the
> STB can convey authority to use those tracks (49
> USC §10502), much less to set rates and terms of
> common carriage. STB authority over railroad
> operations is exclusive and preempts all other
> local, state and federal law.
However, the Staggers Act contains competitive caveats that the STB has not enforced. If a state such as Oregon decides to play hard ball, can the STB disprove such a takeover without risking total discredit of it's very existence?
I believe the STB would have no choice but to approve such a use of Eminent Domain if it is done so to both keep a line alive and introduce competition.
> Also, unless a
> commodity has been specifically exempted from
> regulation, any rate that is higher than 180% of
> variable cost is subject to regulation (49 USC
> §10701). If the shipper knows or suspects he is
> paying 300% of VC, that shipper can file a
> complaint with the STB. The STB recently
> simplified its regulations governing the filing of
> small rate cases, making the challenge even easier
> (49 CFR §1111).
It will be interesting to see if rate challenges increase with the reduced filing fee. There's still the issues of the amount of time a shipper must spend before a decision is rendered, plus the ever present threat of retaliation by the railroad against the shipper.
Hey, if a handful of states (led by California) can force the feds to regulate a non-pollutant like carbon dioxide as a pollutant, surely a similar handful of states which are most affected by very real rail competition issues can force the feds to further deregulate that aspect of the rail industry!
