References in periodicals archive ?
Unfortunately, this approach did not appear to relieve short-term coal inventory problems that deeply concerned the WCTL members.
BNSF's reply to WCTL's petition came on November 3.
3) "The board cannot grant the relief requested by WCTL because the 'vast majority' of BNSF's coal traffic moves under private contracts;" and
4) "The relief requested by WCTL would detract from its overall recovery efforts."
The backing that WCTL received over the October 31-November 19 period was incredible.
The WCTL prefers that STB use a more realistic formula, which in their mind is represented by the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).
The STB's position will be supported by AAR; WCTL's by the Alliance for Rail Competition and the Chlorine Institute.
Instead, BNSF forged ahead on its own and published Price List 6041-B, which WCTL deems an unreasonable practice because (a) it fails to inform coal shippers of the penalties they face if they fail to comply with its terms, (b) all compliance costs are placed on coal shippers, (c) all liability for use of BNSF-mandated surfactants is placed on coal shippers, and (d) the tariff cannot be lawfully applied to UP shipments.
WCTL believes the costs and benefits of coal dust mitigation should be shared fairly between BNSF and its PRB shippers.
WCTL had argued that reopening the coal dust case was appropriate because BNSF was not collaborative in developing the new tariff in violation of the March 2011 decision.
In a decision served November 22, 2011, the Board denied WCTL's request to reopen the proceeding in Docket 35305 and to institute mediation between BNSF and coal shippers regarding the BNSF new coal dust tariff.
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?
- WCTI Wind Chill Temperature Index