Surface Transportation Board – no decision yet, but 2 new letters pro and con

By Roger Straw, August 5, 2016

STB logoChecking today on the Surface Transportation Board’s website, I found two new letters from stakeholders commenting on Valero’s petition for a declaratory order.  Both were filed after the July 8 deadline for comments.

letter dated June 18 but filed on July 14 represents the view of Qep Energy, a “crude oil producer in the Williston Basin of North Dakota and has been a consistent supplier to Valero Refining and Marketing for several years.”  The letter supports Valero’s petition and requests that the STB “institute a proceeding and grant Valero’s Petition affirming its right to receive rail service.”

A second letter dated July 11 and filed on July 27, was sent by the League of California Cities, and urges the STB “to deny Valero’s Petition for Declaratory Order because it is an overbroad interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act and would have significant and detrimental impacts on local land use authority over non-rail carriers.”

Below are links to these letters.

Note that the Benicia City Council has asked the STB for an expedited decision on Valero’s request, and has set September 20 as the date for its next hearing on Valero’s Crude by Rail proposal. Local opponents continue to urge City Council members to take a deeply critical look and vote to deny this dirty and dangerous proposal.

Date Docket # ID Filed For Type Case Title
7/27/2016 FD_36036_0 241198 League Of California Cities Comment VALERO REFINING COMPANY- PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER