Vinyl Institute Submits Comments in Support of Reciprocal Rail Relocation

Vinyl Institute Submits Comments in Support of Reciprocal Rail Relocation

 

On Feb. 14, the Vinyl Institute filed public comments with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) urging the Board to support reciprocal rail switching to improve supply chain logistics and increase competition for manufacturers currently serviced by only one rail company.  The STB will hold a public hearing on this issue on March 15 and 16, 2022, on the practice after the proposed rule introduced new regulations that would require the Board to require rail carriers to establish new switching agreements under certain circumstances.  The Staggers Act of 1980 specifically authorizes the Board to grant reciprocal switching when it is in the public interest or necessary to provide competitive rail service.  The Board’s existing rules impose such high regulatory hurdles that no shipper has ever been able to successfully request switching.

 

The Vinyl Institute told the Board that reliability is important to our members.  “Many of our members’ facilities are served by a single class I rail carrier.  Not only are these facilities subject to substantially higher rail rates than facilities that have rail competition, but the lack of shipping options can mean they receive less reliable service.  Reliability is particularly important to our members, because many of them produce vinyl and plastic resin used for medical devices and in healthcare settings.  As such, rail shipping delays have the potential to create serious consequences across the healthcare supply chain and throughout other critical industries” VI President and CEO Ned Monroe submitted for the Board.

 

Today’s rail industry is vastly different from that of the 1980s, leaving companies with far fewer competitive options.  The VI pointed to the Board’s most recent annual Rail Rate Index Study that shows that real rail rates (adjusted for inflation) have increased 30 percent since 2004.  Many shippers remain captive to their railroad, even when reciprocal switching could help relieve railroad service disruptions and congestion.

 

 

Congress Down to the Wire on Extending a Stopgap Bill

While the House is out on a committee workweek, the Senate has spent the week working through multiple complications in taking up a three-week stopgap bill that would fund the government through March 11, before funding expires at midnight Friday.  Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are currently negotiating a deal that would allow votes on several amendments being demanded by Republicans.  While both leaders have publicly announced that they will not allow funding to lapse, it will be difficult for Democrats to decide whether to allow amendments to be considered under a 51 or 60 vote threshold.  With Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), recovering from a stroke and other Democratic Senators out, their wafer-thin majority is now in the negative and there is a possibility that some of the amendments could pass.  Both the Senate and House will be out next week for the President’s Day recess.

 

House Environmental Justice Bill Divides Panel

 

The House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing Feb. 15 on the Democrats’ environmental justice bill, the Environmental Justice for All Act (H.R. 2021), which plunged into partisan disputes as Republicans accused Democrats of choosing “divisiveness” over working together on viable policy solutions.  The quick split between the panels’ two caucuses proves that the legislation, originally part of the Build Back Better Act, has a tough road ahead as a stand-alone bill requiring 60 votes in the Senate  The bill would require federal agencies to consider disparate impacts when issuing permits, codify existing Federal environmental justice (EJ) initiatives, seek a shift away from fossil fuels, ensure more equitable access to parks and outdoor recreation opportunities, and reverse a Supreme Court ruling that discrimination lawsuits must prove the act was intentional.

 

Chairman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the bill’s sponsor, and other Democrats say the EJ bill is critical to protecting minority  communities from unscrupulous industrial interests. Democrats also want to measure to address “the cumulative impacts of pollution” – which is not a metric currently in place under the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.  However, Republicans were quick to point out every one of  the Democratic witnesses were supporters of the bill, but Democrats did not invite a single government official responsible for implementing the bill to testify. The implication being that implementing such a program would difficult to administer and legally perilous.

 

Rep. Pete Sauber (R-MN), who stepped in as ranking Member for the day, complained that the bill “misses the mark” and opens the door for special interest groups to use overreach to stop businesses and that it creates duplicative regulatory processes that will end up hurting U.S. manufacturing and workers.  Sauber argues that many at-risk communities will miss the opportunity to modernize their infrastructure, create jobs and attract investment.  In addition, Sauber criticized the new fees on the oil, gas, and coal industries which would cause further job losses and subject the U.S. to energy and national security issues.

 

Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA) asserted that the Democrats were  trying to “drive a wedge” into the country. He told the  committee he lives closer to more oil, gas, and chemical facilities than anyone else at the hearing, “and I’m not out here yelling about discrimination.  I choose to live here” in southern Louisiana.  Rep. Donald McEachin (D-VA), a cosponsor of the EJ bill, responded by saying   “He (Graves) chooses to live where he lives and has the resources to move or not.  Many people in environmental justice communities do not have those resources.”

 

 

Republicans also complained about what they considered hypocrisy, such as Chairman Grijalva pushing legislation requiring consultation with residents on environmental impacts but recently failing to do so on a local oil project in Alaska, or Democrats in favor of raw materials produced by slave labor, but prohibiting domestic production in their districts due to environmental concerns.

The hearing comes just as  the Biden administration  announced it will not use race as a factor in its climate and economic justice screening tool, which the White House is still developing.  Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), said officials are concerned that using race as a factor in identifying and supporting disadvantaged communities could trigger legal challenges that could cripple the effort.

 

Biden Administration Announces a Global Agreement on Plastics

The U.S. and France issued a joint statement Feb. 11 at the One Ocean Summit in which both countries pledged to recognize “the transboundary aspects of plastic pollution and the importance of curbing it at its source,” and therefore “support launching negotiations at the upcoming 5th UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) on a global agreement to address the full lifecycle of plastics and promote a circular economy.” As part of the agreement, the Biden administration says it will agree to binding and voluntary commitments, call on countries to develop and implement ambitious national action plans and encourage strong stakeholder engagement to contribute toward the agreement’s objectives while complementing the contributions of national governments to limit global plastic pollution.