|SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT|
|ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. AND ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND MISSOURI & NORTHERN ARKANSAS RAILROAD COMPANY, INC.|
|Director Of Proceedings|
|DECISION GRANTED THE MOTION OF ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC., AND ENTERGY SERVICES, INC. TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THIS PROCEEDING.|
| 56 KB|
|Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 43 Seconds|
If you do not have Acrobat Reader, or if you have problems reading our files with your current version of Acrobat Reader, the latest version of Acrobat Reader is available free at www.adobe.com.
|Full Text of Decision|
40700 SERVICE DATE – APRIL 19, 2010
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
STB Docket No. 42104
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. AND ENTERGY SERVICES, INC.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Decided: April 16, 2010
The Board is granting the motion of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., and Entergy Services, Inc. (jointly, Entergy), to file a second amended complaint in this proceeding.
By decision served in this proceeding on December 30, 2009, the Board disposed of various motions filed by MNA. The Board denied MNA’s motion to dismiss Entergy’s amended complaint at that time, subject to reconsideration at a later date. In declining to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to join BNSF as an essential defendant, the Board stated, slip. op. at 4, that “[i]f Entergy subsequently determines that it desires relief that would require a Board order directed at BNSF, Entergy may seek leave to amend its complaint further to join BNSF as a defendant.” The Board also granted MNA’s request to require Entergy to make the complaint more definite − by requiring Entergy to identify the through route(s) that it seeks to prescribe in its opening statement due on April 7, 2010.
On March 11, 2010, Entergy filed a
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, tendering the second
amended complaint that it was seeking to file.
In its tendered second amended complaint, Entergy requests the same
relief requested in its first amended complaint, for the same reasons, but also
(1) joins BNSF as a defendant and (2) asks the Board to select an interchange
with BNSF at either Aurora or
On March 18, 2010, BNSF replied in opposition to Entergy’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, arguing that it should not be joined as a defendant because: (1) it has already made it clear to Entergy that it is willing to participate in a through route with MNA but (2) Entergy has failed to provide it with sufficient information to enable it to “fully evaluate” an interchange with MNA at Aurora or Lamar.
On March 22, 2010, UP filed a reply stating that it takes no position on Entergy’s motion for leave to file and that it will work with the other parties to develop any adjustments to the procedural schedule that may prove necessary.
On March 23, 2010, intervener Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation filed a statement supporting Entergy’s motion to file a second amended complaint, arguing that BNSF’s response shows that Entergy and that carrier have not been able to reach agreement on interchange outside these proceedings and that the joinder of BNSF should “facilitate the process.”
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In its decision served on December
30, 2009, the Board stated that Entergy could move to amend its complaint in
order to add BNSF as a defendant if Entergy determined that the relief it seeks
would require a Board order directed against that carrier. In its second amended complaint, Entergy has now
specified that it seeks relief in the form of a through route with an
interchange between MNA and BNSF at either Aurora or
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. Entergy’s motion to file its tendered second amended complaint is granted, and it will be considered in this docket.
2. This decision is effective on its date of service.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.