Brad Hash == Coal Trains Coming through the Little Town that Could

A ballot push by activists in Spokane, Wash., to impose local regulations on trains carrying coal and oil through the city has spurred strong opposition from the rail industry.

The Safer Spokane campaign turned in a petition this week to let voters decide whether to fine owners of rail cars carrying uncovered coal or oil that hasn't been treated to reduce its flammability.

The 5,200 signatures on the petition must be verified, and the Spokane City Council must agree to put the issue on the ballot (Energywire, May 23).

But with twice as many signatures as required for making the ballot, campaigns for and against the measure have already begun.

The stakes are high. Spokane is a critical juncture between Western coal mines, Bakken oil rigs and Pacific export terminals.

The Association of American Railroads warned Spokane last month to abandon the measure. The trade group represents the railroads with lines in Spokane — BNSF Railway Co. and Union Pacific Railroad.

...

Supporters of the fines countered that their measure was legally defensible and would not have a negative effect on the local economy. They acknowledged, however, that they faced a difficult political campaign ahead.

“We’re not going to be able to afford a lot of media,” said Jim Lee, an organizer with Safer Spokane, the group that led the signature-gathering drive that put the question on the ballot. “It’s going to be much more of a people-to-people campaign, convincing people that this is a common sense measure.”

The law would fine the owners of rail cars carrying uncovered coal and oil $261 per car, with an exception made for cargo that has been treated to reduce combustibility. Opponents to the measure have received a boost from opinions from city legal advisers, which were dubious the fines would stand up to scrutiny under the Constitution and federal law, which gives federal regulatory authorities control of freight trains crossing state lines.

City Councilman Breean Beggs, who helped draft the language of the ordinance, argues the measure is legally defensible because it tackles a safety issue that has not yet been regulated by federal agencies in order to prevent a fiery downtown derailment.