Case Title: BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY. v. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1985-04-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY. v. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WYOMING1985 WY 55698 P.2d 1135Case Number: 84-179Decided: 04/25/1985Supreme Court of Wyoming

BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD 
COMPANY, APPELLANT (PETITIONER), 

v. 

THE PUBLIC SERVICE 
COMMISSION OF WYOMING, APPELLEE (RESPONDENT).

Rehearing Denied May 24, 
1985.

 
 

Appeal from the Public 
Service Commission.

 
 

Julie Nye 
Tiedeken of Godfrey & Sundahl, Cheyenne, for appellant.

A.G. McClintock, 
Atty. Gen., Steven R. Shanahan, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Hubbard, Asst. 
Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for 
appellee.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and 
ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

BROWN, Justice.

[¶1.]     This appeal seeks 
review of an administrative action of appellee Public Service Commission 
(hereinafter PSC). Appellant Burlington Northern Railroad Company (hereinafter 
Burlington Northern) sought removal of a switch located in Sheridan. The PSC granted 
the request, but also ordered that the switch be moved to a safer location and 
that the present service to customers located on the industrial spur track 
served by the switch be maintained. Burlington Northern appeals that part of the 
PSC's order requiring the relocation of the switch.

[¶2.]     We will modify the 
PSC's order requiring Burlington Northern to relocate the switch and affirm in 
all other respects.

[¶3.]     Appellant Burlington 
Northern raises the following issues:

"I. Whether the findings 
and conclusions of the commission are unsupported by substantial 
evidence.

"II. Whether the order of 
the commission is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not 
in accordance with law.

"III. Whether the 
findings and conclusions of law are inadequate as a matter of law."

[¶4.]     Appellee PSC words the 
issues a bit differently:

"(1) Are the findings of 
fact and conclusions of law of the commission supported by substantial evidence 
and has the appellant sustained its burden of proving a lack of substantial 
evidence?

"(2) Did the appellant 
sustain its burden of proving a lack of public convenience and necessity for 
continued service along Track 20?

"(3) Does the 
commission's order provide for basic fact finding, which provided the underlying 
facts upon which the commission's conclusions are drawn?"

I

[¶5.]     Burlington Northern 
filed a request with the PSC requesting the removal of a switch located in 
Sheridan. The 
switch is located on a main track passing through downtown and provides access 
to Track 20, an industrial spur track.1 Burlington Northern sought removal 
of the switch for safety and economic reasons. The switch is located on a curve, 
and trains passing over it are required to slow down to approximately fifteen 
miles per hour. This slow speed has caused traffic congestion in the downtown 
area. With the switch removed, replaced with a safe switch, or relocated on a 
straight portion of the track, trains could pass through the area at 
approximately 25 miles per hour, thus alleviating part of the traffic congestion 
problem.

[¶6.]     Additionally, there 
have been three caboose derailments in the past year and a half at the switch 
location. Furthermore, there were two derailments in 1983 which destroyed the 
switch. While the switch did not directly cause the derailments, it compounded 
the accidents by allowing more cars to derail. Presently, the switch is out of 
service and has not been replaced since the last derailment. Removal of the 
switch, or replacement with a safer switch, would greatly reduce the danger of 
derailment.

[¶7.]     There has been a 
significant increase in the amount of train traffic passing through the area in 
which the switch is located. In 1981, a study indicated approximately fourteen 
trains per day passed through the area. As of January, 1984, the traffic had 
increased to approximately 42 to 45 trains per day.

[¶8.]     A Burlington Northern 
engineer testified it would cost approximately $78,000 to relocate the switch to 
a tangent track and still provide access to Track 20. It is Burlington 
Northern's contention that the revenues generated from the present limited use 
of Track 20 do not warrant the cost of the switch relocation.

[¶9.]     The following table 
reflects the number of railroad cars received and forwarded by three companies 
located on Track 20.



 
 
1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

NORTHERN 
      SEED

10

4

1

1

0

SHERIDAN 
      COMMERCIAL

18

17

13

0

6

VALLEY 
      MOTORS

0

1

2

2

2

The amount of 
income generated to Burlington Northern from the cars on Track 20 from 1979 to 
1983 is as follows:



 
 
1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

NORTHERN 
      SEED

13,149

5,563

1,040

1,205

-0-

SHERIDAN 
      COMMERCIAL

40,009

41,672

42,900

-0-

19,800

VALLEY 
      MOTORS

-0-

2,515

6,030

6,414

7,499

It should be 
noted that Valley Motors did not begin business until June, 1980.

[¶10.]  Burlington Northern offered to sell Track 
20 to the commercial customers whose property abuts the track, but the offer was 
refused for economic reasons. Several businesses served by Track 20 protested 
the removal of the switch: Northern Seed Company, Sheridan Commercial Company, 
L.H. Brooks Realty Co., Mac's Delivery and Storage, N.O. Nelson Company, and 
Valley Motor Supply. Burlington Northern proposed that the businesses no longer 
served by the spur track after removal of the switch could use a team track 
located some three to four blocks away.2

[¶11.]  Officials for Northern Seed Company 
testified they have not used the spur track greatly in the past couple of years 
due to the high expense of rail shipments compared to lower trucking rates. In 
the past, however, they used rail shipments for all of their fertilizer and 
roughly 80 percent of their feed. They plan on using the railroad again in the 
future if rail rates become comparable to trucking rates. Northern Seed has 
undertaken a costly construction project to modify their building to facilitate 
rail delivery. Northern Seed officials testified they would probably never use 
the team track because only sacked material could be handled there and this 
constitutes roughly 50 percent of their shipments. Furthermore, the sacked 
material would have to be loaded onto trucks to be hauled the three to four 
blocks to the building.

[¶12.]  The manager of Sheridan Commercial Supply 
testified his facility and Northern Seed were the only two bulk-grain facilities 
in town. Thus, if rail service to Track 20 is ended, there will be no bulk-grain 
facilities to serve Sheridan. Sheridan Commercial shipped six rail 
cars in 1983 for a total revenue to Burlington Northern of $19,800. Sheridan 
Commercial has relied heavily on rail service in the past, and will use it again 
in the future if it has sufficient grain to ship.

[¶13.]  The owner/operator of Mac's Delivery and 
Storage testified they unload pool cars for various merchants in the city. The 
business was purchased because of its accessibility to the railroad track. In 
the past, Mac's Delivery handled up to ten cars per year for various merchants, 
but that figure has dropped significantly in recent times due to increased rail 
rates compared to lower trucking rates. Like the other businesses located on 
Track 20, Mac's Delivery will use the track more if rail rates become more 
competitive with trucking rates. Mac's Delivery has unloaded cars on the team 
track but finds it is inconvenient for items to be stored in their warehouse, 
which is located along Track 20.

[¶14.]  The president of Valley Motor Supply 
testified the company's one-half million dollar building was constructed along 
Track 20 to facilitate rail shipments. Valley Motor Supply can receive its clay 
material only by rail, which comes from the Carolinas. If forced to use the team track, the company 
would have to haul the clay by truck to its facility, at great inconvenience and 
expense. The president of Valley Motor Supply testified it would take forty 
pickup loads to move the material to the business location. Valley Motor Supply 
began business in June of 1980, and in that year received one carload of clay 
material. Since then, Valley Motor has received two carloads per year resulting 
in gross revenues to Burlington Northern in excess of $19,000. Valley Motor 
Supply estimates its rail shipments will increase in the future as such product 
is necessary to the coal mining industry.

[¶15.]  The president and manager of N.O. Nelson 
Company testified his business is equipped to receive rail shipments of steel 
pipe and other equipment from Track 20, but the seller of the pipe has shipped 
by truck instead of rail for the past ten years. The reason for choosing truck 
freight is due to economical considerations, but rail shipment is more 
convenient for the company and the value of the property would be decreased in 
the event rail service is terminated.

[¶16.]  A hearing was held and the PSC 
subsequently rendered its decision, finding:

"1. The application of 
Burlington Northern Railroad Company to remove a switch located in Sheridan, Wyoming is approved.

"2. It is further ordered 
that Applicant shall continue to serve customers located on Track 20 in 
Sheridan, Wyoming, and that it shall relocate the switch 
so that service will be maintained.

"3. This order is 
effective immediately."

Burlington 
Northern appeals from that part of the order requiring them to continue serving 
the businesses located on Track 20.

II

[¶17.]  The scope of our review of an appeal from 
an administrative action is directed by § 16-3-114, W.S. 1977.3 Under that statute, we are bound to 
review the entire record to see if the agency's action is supported by 
substantial evidence. If so, we must uphold the agency's actions and not 
substitute our judgment for that of the agency's. Mountain Fuel Supply Company v. Public 
Service Commission of Wyoming, Wyo., 662 P.2d 878 (1983); McCulloch Gas Transmission Company v. Public 
Service Commission of Wyoming, Wyo., 627 P.2d 173 (1981); Williams v. Public Service Commission of 
Wyoming, Wyo., 626 P.2d 564, cert. denied 454 U.S. 896, 102 S. Ct. 394, 70 L. Ed. 2d 211 (1981); Board of Trustees of 
School District No. 4, Big Horn County v. Colwell, Wyo., 611 P.2d 427 
(1980). Substantial evidence has been defined "as such relevant evidence as a 
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Board of Trustees, LaramieCountySchool 
District No. 1 v. Spiegel, Wyo., 549 P.2d 1161, 1178 (1976), quoting Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 
383 U.S. 607, 86 S. Ct. 1018, 16 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1966). Substantial evidence may indeed be less than the great weight of the 
evidence, but is more than a mere scintilla of evidence, Mountain Fuel Supply Company v. Public 
Service Commission of Wyoming, supra, at 882. The possibility of drawing two 
inconsistent conclusions from the evidence presented does not preclude the 
agency's conclusion from being supported by substantial evidence. Board of Trustees, LaramieCountySchool 
District No. 1 v. Spiegel, supra. The burden is 
on appellant to prove arbitrary, illegal or fraudulent action by the agency. 
Wyoming Bancorporation v. Bonham, Wyo., 
527 P.2d 432 (1974), 563 P.2d 1382 (1977), reh. denied 566 P.2d 219 
(1977).

[¶18.]  Applying those principles to the present 
case, we find there was substantial evidence upon which the PSC could find as it 
did. It is clear from our review of the record that the location of the switch 
presented a safety hazard and required removal or relocation, or installation of 
a safer switch at the present location. In its decision the PSC 
stated:

"* * * As to the switch, 
there can be little doubt but that it should be relocated. The Commission is 
satisfied that its present location in the curve of the track in Sheridan is a safety hazard and lends itself to congestion 
in the City of Sheridan. Removal or relocation of the switch 
itself will allow rail traffic speed to increase and reduce congestion at 
certain intersections by as much as 70%. In addition, the Commission is 
persuaded by the testimony of Applicant's engineer that the switch's location in 
the curve of the track creates a greater possibility of derailment and 
accompanying property loss. The public convenience and necessity is served by 
the removal and/or relocation of the subject switch."

[¶19.]  The PSC also ordered that service to the 
industrial customers on Track 20 be continued. After careful review of the 
record, we also find such action supported by substantial evidence. As indicated 
by the facts in Part I of this opinion, there is a need for the rail service to 
Track 20 to be continued. We hold that the interests of public convenience and 
necessity will be furthered by maintaining rail service to the businesses 
located on Track 20. All the representatives of such businesses who testified at 
the hearing expressed such a desire. Additionally, the Sheridan Chamber of 
Commerce passed a resolution officially endorsing the continuance of rail 
service to Track 20. The mayor of Sheridan also testified on behalf of the 
protestant businesses that there would be a negative economic impact on the 
affected businesses if rail service was terminated.

[¶20.]  The PSC found that Burlington Northern's 
main interest in removing the switch altogether was due to increased traffic 
congestion on the track, not the limited revenues generated by Track 
20:

"* * * The Commission is 
satisfied that Burlington Northern has failed to meet its burden in proving that 
the public convenience and necessity justify abandonment of service to the 
affected commercial customers.

* * * * * * 

"The Commission is 
satisfied that Burlington Northern's primary impetus in applying for the switch 
removal was not because of the decreased rail use by their commercial customers, 
but because of increased rail traffic coursing through the downtown Sheridan area. Having 
identified a need to remove the switch from its present location, Applicant does 
not now feel justified in relocating the switch to a different location given 
the present level of traffic to the commercial customers.

* * * * * *

"* * * [T]otal revenues 
for the three companies given by the Applicant were $27,299 for 1983 as against 
$53,138 from 1979. Clearly, there has been a reduction of rail traffic from this 
industrial spur but the railroad is still receiving significant revenues from 
the commercial customers located there. The record does not reflect the yearly 
expenses experienced by Applicant in maintaining the industrial spur, although a 
witness for the Applicant testified that the spur was in excellent condition and 
required little annual maintenance given the reduced traffic levels. * * 
*"

[¶21.]  The PSC further found that the interests 
of public convenience and necessity would be furthered by the maintenance of 
service to Track 20. And since Burlington Northern sought removal of the switch 
to further its own purposes, the PSC stated it should pay for its 
relocation:

"As the primary 
motivation for the removal of the switch is attributable to the needs of the 
railroad, Applicant shall be required to provide continuing service to the 
commercial customers. As stated by the Wyoming Supreme Court, the critical issue 
in any service abandonment is the balancing between the public good, its 
convenience and necessity against railroad expense. In this case, though the 
railroad will be required to expend money to relocate its switch, it is being 
required to accomplish this, not because of reduced traffic on the industrial 
spur, but because of the need to expedite the increased traffic on its main 
line.

* * * * * *

"* * * The switch was 
located in the curvage of the track in 1917 by the railroad, and maintained by 
the railroad company to the present while commercial customers relied on the 
railroad's positioning of the switch and the spur track, the cost of the switch 
relocation should be borne by the cost causer or Applicant itself."

[¶22.]  In the case of Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Public 
Service Commission of Wyoming, Wyo., 518 P.2d 23 (1974), Union Pacific sought 
permission to close the railroad station in Burns because of poor business. Such 
request was denied by the PSC and affirmed by this court. We addressed the issue 
of profitability, stating, "While it is true that the profitability aspect * * * 
is not controlling but merely one element to be viewed along with various others 
* * *"; but we concluded that the paramount consideration in determining whether 
a service should be discontinued was public good, convenience and 
necessity.

"* * * Our research leads 
us to believe that for practical purposes the correct rule is that if the public 
good, its convenience and necessity, outweighs the expense of the railroad in 
continuing such agency the commission is justified in denying the request for 
closing. [Citations.]

"Some evidence was 
presented to the commission purporting to show that there would be future 
development in the Burns area and that lack of an agency would impede this. That 
feature although conceivably pivotal in some situations would be superfluous to 
any decision where the public's present necessity and convenience is clear. 
Accordingly, the paramount question before us is whether or not the public 
convenience and necessity require that the agency station remain at Burns; and 
it is basic that the burden of proving lack is upon the carrier seeking 
discontinuance of the agency. [Citation.]" Id., at 25.

See also, Chicago & North Western Railway Company 
v. Public Service Commission of Wyoming, 79 Wyo. 343, 334 P.2d 519 (1959).

[¶23.]  We believe the PSC's order should be 
modified to the effect that Burlington Northern should be given a choice as to 
how continued service to Track 20 should be facilitated. We agree with the PSC 
that there is clearly a need for continued service to Track 20, but we do not 
believe the PSC had authority to order Burlington Northern to relocate the 
switch; that decision should be left with the railroad. If Burlington Northern 
feels a safer switch can be placed in the same position as the old, sobeit. If 
the railroad wishes to relocate the switch, this too should be their decision. 
Normally, the PSC is only in the posture of approving or disapproving requests; 
it cannot generally order a public utility to serve a certain area. See, e.g., 
Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. State 
of Nebraska, 217 U.S. 196, 30 S. Ct. 461, 54 L. Ed. 727 
(1910), where a Nebraska statute requiring a railroad to build a spur track to 
reach grain elevators erected adjacent to its right of way at the railroad's 
expense was held a denial of due process and unconstitutional under the 
Fourteenth Amendment. See also Chicago, 
M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Board of Railroad Com'rs., 76 Mont. 305, 247 P. 162 
(1926).

[¶24.]  The PSC's order is modified insofar as it 
requires Burlington Northern to relocate the switch. There was substantial 
evidence upon which the PSC determined that service should be continued to Track 
20. Burlington Northern can relocate the switch, or rebuild a safe switch in its 
present location to continue service to Track 20. What we have said previously 
disposes of appellant's claim that the findings of the PSC were "arbitrary, 
capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law," 
and we are satisfied with the adequacy of the findings of fact and conclusions 
of law.

[¶25.]  Modified and affirmed.

1 Spur track is defined as 
"a track that diverges from a main line." Webster's Third New International 
Dictionary, p. 2213 (1966).

2 Team track is defined as 
"a siding with public access on which freight cars are placed for loading or 
unloading by shippers and consignees." Webster's Third New International 
Dictionary, p. 2346 (1966).

3 Section 16-3-114, W.S. 
1977, reads:

"(a) Subject to the 
requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted and in the absence of any 
statutory or common-law provision precluding or limiting judicial review, any 
person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by a final decision of an agency 
in a contested case, or by other agency action or inaction, or any person 
affected in fact by a rule adopted by an agency, is entitled to judicial review 
in the district court for the county in which the administrative action or 
inaction was taken, or in which any real property affected by the administrative 
action or inaction is located, or if no real property is involved, in the 
district court for the county in which the party aggrieved or adversely affected 
by the administrative action or inaction resides or has its principal place of 
business. The procedure to be followed in the proceeding before the district 
court shall be in accordance with rules heretofore or hereinafter adopted by the 
Wyoming 
supreme court.

"(b) The supreme court's 
authority to adopt rules governing review from agencies to the district courts 
shall include authority to determine the content of the record upon review, the 
pleadings to be filed, the time and manner for filing the pleadings, records and 
other documents and the extent to which supplemental testimony and evidence may 
be taken or considered by the district court. The rules adopted by the supreme 
court under this provision may supersede existing statutory 
provisions.

"(c) To the extent 
necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall 
decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory 
provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency 
action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole 
record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of 
the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

"(i) Compel agency action 
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and

"(ii) Hold unlawful and 
set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be:

"(A) Arbitrary, 
capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with 
law;

"(B) Contrary to 
constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;

"(C) In excess of 
statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory 
right;

"(D) Without observance 
of procedure required by law; or

"(E) Unsupported by 
substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing 
provided by statute."