Opinion ID: 186699
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Operating Plan

Text: 39 BNSF contends the Board should have dismissed Xcel's complaint either (1) when BNSF, in its motion to dismiss, identified what it described as obvious, elementary, and fundamental errors in Xcel's operating plan, which assumed trains would travel at unrealistic speeds on the SARR, or (2) in its decision on the merits, when the Board instead substituted BNSF's proposed operating plan, with slower estimated train speeds and higher estimated costs, for Xcel's flawed plan. 40 First, the Board denied BNSF's threshold motion to dismiss after reviewing Xcel's SAC presentation and concluding the errors in Xcel's operating plan, upon which the motion to dismiss was based, appeared to be readily correctable without a significant redesign of the SARR and were not so large in magnitude or so egregious as to warrant dismissing the complaint at that early stage. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. d/b/a Xcel Energy v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry., STB Docket No. 42057, 2003 WL 1788666, 2 (STB served April 4, 2003). The Board later explained that Xcel had made out a prima facie case by virtue of its good faith effort to present reasonable evidence on all of the basic components of the SAC test. Decision II, at 6. BNSF argues that by permitting Xcel to proceed with an admittedly flawed operating plan, the Board relieved Xcel of its burden of proving every element of its claim. 41 Although Xcel does bear the burden of persuasion, see Coal Rate Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d at 547 ([T]he complainant must demonstrate that the challenged rate is unreasonable), the complainant's initial presentation need not be flawless in order to resist a motion to dismiss. See 49 U.S.C. § 11701(b) (requiring dismissal of the complaint if it does not state reasonable grounds for investigation and action); McCarty Farms v. Burlington N., Inc., ICC Docket No. 37809, 1995 WL 55449, 8 (ICC served Feb. 1, 1995) (Unless the model is patently incapable of meeting the shipper's needs, we will presume that the stand-alone system is feasible unless and until its feasibility is challenged in the railroad's case-in-chief). Because of the sheer size of a SAC presentation, it will almost inevitably have some flaws to which the carrier can point. Therefore, we do not think the Board unreasonably refused to dismiss Xcel's complaint merely because its presentation was less than perfect. See Decision II, at 5 (Were we to entertain only those rate complaints where the railroad could not poke holes in the operating plan devised by the shipper for its SARR, almost every rate challenge [would have to be dismissed]). 42 Second, the Board's substitution for Xcel's flawed operating plan of a modified version of BNSF's own plan, did not relieve Xcel of the need to prove BNSF's rates were unreasonable. Rather the Board concluded that Xcel could and did meet its burden by using evidence submitted by (and more favorable to) BNSF. So long as the record supports that conclusion, BNSF has no cause to complain about the source of the evidence. Cf. Consol. Edison Co. v. FERC, 165 F.3d 992, 1008 (D.C.Cir.1999) ([T]he burden of proof requirement ... relates to the burden of persuasion ..., not to the burden of production, and thus the identity of the party submitting evidence is not dispositive). 43