Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Freight Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee lays over bill to add crude soybean oil to special-product permit; labor and rail groups raise safety and competition concerns
Summary
Representative Schwartz’s bill to add crude soybean oil to Minnesota’s specialty farm-product permit statute was laid over after proponents said it would reduce truck trips and opponents — Teamsters and regional railroads — raised safety and competitive concerns.
Representative Rod Schwartz asked the committee to add crude soybean oil to Minnesota Statute 169.865’s list of qualifying products under the specialty farm product permit statute; the panel laid House File 2665 over after competing testimony from agriculture processors, labor and rail interests.
Jake Hamlin, director of state government affairs for CHS, said CHS invested in expanded soybean-processing capacity and that adding crude soybean oil to the statute would let companies move product “more efficiently with fewer trucks from Fairmont to Mankato.” Hamlin told the committee the change could reduce truck traffic on the corridor and strengthen soybean processing in the state.
Labor and rail witnesses opposed the change. Hannah Allstead, political director for Teamsters Joint Council 32, said the union opposed special-truck-weight exemptions because “heavier trucks on Minnesota roads pose a safety threat to those driving them and to all of us who drive next to them.” Amber Backus of the Minnesota Regional Railroads Association told the committee that incremental weight exemptions change the economics of freight movement and could advantage trucking over rail and urged a fuller review of highway safety and infrastructure impacts before expanding exemptions.
Committee chairs and members discussed route specifics and whether rail provided a viable alternative for the 50-mile segment discussed by proponents. Testimony noted CHS’s estimate that the Fairmont–Mankato corridor currently lacks a direct rail option for the movement proponents described.
The bill was laid over for further consideration so the counties and agency partners named in testimony can continue evaluating route, safety and infrastructure implications.
Sections of note
- Proponent argument: adding crude soybean oil would reduce truck trips and support increased local processing capacity. - Opponent argument: heavier trucks increase safety risk and accelerate road and bridge wear; rail advocates said cumulative exemptions shift freight to trucking.
Action
- House File 2665: A1 amendment adopted; bill laid over for possible inclusion.
