Senate committee adopts safety and timeline amendments for utility work in rail rights-of-way, tables debate on 'paralleling'
Loading...
Summary
A Senate committee adopted amendments clarifying that utilities working in railroad rights-of-way must comply with applicable federal rail safety rules and extended notice windows to 60 days for crossings and 120 days for paralleling; a proposal to strike "paralleling" was tabled until Monday, February 16 for further review.
A Senate committee on an unnamed committee docket on a bill referenced in the transcript as "Bill 4 39" on Monday considered and adopted amendments aimed at clarifying safety obligations and giving railroads and utilities more time to coordinate work in railroad rights-of-way.
Senator (S1) told the committee that the amendment “clarifies that the utility that is conducting activities in a railway right of way must, pursuant to the act, comply with any applicable federal rail safety laws and rules and regulations.” The committee moved and adopted that amendment by voice vote.
The committee then considered an amendment to extend statutory notice windows. System adviser Nick (S6) explained the measure would require a 60-day notice for any crossing and a 120-day notice for any paralleling that a utility proposes, and would provide symmetric windows for railroads to notify utilities if proposed work “may impede railroad operations or pose undue public safety risks.” As S6 summarized, “This would require a 60 day notice for any crossing and then a 120 day notice for any paralleling.”
Senator Thompson (S3), speaking in favor, said the longer timelines would give utilities “some kind of certainty about the time frame,” and the amendment was moved and carried by voice vote. The transcript does not record a roll-call tally; votes were determined by voice.
A separate, conceptual amendment offered by Senator Klade (S5) sought to remove references to “paralleling” from the bill entirely, arguing that parallel utility lines present different legal and engineering issues than perpendicular crossings and can amount to a larger taking of railroad land. S5 said the two issues should be handled separately: “Parallel is also a little more of a taking.”
Opponents warned that striking the parallel provisions would remove protections and timeframes currently in the bill. Senator (S7) warned it could be “gutting” the bill, citing long stretches of track in some districts and safety-sensitive pipeline corridors. Eric Clase (S5) argued testimony to date focused on perpendicular crossings and suggested addressing paralleling only if proponents present evidence; Clase said, “I would bet dollars to donuts that it's gonna be the perpendicular that people want.”
System adviser Nick (S6) told members the bill, as written, treats paralleling as actions generally not more than one mile unless the parties agree otherwise; removing the paralleling language would also remove the 120-day notice requirement the committee had just adopted.
Given the conceptual nature and potential impacts of removing paralleling, the committee agreed to table the proposal and set a date certain to revisit the issue on Monday, February 16. The motion to table carried by voice vote. The committee adjourned without taking final action on removing paralleling.
Why it matters: The changes adopted add explicit federal-rail-safety compliance language and extend notice windows intended to give both utilities and railroads time to identify safety risks, request appraisals for land-value impacts, and negotiate mitigation. The decision to defer the broader question of paralleling leaves unresolved how long linear, alongside-the-track projects will be treated in statute.
What remains unclear from the transcript: the committee name and the bill sponsor’s full name are not specified in the provided transcript; numeric roll-call vote counts were not recorded in the voice votes; and the transcript refers to "Bill 4 39" without further bill text or citation. The committee set a follow-up consideration for Monday, February 16.
