STATEMENT OF THE RAILWAY PROGRESS INSTITUTE ON S.1777 TO CHAIRMAN JENNINGS RANDOLPH (D-W.VA.) July 25, 1975 The Railway Progress Institute, the national association of the railway supply industry, strongly urges support of S.1777 which, like the Association of American Railroads and individual railroad companies, we consider very constructive and needed legis- · lation. If enacted, this act known as the "National Petroleum and Natural Gas Conservation and Coal Substitution Act of 1975" will greatly increase the production and use of steam coal as a primary fuel source. If enacted, this legislation and related measures should double the use of coal in the United States by 1985 and, thus, go a good way toward terminating our dependence upon foreign oil sources. The railroads' witnesses have testified that there is sufficient coal available to supply this proposed sharply increased demand. As the representative of the nation's private car builders, we wish to confirm that the capacity to build additional hopper cars for the transportation of coal does exist. As of June 1 there was a total of 17,886 orders for hopper cars from the nation's private car shops. There was an additional 7,988 hopper cars on order from railroad car shops with hopper car building facilities. The total number of hopper cars on order as of June 1 was nearly Latest 26,000, or more than has been suggested is required for the years 1981 to 1985 with proposed increased coal usage. figures show that 1,422 hopper cars were delivered to railroads and utility companies in April and 1,576 in June. Locomotive requirements to transport additional coal by 1985 assume the need for something less than 1,600 additional locomotive units. Railroads accepted delivery of 1,463 locomotives in 1974 alone. These figures demonstrate that the private car builders and private locomotive builders do have the capacity to produce additional hopper cars and locomotive power as purchases are made by industry to transport increased coal production. We concur with the testimony of Mr. Louis W. Menk, Chairman of the Burlington Northern, to your committee in regard to the advanced technology of the rail industry. We, as car and locomotive builders, are proud to be a part of the rail technology that Mr. Menk described as operating on his line. This technology has reached a very advanced stage which obtains very high use from equipment by operating trains in continuous cycle over 1,000 or more route miles without even stopping for loading or unloading. As Mr. Menk testified, these are "truly spectacular operations"; and as equipment manufacturers, our members are proud to be a part of the technology. In closing, we should like again to urge favorable consideration of S.1777 as a vital piece of legislation to promote additional use of available coal and available transportation to carry it and, thus, decrease our dangerour dependence upon foreign oil supply. Nils A. Lennartson Railway Progress Institute One of the key provisions of S. 1777, the National Petroleum and Natural Gas Conservation and Coal Substitution Act, is that it would require conversion to coal burning capability by January 1, 1980 of existing industrial installations with power plants capable of generating, from multiple units, as little as 50,000,000 BTUs per hour. By contrast regulations under consideration thus far by FEA would apply to plants generating 100,000,000 BTUs or more per hour. At a recent meeting of the Energy Committee of the rubber manufacturing industry a review of the contents of pending legislative proposals took place, including S. 1777. The Committee asked me to express to you its concern that the 50,000,000 BTU definition contained in S. 1777 would impose potential conversion costs on our industry of an extremely onerous nature. One company has calculated the costs to be 100% greater than the already very heavy costs that would result from the 100,000,000 BTU definition in FEA draft regulations. We therefore strongly recommend that the FEA working definition be substituted in S. 1777 as a more realistic standard, or that the entire question of conversion costs be given careful study before any particular BTU figure is adopted in legislation. Sincerely, Ddward & Wright Edward E. Wright Government Relations and Economic Affairs EEW:clc I had not originally intended to file a written statement with your Committee; but since some have recently questioned the rail industry's ability to handle the nation's growing coal requirements, I decided that Santa Fe should be on record. I appreciate the opportunity to acquaint you and your colleagues with the efforts Santa Fe is making to provide efficient coal transportation for electric utilities, and I hope that these comments will assist the Committee in its deliberations. Very truly yours, John ohn S. Reed Chairman and Chief Enclosure CC: Sen. Henry M. Jackson |