{"source":"https://docketyard.org/","licence":"CC0-1.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/","shape_version":3,"held":{"enriched":"The party module (entity resolution, aliases, successions), the citator (citation edges, their readings, resolutions and judgements) and the machine-read text of the record's documents (every reading, its payload and its index) are derived work whose licence awaits review; they are withheld until then, not dedicated by default."},"generated_at":"2026-10-11T05:07:13+00:00","docket":{"docket_id":6818,"raw_docket":"EP_552_15","prefix":"EP","sequence":552,"title":"RAILROAD REVENUE ADEQUACY - 2010 DETERMINATION","sub_dockets":[],"is_index":false,"entries":[{"kind":"decision","date":"2014-01-02","date_printed":"1/2/2014","docket_raw":"EP_552_15","record_id":"43498","type":"Decision","filed_for_raw":null,"deciding_body":"Entire Board","summary":"DECISION FINDS THAT ONE CLASS I RAILROAD (UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY) WAS REVENUE ADEQUATE FOR THE YEAR 2010, MEANING THAT ONE OF THE CLASS I RAILROADS ACHIEVED A RATE OF RETURN EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE BOARD'S CALCULATION OF THE AVERAGE COST OF CAPITAL TO THE FREIGHT RAIL INDUSTRY.","attachments":[{"url":"https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/MPD/62491/A65AC81CB4086D6D85257C540052385B/43498.pdf","label":"43498.pdf","document_sha256":"330f9d8b85400d66167ddf5027ef5819aed082ad3ade51734625a1f5e7f758e0","media_type":"pdf"}],"also_in":[],"submitter":null,"organisation":null,"location":null,"comment_text":null,"date_kind":"served","url":"https://docketyard.org/decision/43498"},{"kind":"decision","date":"2011-11-03","date_printed":"11/3/2011","docket_raw":"EP_552_15","record_id":"41874","type":"Decision","filed_for_raw":null,"deciding_body":"Entire Board","summary":"DECISION FOUND THAT ONE CLASS I RAILROAD (UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY) ACHIEVED REVENUE ADEQUACY FOR THE YEAR 2010, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD'S STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES DEVELOPED TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.","attachments":[{"url":"https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/MPD/62491/5A4136AA7896F5CB8525793C0053D8D6/41874.pdf","label":"41874.pdf","document_sha256":"cf8c4b5163f12bccf0eb60083fade0795e569ca8f99fb2001eceedd9937f07cd","media_type":"pdf"}],"also_in":[],"submitter":null,"organisation":null,"location":null,"comment_text":null,"date_kind":"served","url":"https://docketyard.org/decision/41874"}],"filings":0,"decisions":2,"comments":0,"last_checked":"2026-10-11T05:06:35+00:00","last_new_entry":"2026-08-26T15:40:27+00:00","series":{"raw_docket":"EP_552_0"},"printed":"EP 552 (Sub-No. 15)","url":"https://docketyard.org/d/EP-552/sub/15"},"series":{"raw_docket":"EP_552","printed":"EP 552","url":"https://docketyard.org/d/EP-552"}}