Display Kept in this browser only
Formal ComplaintBefore the Surface Transportation Board

NOR 42051

WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

Caption from the Board’s record.

1 filing, 15 decisions and 0 environmental comments observed here; last checked 11 Oct 2026, 04:36 UTC; last new entry 26 Aug 2026, 15:20 UTC.

Entries

By type (1)
Newest first · oldest first
  1. Decision
    32919Secretary
    NOTICE THAT A COURT ACTION WAS INSTITUTED ON OR ABOUT JULY 11, 2002, BEFORE THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
  2. Decision
    32877Secretary
    NOTICE THAT A COURT ACTION WAS INSTITUTED ON OR ABOUT JUNE 24, 2002, BEFORE THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
  3. Decision
    32506Entire Board
    (1) DENIED THE WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AS IT RELATES TO COMPUTATION OF VARIABLE COSTS AND THE STAND-ALONE COST ISSUE; AND (2) DENIED THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS IT RELATES TO THE STAND-ALONE ISSUE BUT GRANTS UP'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS IT RELATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAINTENANCE-OF-WAY VARIABLE COSTS.
  4. Notice
    204582Notice
    Union Pacific Railroad Company
  5. Decision
    32200Secretary
    GRANTED WPL'S REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DUE DATE FOR PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR STAY IN THIS PROCEEDING TO OCTOBER 17, 2001.
  6. Decision
    32188Secretary
    EXTENDED THE DUE DATE FOR PETITIONS FOR STAY IN THIS PROCEEDING TO OCTOBER 3, 2001.
  7. Decision
    30829Entire Board
    ADDRESSED A COMPLAINT CHALLENGING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATE CHARGED BY THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY FOR MOVING TRAINLOADS OF COAL FROM THE POWDER RIVER BASIN OF WYOMING TO THE WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILTITY AT SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN.
  8. Decision
    31428Secretary
    (1) GRANTED UP'S MOTION TO PERMIT THE FILING OF BRIEFS, SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTION AGAINST THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW EVIDENCE; (2) ORDERED THAT BRIEFS NOT TO EXCEED 25 PAGES IN LENGTH ARE DUE DECEMBER 15, 2000; AND (3) ORDERED UP TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ON CYCLE TIMES.
  9. Decision
    31333Administrative Law Judge
    DENIED COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FILED SEPTEMBER 11, 2000.
  10. Decision
    31274Secretary
    GRANTED WPL'S REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DUE DATE FOR FILING REBUTTAL STATEMENTS IN THIS PROCEEDING TO SEPTEMBER 28, 2000.
  11. Decision
    31057Entire Board
    (1) DENIED PETITIONERS' INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL OF PROVISIONS OF THE ALJ'S DISCOVERY ORDER; (2) DISMISSED AS MOOT THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ISSUED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ALJ'S DISCOVERY ORDER; (3) ORDERED LEPA TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ON OR BEFORE 14 DAYS AFTER THE SERVICE DATE OF THIS DECISION; AND (4) DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE WPL'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST UP.
  12. Decision
    30997Secretary
    (1) EXTENDED THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OPENING STATEMENTS TO JUNE 15, 2000; AND (2) ADJUSTED THE REMAINDER OF THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE COMMENSURATELY.
  13. Decision
    30977Secretary
    (1) EXTENDED THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE ALJ'S MARCH 28, 2000 ORDER; AND (2) ORDERED THAT THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE IN THIS PROCEEDING REMAIN UNCHANGED.
  14. Decision
    30923Administrative Law Judge
    (1) GRANTED COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, FILED ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 18, 2000; (2) ORDERED DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY COMPLAINANT WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS DECISION; AND (3) GRANTED DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DIRECTED TO L.E. PEABODY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
  15. Decision
    30911Secretary
    ASSIGNED UP'S PETITION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2000, AND WPL'S MOTION TO COMPEL, FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2000, TO JUDGE JOSEPH NACY FOR RESOLUTION, AND UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED ALL SUBSEQUENT DISCOVERY DISPUTES IN THIS PROCEEDING ARE ALSO ASSIGNED TO JUDGE NACY.
  16. Decision
    30786Secretary
    (1) GRANTED THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; (2) DIRECTED THE PARTIES TO COMPLY WITH THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THE APPENDIX TO THIS DECISION; AND (3) DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE REQUEST FOR AN APPOINTMENT OF AN ALJ TO RESOLVE DISCOVERY DISPUTES.