Why Grain, Fertilizer and Chemical Shippers Are Urging the STB to Reject the UP-NS Merger
The National Grain and Feed Association has become the latest major shipper group to ask the Surface Transportation Board to reject Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern's proposed rail merger, joining fertilizer, chemical, fuel and industrial transportation interests that say the deal would reduce competition and leave some freight customers with fewer protections.
The merger would create a Union Pacific Transcontinental Railroad spanning about 50,000 miles and connecting roughly 100 U.S. ports on the East, West and Gulf Coasts. The applicants say the deal could move 2.1 million long-haul truckloads onto rail and save shippers about $3.5 billion a year, while making interchange points such as Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans operate more smoothly.
NGFA's filing argues the application does not satisfy the STB's competition enhancement criteria, and it challenges the proposed Committed Gateway Pricing model as a rate formula rather than genuine rail-to-rail competition. The association also objects to how service disruptions would be arbitrated, saying customers would bear a heavy evidentiary burden before getting relief.
The board voted in May to accept the application for consideration but asked the railroads for additional detail on competition, public benefits and market share. Since then, rival BNSF and attorneys general in Montana, Iowa, Kansas, Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota and Tennessee have also asked the board to deny the proposal.
The Competition, Pricing and Liability Arguments Against a 50,000-Mile Railroad
Why NGFA Says the Application Falls Short of the 2001 Standard
NGFA attorney Thomas Wilcox argues that the UP-NS filing fails to consider rail-to-rail competition in its attempt to meet the Surface Transportation Board's competition enhancement criteria. The group's board voted to oppose after what the association called a deliberative, honest and thorough review. That matters because under the STB's Major Rail Consolidation Procedures, applicants must show that a merger produces new or enhanced rail-to-rail competition or other competitive benefits that outweigh harms.
Committed Gateway Pricing: A Formula, Not a New Rail Option
The proposed Committed Gateway Pricing model is central to the applicants' competition case. NGFA argues it is not conceptually or actually a means to enhance competition between railroads, but a proportional rate formula that would at most temporarily preserve options for a very limited subset of shippers, primarily certain grain shippers. The attorneys general from seven states went further, saying the proposal inherently cannot enhance competition because it does not give any shipper access to a new railroad. In practice, the gateway cities of Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis and New Orleans would determine which limited traffic could benefit.
Captive Bulk Shippers See Higher Rates and Harder Claims
A coalition that includes The Fertilizer Institute, the Alliance for Chemical Distribution, the American Chemistry Council, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and the National Industrial Transportation League says many member facilities are captive to a single railroad and depend on rail. The coalition's filing warns the merger will deepen that captivity, eliminate what limited competitive options remain, and leave shippers exposed to service deterioration and rate increases with no recourse. NGFA separately objects to the applicants' proposed liability arbitration, under which service deteriorations would be considered reasonable until they reach a substantial deterioration threshold, after which customers would bear a heavy evidentiary burden before obtaining relief.
The Railroads' Counterclaim and BNSF's Rebuttal
Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern point to a consultant estimate that the merger would shift 2.1 million long-haul truckloads off roads and generate $3.5 billion in annual shipper savings. UP Bulk Vice President Reed Janousek has argued the combined railroad could oversee entire routes, smoothing interchanges at major connection points and connecting producers to ports, crush plants and other markets. BNSF disputes that framing: it told the board the merger would increase rail transportation costs, inflate consumer goods prices, weaken the supply chain, impair rail service and decrease investment incentives. BNSF also noted this is the third time UP/NS have asked the board to declare they met their burden.
What the Board Has Asked For
The Surface Transportation Board unanimously accepted the application for consideration in May but required supplemental information on enhanced competition, public benefits and market share projections. That request, together with the widening formal opposition, means the application is now in a substantive review phase rather than a procedural one; the board's 2001 major consolidation rules set the legal bar the applicants must clear.
What Rail Customers, Rivals and Investors Should Focus On in the STB Docket
For rail customers, competing carriers and investors, the STB docket has moved from procedural acceptance to a substantive fight over competition evidence.
- Rail shippers with captive facilities should identify whether their traffic touches the proposed gateways at Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis or New Orleans, and whether Committed Gateway Pricing would actually give them another routing option before relying on it.
- Grain, fertilizer and chemical shippers can join the NGFA and Fertilizer Institute coalition or file comments in the STB proceeding while the board is still collecting supplemental information on competition and public benefits.
- Competing carriers such as BNSF can continue to press the board with evidence that the merger would raise costs and weaken investment incentives, drawing on the specific claims already filed by BNSF and seven state attorneys general.
- Investors in Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern should factor in a regulatory risk that now includes major shipper groups, a direct rail rival and farm-state attorneys general, not just STB staff review; the board's May acceptance of the application is not an approval.
Risk & Opportunity Assessment
| Commercial Risk | High | A denial would block the 50,000-mile Union Pacific Transcontinental Railroad and the claimed $3.5 billion in annual shipper savings; approval, opponents say, would expose captive grain, fertilizer, chemical and fuel shippers to rate increases and service deterioration. |
| Competitive Risk | High | NGFA and state attorneys general argue the Committed Gateway Pricing model is not genuine rail-to-rail competition and would leave many shippers without another railroad option; BNSF says the merger would weaken supply chain reliability and reduce investment incentives. |
| Regulatory Risk | High | The Surface Transportation Board is applying the 2001 Major Rail Consolidation Procedures, and the application now faces formal opposition from shipper coalitions, BNSF and attorneys general in seven states, increasing the chance of denial or substantial conditions. |
| Reputation Risk | Medium | BNSF's filing frames UP/NS as repeatedly denying harms and inflating benefits, and NGFA publicly voted to oppose after a deliberative review; the dispute creates a narrative that the applicants have not met their burden in three attempts. |
| Technology Disruption | Low | The contested issues are competition, pricing and liability standards, not new operating technology; the proposed Committed Gateway Pricing is a rate formula rather than a rail technology change. |
| Commercial Opportunity | High | If approved, the merger would create a transcontinental network connecting about 100 U.S. ports and, according to the applicants' consultant, shift 2.1 million truckloads to rail with $3.5 billion in annual shipper savings. |
Comments 0