EMERSON PROPOSES STATE DEREGULATION OF TRUCKING

A bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Bill Emerson would provide for complete economic deregulation of the trucking industry at the state level, a move proponents say could save consumers $5-$12 billion annually.

Proponents say state rules that inhibit competition have grown up in the wake of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, which substantially deregulated the industry at the federal level.

For example, shipping 2,000 pounds of goods from Oakland across the bay to San Francisco can cost nearly twice as much as moving the same amount of goods the 200 miles from Reno, Nev., to San Francisco. The variance between intrastate and interstate rates in California reportedly is leading some shippers to warehouse inventories out of state, which ultimately hurts the state budget and unnecessarily burns up precious fuel.

But Steve Walker, director of the Missouri Division of Transportation, says Missouri does not practice that kind of protectionism.

"Advocates of deregulation are comparing apples to oranges. You can always find a horror story if you want to.

"For the most part there has been a big effort to make sure rates offered by interstate and intrastate carriers are similar," he said.

Deregulation poses a threat to public safety, Walker contends. "If a guy is going to price his rates so low he can't make a profit, is he going to price rates so low he can't buy tires for his trucks?"

Supporters of the bill argue that safety regulations will not be affected. That issue is simply one of enforcement, they say.

Regulation of the trucking industry funnels approximately $2.25 million annually into the state treasury. Proponents of deregulation say the money shippers spend on regulation could much better go toward improving and lengthening routes.

Emerson's bill also would streamline Interstate Commerce Commission licensing regulations.

Not surprisingly, manufacturers enthusiastically support Emerson's bill while the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the National Association of Regulated Utility Commissioners are opposed.

Since Congress peeled back federal interstate trucking rules in 1980, the number of carriers has increased 148 percent to more than 50,000. Many of these new haulers are non-union.

"People who don't like this, it's because it threatens their jobs," said David LaValle, a legislative aide for Emerson.

But Walker says the regulation of intrastate trucking protects consumers. "It makes sure prices are fair," he said.

Regulation also protects less lucrative rural routes from extinction. "You're always going to have the threat that there could be a loss of some routes that are less lucrative," LaValle admitted.

But he said a couple of Northeastern states that have deregulated intrastate trucking have seen increases instead of decreases in rural service.

Eight states currently have no economic regulation of intrastate carriers. They are Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Walker says deregulation bills come up from time to time, sometimes promulgated by carriers, sometimes by shippers.

"It might correct some problems but it may in turn cause some others," he said. "That's what happens with sweeping legislation."

LaValle thinks the bill, introduced last August, has "a reasonably good chance of passage." Emerson is a member of the Public Works Committee which will look at the issue.