HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Another judge rules again... » Reply #11
In the discussion thread: Another judge rules against Trump [View all]

Response to Ohiogal (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2018, 09:20 AM

11. This case began in 2015, with the United Parcel Service challenging how the US Postal Service...

sets prices for its 'competitive products' i.e. stuff other than stamps. This was done before the Postal Regulatory Commission; it resulted in a minor change to the calculation that did not satisfy UPS. They continued their legal action, which the Court of Appeals has now rejected.

The beginning and end of the opinion:

TATEL,Circuit Judge: The U.S. Postal Service holds congressionally authorized monopoly power over the market for some of its products, like first-class mail delivery, but for other products, like parcel post, it competes with private companies. To promote fair competition, Congress tasked the Postal Regulatory Commission with ensuring that the Postal Service sets competitive products’ prices high enough to coverall “costs attributable to [those] product[s] through reliably identified causal relationships.” 39 U.S.C. § 3631(b); see also id.§ 3633(a)(2).

In two 2016 orders, the Commission directed the Postal Service to include among the “costs attributable” to competitive products those costs that would disappear were the Postal Service to stop offering those products for sale. United Parcel Service, Inc., which competes with the Postal Service, petitions for review of both orders, arguing that the cost attribution methodology the Commission embraced is both inconsistent with the statute that gives the Commission its regulatory authority and arbitrary and capricious. For the reasons that follow, we deny the petitions.


and:

The Accountability Act requires a competitive product to cover only those costs that can be attributed to the product “through reliably identified causal relationships.” 39 U.S.C. § 3631(b). In establishing this causal requirement, Congress expected that “the expert ratesetting agency, exercising its reasonable judgment” would “decide which methods sufficiently identify the requisite causal connection between particular services and particular costs.” NAGCP, 462 U.S. at 827. Here, the Commission did exactly that, settling on a cost-attribution methodology that implements its statutory mandate and falls well within the scope of its considerable discretion. Because “the Commission’s exercise of its authority [was] ‘reasonable and reasonably explained,’” U.S. Postal Service, 785 F.3d at 750 (quoting Manufacturers Railway Co., 676 F.3d at 1096), we deny UPS’s petitions for review.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Ohiogal May 2018 OP
hlthe2b May 2018 #1
marybourg May 2018 #2
spanone May 2018 #3
malaise May 2018 #5
spanone May 2018 #6
MyOwnPeace May 2018 #8
catbyte May 2018 #13
malaise May 2018 #10
Cha May 2018 #4
Uncle Joe May 2018 #7
RKP5637 May 2018 #9
LineNew Reply This case began in 2015, with the United Parcel Service challenging how the US Postal Service...
Princess Turandot May 2018 #11
scarytomcat May 2018 #12
Duppers May 2018 #14
Please login to view edit histories.