UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. v. POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

Discussion in 'The Latest UPS Headlines' started by cheryl, May 23, 2018.

Tags:
  1. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. v. POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION - Leagle

    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 cover all "costs attributable to [those] product 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.
     
  2. Turdferguson

    Turdferguson Just a turd

    Holy crap that was hard to read.

    "Here, too, UPS responds that the Commission itself relies on a constant-elasticity assumption when extrapolating backward from present values to estimate a product's incremental cost"
    Who talks like that?
     
  3. Operational needs

    Operational needs Virescit Vulnere Virtus

    Lawyers. So what is the Cliff notes version?
     
  4. Turdferguson

    Turdferguson Just a turd

    UPS lost
     
  5. Operational needs

    Operational needs Virescit Vulnere Virtus

    Thank you! That sucks though.
     
  6. oldngray

    oldngray nowhere special

    The judge's reasoning seemed to boil down to she just didn't like UPS and decided against all of their arguments .. just because.
     
  7. Turdferguson

    Turdferguson Just a turd

    Maybe she used to work there. They have that effect on people
     
  8. oldngray

    oldngray nowhere special

    Or she met you?
     
  9. Turdferguson

    Turdferguson Just a turd

    Then she would have said "That's why FedEx is kicking your ass!!"
     
  10. Operational needs

    Operational needs Virescit Vulnere Virtus

    How often do you hear that?
     
  11. Turdferguson

    Turdferguson Just a turd

    Any time UPS makes a mistake