In re Petition of Golden Plains Servs. Transp., 297 Neb. 105

Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc. is a Nebraska-certified "open class" carrier. The Nebraska Public Service Commission (Commission) suspected it was operating as a taxi (on-demand) and ordered it to stop.
Golden Plains sought a declaratory ruling on whether Rule 010.01C (definition of open class service) permits on-demand as well as prearranged service.
The Commission treated the petition as a statewide question, opened an investigative proceeding, and issued an order interpreting Rule 010.01C to allow only prearranged (not on-demand) transport by open class carriers.
Golden Plains appealed the Commission’s interpretation, arguing the rule does not limit open class providers to prearranged service and asserting rights based on past operations.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo, found the text of Rule 010.01C unambiguous, and concluded the Commission’s interpretation (reading a prearranged-only restriction into the rule) was not supported by the rule’s language.
The Court noted prior Commission comments and the contrast with an express prearranged-only definition for limousine service as evidence the Commission understood how to draft such a restriction when intended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 010.01C permits open class carriers to provide on-demand service	Golden Plains: Rule 010.01C’s plain language does not limit open class carriers to prearranged service and therefore allows on-demand service	Commission: Rule 010.01C should be read to limit open class carriers to prearranged service only	Court: Rejected Commission’s interpretation; rule’s plain text does not impose a prearranged-only restriction
Whether Golden Plains should be "grandfathered" or protected by color-of-right for past on-demand operations	Golden Plains: Past operations and longstanding practice warrant grandfathering/color-of-right protection	Commission: Did not apply grandfathering; asserted authority to restrict services for public interest	Court: Did not need to resolve grandfathering because Commission’s statewide rule interpretation was vacated; Commission may not impose blanket restriction absent rule language

Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740, 857 N.W.2d 313 (Neb. 2014) (de novo review of statutory and regulatory interpretation)
Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133, 728 N.W.2d 560 (Neb. 2007) (agency authority to interpret regulations)
In re Proposed Amend. to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298, 646 N.W.2d 650 (Neb. 2002) (agency interpretation of undefined regulatory terms upheld where interpreting existing rule)
Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004, 653 N.W.2d 846 (Neb. 2002) (rules of construction for agency regulations)