In re Petition of Golden Plains Servs. Transp.
297 Neb. 105
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc. (Golden Plains) is certified in Nebraska to provide "open class" passenger service.
- The Nebraska Public Service Commission (Commission) investigated after receiving information Golden Plains was operating "on a taxi basis," and ordered it to cease such operations.
- Golden Plains sought a declaratory ruling about whether Rule 010.01C (definition of "open class service") permits on-demand (taxi-like) service or limits providers to prearranged trips.
- The Commission, after treating the matter as an investigative proceeding, issued an order holding that open class carriers may provide transportation for hire only on a prearranged basis and may not provide on-demand services.
- Golden Plains appealed, arguing the Commission’s interpretation was inconsistent with the plain language and history of Rule 010.01C and that it should be treated as grandfathered or entitled to "color of right."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 010.01C limits "open class" carriers to prearranged trips | Golden Plains: Rule 010.01C’s plain text does not limit open class to prearranged service and thus allows on-demand service | Commission: Its interpretation (prearranged-only) is within its authority to define rule scope under § 75-118.01 | Court: Reversed — rule’s plain language does not restrict open class carriers to prearranged service and Commission’s contrary interpretation is unsupported |
| Whether the Commission lawfully issued an interpretive order rather than a rulemaking when it imposed the prearranged-only restriction | Golden Plains: The Commission effectively made a new rule without APA rulemaking because the restriction is not in Rule 010.01C | Commission: Interpreting existing rules is within its authority and prior precedents allow such interpretive orders | Court: The Commission exceeded its authority by reading a restriction into the rule that the text does not contain; this amounted to creating a new rule without required rulemaking |
| Whether historical statements and prior Commission practice support the availability of on-demand service | Golden Plains: Commission comments at adoption and prior practice show the rule was intended to allow prearranged or on-demand trips | Commission: (Implicitly) current interpretation controls; earlier statements do not justify deviation | Court: Adopted Golden Plains’ position re history — the Commission previously expressed that open class could operate on prearranged or demand basis, supporting the plain-text reading |
| Whether Golden Plains should be grandfathered or protected by "color of right" for past on-demand operations | Golden Plains: Past service history and possible reliance entitle it to protection | Commission: Denied such protection by ordering cease-and-desist and treating issue as statewide concern | Court: Did not adopt grandfatherring/color-of-right relief in the decision’s remedy; the decision focused on vacating the Commission’s interpretive order (no grant of grandfathering stated) |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740 (statement that statutory/regulatory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- In re Proposed Amendments to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298 (2002) (discussing Commission authority to interpret existing rules versus creating new rules)
- Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004 (2002) (treating agency rules like statutes and giving plain language its ordinary meaning)
- Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133 (discussing scope of Commission authority related to rule interpretation)