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) accused Golden Plains of operating "on a taxi basis" and ordered it to cease such operations, prompting Golden Plains to seek a declaratory ruling on the scope of services permitted under Rule 010.01C.
Rule 010.01C defines "open class service" by three elements: (i) carrying passengers for hire by vehicle, (ii) along the most direct route or a route controlled by the hirer and not a defined regular route, and (iii) at a mileage-based or per-trip fare.
The Commission treated Golden Plains’ petition as presenting a statewide commercial question and initiated an investigative proceeding rather than issuing a declaratory ruling.
After investigation the Commission concluded Rule 010.01C permits only prearranged for-hire service and forbids on-demand service by open class carriers.
Golden Plains appealed, arguing the plain language of Rule 010.01C allows both prearranged and on-demand service and that the Commission’s new interpretation effectively created a restriction not found in the rule; Golden Plains also claimed entitlement to protection based on prior operations (grandfathering/color-of-right).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 010.01C limits open class carriers to prearranged service only	Rule language does not limit open class to prearranged trips; it permits on-demand service	Rule should be read to allow only prearranged for-hire service; Commission has authority to interpret scope	Court held Rule 010.01C's plain text does not restrict open class carriers to prearranged service; Commission's contrary interpretation was erroneous and vacated
Whether Golden Plains was entitled to grandfathering/color-of-right protection for past on-demand operations	Golden Plains argued historical practice and Commission comments at adoption showed permissive on-demand operation and supported protection	Commission did not apply grandfathering and asserted authority to regulate current scope instead	Court did not grant grandfathering; decision focused on textual interpretation and reversed Commission's restrictive interpretation

Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740, 857 N.W.2d 313 (2014) (appellate review of statutory/regulatory interpretation is de novo)
Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133, 728 N.W.2d 560 (2007) (agency rule interpretations treated like statutes)
In re Proposed Amendments to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298, 646 N.W.2d 650 (2002) (Commission may interpret existing rules under statutory authority but may not promulgate new rules without APA procedures)
Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004, 653 N.W.2d 846 (2002) (regulatory language given plain and ordinary meaning; ambiguity required to construe)