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

Background

Golden Plains Services Transportation, Inc., a Nebraska-certified "open class" carrier, was told by the Nebraska Public Service Commission (Commission) to cease alleged "taxi" operations and sought a declaratory ruling on the scope of services allowed under 291 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 3, § 010.01C (Rule 010.01C).
The Commission declined a declaratory ruling (finding statewide commercial importance) and conducted an investigative proceeding instead.
After investigation, the Commission issued an interpretation that open class carriers may provide passenger transportation for hire only on a prearranged basis and may not provide on-demand (taxi-like) services.
Golden Plains appealed, arguing the Commission’s interpretation exceeded the rule’s plain language and that its prior service history warranted grandfathering/color-of-right protection.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo, concluding Rule 010.01C’s plain language does not limit open class carriers to prearranged service and that the Commission improperly read a restriction into the rule.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 010.01C limits open class carriers to prearranged service only	Golden Plains: rule’s plain language does not restrict open class carriers; they may operate on-demand	Commission: open class carriers are limited to prearranged rides; on-demand service is excluded	Court: Reversed — rule’s plain language does not impose a prearranged-only limitation
Whether the Commission could adopt its interpretation under § 75-118.01 authority	Golden Plains: Commission exceeded authority by effectively creating a new rule without rulemaking	Commission: § 75-118.01 permits the Commission to determine scope/meaning of its regulations	Court: Commission improperly read restrictions into the rule; interpretation not supported by text
Whether prior Commission practice or rule history supports the Commission’s interpretation	Golden Plains: historical comments and prior practice show the rule allowed prearranged or on-demand service	Commission: asserted authority and prior interpretive orders justify its position	Court: Legislative history actually indicates flexibility for prearranged or demand trips; prior inconsistent interpretations do not salvage current reading
Whether Golden Plains was entitled to grandfathering/color-of-right protections for past operations	Golden Plains: past service history should protect its operations	Commission: not applied; asserted need to enforce current interpretation	Court: Did not apply grandfathering; primary holding focused on invalidating Commission’s restrictive interpretation

Key Cases Cited

Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740, 857 N.W.2d 313 (2014) (appellate review of administrative law and statutory interpretation principles)
Chase 3000, Inc. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 273 Neb. 133, 728 N.W.2d 560 (2007) (agency interpretation of regulations under § 75-118.01 discussed)
Utelcom, Inc. v. Egr, 264 Neb. 1004, 653 N.W.2d 846 (2002) (rules treated like statutes; plain meaning governs)
In re Proposed Amendments to Title 291, 264 Neb. 298, 646 N.W.2d 650 (2002) (Commission may interpret existing rules but cannot create new ones without APA compliance)
Telrite Corp. v. Nebraska Pub. Serv. Comm., 288 Neb. 866, 852 N.W.2d 910 (2014) (discussion of limits on agency rulemaking authority)
Mahnke v. State, 276 Neb. 57, 751 N.W.2d 635 (2008) (statutory and regulatory interpretation is a question of law)
Anderson Excavating Co. v. Neth, 275 Neb. 986, 751 N.W.2d 595 (2008) (appellate court’s obligation to reach independent legal conclusions)
Betterman v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 273 Neb. 178, 728 N.W.2d 570 (2007) (principles governing interpretation of statutes and regulations)
Nebraska Liquor Distributors v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 272 Neb. 390, 722 N.W.2d 10 (2006) (administrative rule interpretation principles)