*1 HOWE, DURHAM and
JJ., concur. SPECIALISTS,
SPREADER Plaintiff,
INC.,
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF
UTAH, Cameron, Chairman; Brent H. Commissioner; Byrne,
James M. Brian Stewart, Commissioner,
T. Defendants. No. 21037. Matheson, Elegante, Scott M. James M.
Supreme Court of Utah. Larsen, City, and Michael L. Salt Lake Spreader Specialists. June
David L. Wilkinson and Bernard M. Tan- ner, City, Salt Lake for Public Service Comn. Parker,
Thomas M. Zarr and R. Rodney City, Salt Lake for W.S. & Co. Hatch Stevens, City, Robert L. Salt Lake Lines, Energy Exp., Clark Tank and Mat- lack, Inc.
HOWE, Justice: Inc., Spreader Specialists, ap- Plaintiff peals the deni- Commission’s al of its a certificate authority petroleum-based prod- to haul ucts.
Commencing inception with its Spreader Specialists operated the au- thority of another certificated arrangements. through leasing authority interstate products petroleum-based to haul in four- states; teen western intra- also received Idaho, authority state in- where was corporated. Spreader made Utah, op- intrastate but posed by the four held the carriers that existing authority prod- petroleum to haul Matlack, Inc., Lines, ucts: Clark Tank W.S. (Hatchco), Energy Express. Hatch Co. *2 1044 shipping public market would offer the real hearing, shippers fifteen testified
At the benefit, application. They inclined the Spreader’s of we would be record, nature of the as to the seasonal on application. testified this we business, projected the spreading asphalt the must be denied.” conclude industry, the need for addi- in the Spreader contends that the Commis problems they expe- had the tional existing improperly and the focused the rienced with they existing on had received carriers rather than quality of service harm officers of the Spreader. public in decid potential benefits to the the testified as to carriers “public ing whether the convenience and rates, financial difficulties tive granting would be served projected lack of experiencing, reviewing In the Com growth, adequacy of interpretation operative mission’s of the needs. After meet current statutory empow provisions of law it is 2,000 hearings, filling nearly days nine administer, apply ered to we the interme transcript, the Public Ser- pages of written diate standard of review discussed in Utah following: The found the vice Commission Department Administrative Services v. expertise applicant experience and P.2d 601 658 applicant fit. The was operationally (Utah 1983). standard, we ex Under require- regulatory compliance with the amine the Commission’s decision to deter regulatory fit- test of ments and met the reasonable, mine if it is with reference to compet- within a Although operating ness. specific underlying legisla terms of the structure, applicant itive rate. public policies sought tion and operating ratio and was have a comfortable served. financially fit. therefore operative terms of the statute although there was some also found that 54-6-5, question, Utah Code Ann. are § growth, that alone prospective evidence of necessity.” application; justify granting did not v. Public Service Matlack, Clark, and Hatchco had (Utah 1984), we reexamined 689 task; adequate to the spreader equipment light public policy those terms of the certificate finally, granting trucking supporting regulation equip- inefficient likely to exacerbate There, “public con- industry. we construed interlining or backhauls ment use since no necessity” to foster in the markets involved. venience and were available feasible, recognizing that tion wherever findings, the commission Based on these “competition always is almost an affirma- problems, Despite concluded: some service furthering conve- tive factor adequate. service was nience and the certificate would not contribute to approval in Milne was cited with meeting peak demand for a solution for v. Public Service Commis- Truck Lines business, nor would there be bene- seasonal where we 720 existing rates. The exist- ficial of increased reemphasized the benefits only margin- ing operations were carriers’ competition and reiterated that the ally profitable, and additional of motor safety corners on may cause them to cut fair, regulated competition, rather requirements operations curtail their governmentally protected monopoly. than money. Granting the certificate was save policy is clear indication of that No more capable breaking likened to the “straw given than in the recent revision the camel’s The Commission stat- back.” Act.1 The introduction to existing Motor Carrier operations ed: “Were sounder, Ann. 54-6- the amended Utah Code financially or were we § 2, legislature in entry declares the intent of the applicant’s into the convinced -25, 1, 6, 1-50, through effective Oct. §§ 1. Utah Code Ann. tit. ch. 54-6-1 §§ repealing Utah Laws ch. regulating industry. ers produce and will incentives for other states: shippers to increase the level quality their service in Legislature: compete.
It' is declared order to This is why pres- than the safe, sound, competitive, ervation of monopolies, has been fuel efficient intrastate motor carrier recognized to best serve the “conve- system economy is vital to the of this *3 nience and state; it is in the regu- interest to There was no Spreader evidence that transportation by late motor carriers as compete unfairly, that it would fitness, safety, to and insurance in order: “cream” the by servicing market only the promote adequate, economical, (a) profitable routes, most or that it would competitive, efficient by motor employ predatory practices or otherwise carrier, charges, and reasonable unfairly compete. The Commission’s deci- discriminations, unjust prefer- undue that certificate must be denied for ences, advantages; or allowing fear that operate un- (b) to enable efficient and well- der its own authority would “break the managed carriers to earn prof- back” of “beyond its, capital, attract and maintain fair limits of reasonableness and rationality” wages conditions; working and and must be reversed. the certif- promote
(c) icate competition; will result in some diversion of reve- protestants. However, nue from (d) promote to foster and whole, certificated commodities as a less industry state; owned or based in the percent than two of the market share each enjoys carrier now need be diverted in or- (3) adequate motor carrier service at der to meet optimistic its own affordable rates is policy a desirable growth projections. figure is based all cities and rural areas of this state. figures given revenue by (Emphasis added.) Although the statute protestants, adopting projection their was not force at the time of the Commis- zero market assuming decision, sion’s it is consistent with the Spreader will only divert revenue from the recent case law of the Court and mirrors protestants than from the entire Therefore, of our decisions. fleet, which includes other contract we cite the legislative revised act as a fleets, proprietary contractors, affirmation interpretation given governmental bodies. in K. trucking industry promote public is to case, In the appears instant it venience. While this allowing includes “ef- Commission denied the pri ficient well-managed carriers to earn marily because of the diversion of adequate profits” by preventing predatory income from despite the pricing, practices, unfair trade and restrict- K that “the fact that we had stated in ing entry into the field where the market fact competition that additional will divert carrier, will not an additional it revenues from carriers is not a does not mean that the Commission should justify
valid reason
itself to
a denial of
protect existing carriers from the effects of
authority.”
additional
thority do not suaded. protect simply to their own I present case is a close Had one. is the contrary, it On self-interest. sitting on the Commission when been act to foster policy of the it, might voted issue came before and neces- convenience unless the the issuance of the How- certificate. sity otherwise — dictates ever, job it is not our our substitute v. Public Com- Lines Milne Truck judgment that of the Commission when (citations mission, omit- at 720 P.2d makes a decision that falls within ted). bounds the discretion decisions of It should be clear Having operative statutes. reviewed subsequent action Court and the findings and conclusions policy behind the legislature I cannot that the Commission *4 regulated competition Act Carrier arbitrarily denying acted The existence protectionism. rather than found that if does not mean Specialists given operating au- improved by competi- not service could be thority sought, resulting increase in The fact that tion. may competition likely revenue from im- tion divert would a severe strong showing that the a pact on the financial health of com- support the additional market will not four carriers. Those require denial of a certifi- petition, does not found, results ground cate of profit large ranged very slight to a any loss. Commission reasoned denying position deterioration in the financial of the Commission decision the certificate is reversed. have a im- those would deleterious
pact on service to customers. It concluded K, such a our decision DURHAM, J., concur. potential deterioration service would warrant denial of a certificate. (dissenting): Justice findings appear The Commission's deci- majority that our with evidence, supported its con- record v. sions Public Service appear clusions do to be unreasonable. Therefore, I affirm. and Milne Truck Lines Public Service 1986), (Utah well as the recent revisions of the HALL, C.J., concurs 54-6-1 to Carrier dissenting opinion of Justice (1986), appropriate em- place heavy -50 ZIMMERMAN. phasis on increased the benefits public, they re- bring tion will for de-
quire grounds that there be sound
nying an when application for a certificate competition.
its would enhance having recited origins, majority does
documented its carefully parse
not then the Commission’s
findings where and conclusions to show Instead, simply majority fail.
cludes that denied because the Commission Specialists,
a certificate to it act- arbitrarily appro-
ed and in defiance of