1. Procedural History
California Moving and Storage Association (CMSA), a trade association of persons, firms, and corporations engaged in the transportation of used household goods in California,1 filed Application (A.) 08-03-005 to request that the Commission revise Maximum Rate Tariff 4 Naming Maximum Rates and Rules for the Transportation of Used Property, Namely: Household Goods and Personal Effects over the Public Highways within the State of California by Household Goods Carriers, (MAX 4) by eliminating Region 1 and Territories B and C, which are geographical subdivisions that define areas of maximum allowable rates for long distance and hourly rate moving services. The reason underlying CMSA's request is its claim that certain inequities in the maximum rate structure have resulted from changes in the state's demographics since MAX 4 was initially adopted. The effect of granting CMSA's application would also be to streamline the MAX 4 tariff.
CMSA relies upon Public Utilities Code Section 5191 as authority for the Commission to grant the proposed adjustments to MAX 4 in response to the application. That statute directs the Commission to establish or approve just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory maximum or minimum (or maximum and minimum) rates to be charged by household goods carriers for transportation of used household goods and associated accessorial services, but does not expressly establish a procedure for revising those rates. Although the application is in the nature of changing an industrywide regulation, rather than granting an individual carrier's request for relief, the Commission's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) filed a protest challenging the sufficiency of the application, because it lacked certain information ordinarily required from an individual applicant. The alleged deficiencies included the lack of applicant's balance sheet and financials, and other information that pertains to a company or individual, but not to a trade group with hundreds of members. Consequently, on August 6, 2008, the assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a joint ruling that the application would be treated as though it were a petition for rulemaking.2
CMSA filed an amended application and broadened the service of the amended document in accordance with requirements of the ruling.3 DRA filed a timely Response that essentially objected to the projected increases in maximum hourly rates in 49 of the state's 58 counties (those in Territories B and C), and in weight/distance-rated moves in Region 1, the most heavily trafficked coastal area of the state. DRA asserted that to justify such a result, the Commission needed information concerning current market pricing practices to insure that any new maximum rates would not be excessive, and thus, to protect consumers.
To satisfy the need for evidentiary support and critical analysis, DRA recommended the performance of a freight bill (F/B) survey and a cost and operational (C&O) information survey. These survey methods were used to collect and evaluate data following the Commission's initial implementation of MAX 4, and were expected to enable the Commission to verify the basis for CMSA's request, and perhaps evaluate possible alternatives, such as adjusting the boundaries of the existing territories and regions as needed, rather than eliminating them altogether.
Although DRA's Response initially provoked a dispute with CMSA concerning the extent of data required to evaluate the proposed MAX 4 revisions, DRA and CMSA were eventually able to agree upon satisfactory F/B and C&O surveys, the format and content of which were reviewed and approved by both DRA and the ALJ. CMSA delivered the results of the surveys, including a summary spreadsheet, to DRA on June 30, 2009. The ALJ permitted both parties a full opportunity to analyze and discuss the survey results, and ruled that the proceeding would be submitted, closing public comment, as of August 14, 2009.4
DRA and CMSA filed a single set of joint comments on the proposal on August 14. The comments were based upon their respective review and analysis of the survey data, as well as subsequent discussions to reach a consensus concerning recommended action to revise MAX 4.
1 Intrastate used household goods movers are regulated by the Commission.
2 Under the terms of the ruling, and by implementing resolution issued by the Commission (Resolution ALJ-223, August 29, 2008), the proceeding was also recategorized from a ratesetting to a quasi-legislative proceeding, consistent with its treatment as a rulemaking.
3 The Commission received, and in some instances filed, numerous written documents indicating support for both the initial and amended applications from CMSA members. Except for DRA's Response, the Commission received no indication of opposition to CMSA's proposals to change the MAX 4 tariff.
4 Subsequent preparation of the proposed decision was delayed because the ALJ was on medical leave during October and part of November 2009.
