D. Discussion

We must first address Applicant's qualification. The financial showing of Applicant was less than admirable. During the prehearing conference of March 22, 2000 the ALJ specifically called counsels' attention to American Express Shuttle, Decision (D.) 99-10-068, October 21, 1999, in which the Commission considered a similar situation. We now quote extensively from that decision.

"For many years the Commission has pursued a policy of promoting competition in passenger stage carrier markets. In furtherance of this policy, the Commission has liberally construed statutory and regulatory requirements in reviewing applications for new and expanded services. It has nevertheless required that carriers demonstrate the financial capability to support proposed ventures.

"In this case, Applicant presented a weak showing of financial fitness and customer demand for expanded service. The implication of Applicant's circumstances is that his business may fail. Notwithstanding the views of Applicant's competitors, we believe Applicant has ample incentive to make business decisions in his own best interest, and is in a better position than his competitors or this Commission to assess his risk of financial loss and his tolerance for it.

"The more important question for the Commission is whether the public interest would be compromised if Applicant's business failed, a matter no party addressed. If Applicant's business fails, we confidently assume by the record in this proceeding and by observing the circumstances at subject airports, that other carriers and transportation options would remain available for service between Bay Area airports and the counties Applicant proposes to serve. Notwithstanding competitors' self-interested claims that Applicant offered service outside his existing PUC authority, Applicant appears to be operating safely and providing a service that, to our knowledge, is satisfactory to his riders.

"We herein state our intent to pursue policy and, if necessary, legislation that would free passenger stage carriers from costly economic regulation that, in a competitive market, serves no public purpose. In this case, Applicant has been subjected to litigation initiated by competitors who presented little evidence to suggest Applicant's proposal for existing operations would in any way disadvantage the public. Although we intend to continue to oversee carrier safety, we do not intend to use the resources of the state and legitimate businesses to provide a forum for protests that offer little or no prospect of addressing the broader public interest.

"For these reasons, we grant Applicant's request for authority to expand his services."

Given the policy announced in American Express Shuttle, supra, we find it unnecessary to further discuss the financial evidence offered by Applicant.

Protestant argues that the facts of record show that the public would be disadvantaged by granting a certificate that includes Ventura County. It points out that Protestant's fares are lower than those proposed by Applicant and that Protestant can pick up passengers at all terminals of LAX, while Applicant would be restricted to Terminal 2. These certainly are reasons for a passenger to select the service of Protestant, rather than Applicant. However, the public cannot be considered to be at a disadvantage. It still has a choice, and the public interest would not be compromised if Applicant's business were to fail.

Protestant argues that the advertisements by Applicant before it had obtained authority to conduct transportation shows that it is not fit to engage in the activity requested. Protestant also calls attention to what it calls Applicant's misleading practice of telling customers that the towncars are booked up, rather than non-existent. While we do not condone these actions, we shall not deny him the requested certificate. We shall put him on notice that we expect him to comply with the rules and regulations of the Commission, as we require of all other carriers. We further expect strict compliance with accounting standards in all financial information submitted to us. Advertising must be truthful.

Applicant also requests authority to establish a ZORF of $12 above and below any of the proposed fares, shown in Exhibit B, attached to the application. The minimum one-way adult fare is $5. Applicant will compete with other PSCs, taxicabs, limousines, buses, and automobiles in its service area. The establishment of the ZORF is fair and reasonable.

This matter was initially designated as a ratesetting proceeding and preliminarily determined that a hearing was not necessary. (Resolution ALJ 3029) dated December 16, 1999. It was published in the Commission's Calendar on December 21, 1999. Following receipt of the protest and two telephonic prehearing conferences a Scoping Memo dated June 20, 2000 was issued by Assigned Commissioner Neeper. This outlined the issues to be resolved and appointed the ALJ as the principal hearing officer.