[T]he Commission acted well within its discretion in concluding that the to” test is concerned with “due determining the extent of the impact of an extraordinary or exceptional past event. The and equitable and “reasonable necessary” test, by contrast, applies only after exigent causation for a loss has been established and turns on the Postal Service’s current need to get back on its feet in the wake of the now-defined exigency. More specifically, the and equitable and necessary” test looks to “reasonable present conditions to determine what the Postal Service requires maintain and continue the development of postal “to services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States.” ANM at *6. The Postal Service’s argument that the to” and analyses “due “necessary” in Order No. 1926 are inconsistent does not account for the fact that the “necessary” analysis is distinct from and subordinate to the to” analysis. In fact, in Order “due No. 1926, the Commission clearly delineated the difference between the two inquiries, stating that of...volume losses is independent of how the Postal Service “[q]uantification has reacted to the volume loss in terms of shedding mail capacity or how it should adjust its network to the new normal, although those factors might be relevant to the analysis.” Order No. 1926 at 98. ‘necessary’ Turning to the alleged inconsistency itself, as part of No. 1926’s “necessary” analysis, the Commission addressed section 3622(d)(1)(E)’s practices of honest, “best efficient, and economical management” standard. In conjunction with that analysis, the Commission acknowledged that unique framework within which the Postal Service “the must operate is a relevant consideration in determining what constitutes best practices.” Id. at 127. As such, the Commission found that because the Postal Service charged “is with providing postal services as a public service,” the practices” standard “best “means something more than attempting to maximize retained earnings.” Id. For example, concerning its ability to cut costs, the Commission acknowledged that a private “[u]nlike enterprise, the Postal Service must consider the impact of its cost-cutting activities on its ability to continue to provide postal services consistent with the policies of title 39….” Id. at 131. The Commission’s recognition of the limitations and obligations the law imposes
[T]he Commission acted well within its discretion in concluding that the “due to” test is concerned with determining the extent of the impact of an extraordinary or exceptional past event. The “reasonable and equitable and necessary” test, by contrast, applies only after exigent causation for a loss has been established and turns on the Postal Service’s current need to get back on its feet in the wake of the now-defined exigency. More specifically, the “reasonable and equitable and necessary” test looks to present conditions to determine what the Postal Service requires “to maintain and continue the development of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States.” ANM at *6. The Postal Service’s argument that the “due to” and “necessary” analyses in Order No. 1926 are inconsistent does not account for the fact that the “necessary” analysis is distinct from and subordinate to the “due to” analysis. In fact, in Order No. 1926, the Commission clearly delineated the difference between the two inquiries, stating that “[q]uantification of...volume losses is independent of how the Postal Service has reacted to the volume loss in terms of shedding mail capacity or how it should adjust its network to the new normal, although those factors might be relevant to the ‘necessary’ analysis.” Order No. 1926 at 98. Turning to the alleged inconsistency itself, as part of No. 1926’s “necessary” analysis, the Commission addressed section 3622(d)(1)(E)’s “best practices of honest, efficient, and economical management” standard. In conjunction with that analysis, the Commission acknowledged that “the unique framework within which the Postal Service must operate is a relevant consideration in determining what constitutes best practices.” Id. at 127. As such, the Commission found that because the Postal Service “is charged with providing postal services as a public service,” the “best practices” standard “means something more than attempting to maximize retained earnings.” Id. For example, concerning its ability to cut costs, the Commission acknowledged that “[u]nlike a private enterprise, the Postal Service must consider the impact of its cost-cutting activities on its ability to continue to provide postal services consistent with the policies of title 39….” Id. at 131. The Commission’s recognition of the limitations and obligations the law imposes
Order%20No.%202623.docx