Home > business and economics, consumer issues, government and politics, U.S. Postal Service > Postal Service Challenges PRC Five-Day Analysis

Postal Service Challenges PRC Five-Day Analysis

June 15, 2011

Postal Service Challenges PRC Five-Day Analysis
Source: U.S. Postal Service

In a report issued today and delivered to Congress, the U.S. Postal Service asserted that the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) based a recent advisory opinion on a questionable analysis of the potential cost savings that could be achieved by implementing a five-day delivery schedule to street addresses.

The Postal Service has estimated that making the move would yield a net annual cost reduction of $3.1 billion based on extensive market research and financial estimates provided to the PRC March 30, 2010. The PRC issued a nonbinding advisory opinion March 24, 2011 that concluded that transitioning from a six-day delivery schedule to a five-day street delivery schedule would only achieve $1.7 billion in net annual savings.

The $1.4 billion discrepancy between the respective estimates results from:

  • the Commission’s unwillingness to recognize about $760 million in savings from increased city carrier productivity and efficiency under a five-day schedule;
  • the Commission’s failure to account for more than $260 million in highway transportation and mail processing economies associated with one less day of street delivery; and
  • the Commission’s summary dismissal of the unrefuted testimony of market research experts to reach its conclusion that the Postal Service estimate of annual revenue loss resulting from the change was understated by $386 million.

On the variances between the agency’s cost savings estimates, the Postal Service report questions the PRC assumption that “little, if any, efficiencies and increases in productivity would be realized in certain city carrier activities by delivering the same volume Monday through Friday instead of Monday through Saturday.” The PRC revenue loss estimate “is contradicted by the overwhelming weight of expert testimony … [and] falls short of the requirement that it be based on substantial record evidence.”

+ Report of the United States Postal Service Regarding Advisory Opinion in Postal Regulatory Commission Docket No. N2010-1 (PDF)

%d bloggers like this: