Opinion ID: 1495221
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Commission's Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity

Text: The application of Swan's Express for additional common carrier operating authority is controlled by 35 M.R.S.A. § 1552 which requires, inter alia: No . . . certificate shall be issued unless and until the applicant has established to the satisfaction of the commission that there exists a public necessity for such additional service and that public convenience will be promoted thereby. Section 1552 bespeaks a legislative intent to preserve competition among motor carriers to some extent. At the same time, it minimizes carriers' hurt to each other in pursuit of the limited rivalry the law allows them. The duty of the Public Utility Commission is to accommodate these conflicting policies, a task in which it is not without statutory guidance. For example, the limitation of entrance of new competitors into the field is achieved by the requirement that a new entrepreneur may not be admitted unless the public need and convenience require it. Public need and convenience, we have said, means the need and convenience of the general public and not that of any individual or group of individuals. In re Chapman, 151 Me. 68, 116 A.2d 130 (1955). The Commission here concluded that the applicant had produced substantial evidence of the public need for his proposed service. Against this showing, the Commission, as also required by section 1552, balanced the evidence of adverse economic effect upon existing carriers and found that the demonstrated need for the applicant's proposed same-day service outweighed that effect. [1] The intervenors now argue that the difference between the next-day service offered by Sanborn and the applicant's proposed same-day service is insufficient to support the Commission's finding that such same-day service is required by the public convenience and necessity. It supports this claim by two distinct arguments which we consider separately. First, the intervenors directly attack the factual basis of the Commission's finding by arguing that the evidence showed applicant's proposed service would result in speedier delivery only in a few very special circumstances. The intervenors thus attempt to impeach the Commission's finding of a public need for Swan's service and that the public convenience will be promoted by its availability. We find no merit to this argument and conclude that the record does show that the public need and convenience require the additional service. It is well-established that factual findings by the Public Utilities Commission are final if supported by substantial evidence in the record. In re Lefebvre, 343 A.2d 204 (Me.1975); In re United Parcel Service, Inc., 256 A.2d 443 (Me.1969); Public Utilities Commission v. Johnson Motor Transport, 147 Me. 138, 84 A.2d 142 (1951). More than 30 witnesses from the territory in question testified that the next-day or overnight service presently offered by Sanborn was inadequate for many of their needs and that those needs would be better served by the same-day service proposed by the applicant. We believe that the Commission could reasonably have concluded that these witnesses, drawn from small towns in a restricted area, represented the interests of the general public. The record clearly shows that Sanborn's schedule in most instances does not allow same-day service in this area. The record shows with equal clarity that under the applicant's proposed same-day service, a shipment available any time before noon will be delivered to its destination on the same day. While mere force of numbers will not necessarily constitute convincing evidence, in Lefebvre, a case very similar to the present one, this Court found that the testimony of 17 witnesses was sufficient to justify the Commission's conclusion for same-day service. It appears to us that a much greater volume of evidence, of apparently equal quality as to credibility, a fortiori supports the Commission's findings here. We will not disturb the Commission's finding that public need and convenience require same-day service in the territory in question and that Sanborn's has not been adequately fulfilling that need. The intervenors further claim that the only difference between Sanborn's service and that of the applicant is one of scheduling and that such difference is insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding of public necessity and convenience. Certainly, minor scheduling differences will not, by themselves, justify an additional grant of authority. See In re Chapman, supra . It is equally clear, however, that the frequency and speed of deliveries is an important element in evaluating the desirability of the service offered by carriers. In re Lefebvre, supra ; In re United Parcel Service, Inc., supra . As noted above, the evidence showed a public need for Swan's same-day service in the territory covered by the application and the inadequacy of Sanborn's present service in regard to that need. Given this strong affirmation of the necessity of the schedule offered by the applicant, the Commission's action was wholly justified.