I recently participated in a docket before the Postal Regulatory Commission to review all non-postal services as directed by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA pronounced Paella). This post serves as a short backgrounder for anyone interested in finding out what is going on with this docket and how it will impact the USPS and Epostmarks.

In a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on January 31, 1995, then-Postmaster General Marvin T. Runyon called on the recently elected Republican Congress to enact new laws that would fundamentally change the way the United States Postal Service (USPS) was structured, set postal rates, introduced new services and products, and managed its labor force. "We've got a '70s law that isn't cutting it in the '90s . . . ,” Runyon told his audience. “We need to fix it and fix it now."1

Dubbed Postal Reform prior to its passage PAEA was 12 years in the making. This law was passed in late 2006 during the lame duck session after a resounding change to democratic control of congress. Many organizations had publicly given up on the possibility that the bill would pass amid attacks from the National Association of Letter Carriers and United Parcel Service.

So what did PAEA actually do? One thing it didn't change was the core mission of USPS to provide reliable universal service at affordable rates. It was a rather comprehensive overhaul of USPS operations though and provided the following major changes:

• Established the new Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) that replaced the old Postal Rate Commission. The new PRC has broader regulatory authority
• Defined Postal and Non-Postal Services for the first time
• Divided USPS business into market-dominant and competitive products
• Established new, flexible, and different pricing systems for each of these product groups
• Replaced break-even financial requirement with one that allows retained earnings (profit)

One of the requirements of the newly formed PRC was to review all non-postal services and for any service that was in operation prior to January 1, 2006 and determine if the service should continue taking into consideration 1) the public need for the service; and 2) the private sector's ability to meet that public need.

The Electronic Postmark is considered a non-postal service under the new definition so fell under this review. While I feel confident that the PRC will allow the EPM program to continue there is some push-back from other industry participants that could influence an alternative decision. Epostmarks would suffer a serious blow if the EPM program were discontinued but this provides us an opportunity to discuss publicly why we believe so strongly in the value of USPS in the electronic realm.