Prepare for higher stamp prices in August and slower deliveries

Changes are coming to the U.S. Postal Service, and they might not be fully welcomed by consumers, who will pay more for stamps starting in late August while potentially facing longer delivery times for the courier.

A proposal to increase stamp prices was approved on Monday by the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), the federal regulator that oversees the postal agency, which ruled that the higher prices are in line with postal regulations. The USPS said in May that it planned to raise first class stamps at 58 cents from its current 55 cents. The higher price will take effect Aug. 29, the USPS told CBS MoneyWatch.

The more expensive postage is part of Postmaster Louis DeJoy’s plan to contain billions of dollars in losses and put the agency on a path to profitability. But another part of DeJoy’s plan – an effort to slow down delivery standards – sparked much concern from the PRC, which pointed out that around 4 in 10 shipments would take two more days to reach their recipients.

Critics say the most affected customers would be in western states, including California and Arizona, as well as Florida, Texas and Maine – and potentially have a disproportionate impact on rural and elderly customers. .

While the USPS has argued that the slower delivery standards will save the postal service money, the PRC said there was no evidence that this would actually be the case.

“I don’t think the Postal Service has proven its case for lowering service standards for all Americans,” PRC Commissioner Ashley Poling wrote in the report. Poling was appointed to the commission by former President Donald Trump, who also appointed DeJoy to his post as postmaster.

She added: “The plan also does not provide sufficient evidence to justify projections of exceptionally limited cost savings, the use of a flawed demand model and unfounded notions that the majority of citizens and businesses Americans will actually experience increased satisfaction with these drastic service cuts. “

In response to the PRC report, the USPS said it was “moving forward with our plan” but would review the regulator’s recommendations.

“Misguided effort”

Last month, a group of 21 state attorneys general called on the PRC to reject the USPS plan to slow deliveries, calling it a “misguided effort” that would hurt election mail, mailing essential documents such as passports and birth and death certificates and would disproportionately impact the elderly, rural dwellers and people with disabilities. States joining the petition range from California to North Carolina.

About 7 in 10 letters sent to Nevada will take longer to arrive, according to a Washington Post analysis of USPS delivery changes. According to the analysis, about 6 out of 10 shipments sent to Florida, Washington, Montana, Arizona and Oregon will also experience longer delivery times.

Another analysis by Steve Hutkins, published in the PRC report, suggests that pockets across the country will suffer from slower delivery times. Hutkins, a retired professor who runs a blog called Save the Post Office, told regulators the slower standards “would unduly discriminate against mail users who live in places far from population centers across the country.”

Given the retreat of several states, regulators, customers and observers, it may seem odd that the U.S. Postal Service is pushing forward with its plan to lower delivery standards. According to the USPS, the plan is necessary to reduce costs while delivering mail on time under more flexible requirements.

In other words, the Postal Service expects customers to be more satisfied if the service ensures on-time delivery within a five-day window, rather than late delivery of some mail in its current delivery window. of three delays for any destination in the continent we

But the PRC noted in its report that the Postal Service has not actually tested this hypothesis, nor asked customers how they rate the speed of delivery.

“The Postal Service has not shown evidence to support its claim that customer satisfaction will not be materially affected by the proposed changes,” the regulator concluded.