Revenue Protection
The Postal Service does not receive tax dollars to sustain its operations, but relies on accurate postage payments for support. While the vast majority of the Postal Service’s customers pay the full cost of mailing, revenue loss, otherwise known as revenue leakage, can occur when individual or business customers don’t pay the appropriate postage for their mailings.
Mail to the Future?
In a world where speed is everything, a new product is becoming popular that takes it s-l-o-w. It’s called Future Mail. In China, several companies are offering to deliver mail as slowly as you want, — even weeks, months, or years into the future. No time machine necessary!
Some customers are using Future Mail to send letters to their future selves, others use it to be sure their anniversary, birthday, or holiday greetings will arrive exactly on time. Future Mail customers simply fill out, address their cards, letters, or packages, and specify the date they want them delivered. These new companies will make it happen. One can even purchase gifts and flowers to be sent in the future.
A Lower Volume Postal Service?
The U.S. Postal Service is used to delivering large amounts of mail. Last year, it delivered more than 177 billion pieces. More mail pieces are sent per person in the United States than almost anywhere else in the world. But mail volume has been declining. How will the Postal Service change if volumes continue to fall? Is the Postal Service even financially sustainable at lower volume levels?
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) asked the George Mason University School of Public Policy (GMU) to find out. The results of GMU’s work appear in a paper released today on our website.
GMU researchers looked at how mail volumes of 150, 125, 100, and 75 billion would affect the Postal Service’s financial position and cost structure. Their results are encouraging. They found that the Postal Service is financially sustainable at volume levels down to 100 billion pieces per year, although price increases above inflation would be needed. The cost structure of the Postal Service would also change at lower volume levels. For example, delivery would account for a much larger share of total costs.
5-Day Delivery? What About 3-Day?
Although eliminating Saturday delivery has been heavily debated, reducing delivery to 5 days a week may not be enough. There has been some discussion of whether the viable model for the U.S. Postal Service of the future will incorporate 3-day delivery.
A 2010 study by the Boston Consulting Group for the Postal Service forecasts that the average pieces of mail per delivery point per delivery day will drop from 3.8 to 2.8 by 2020. If this projection holds true, then more households will likely receive no mail on any given day. With the increasing availability of alternative communication choices, it is unlikely that the demand for mail delivery will ever return to previous levels. Therefore, postal delivery may only be needed 3 days a week. Some homes could receive mail on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, while others, on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday.
Delivery would still occur 6 days a week for Post Office boxes. This additional benefit for P.O. Boxes would meet the needs of customers who have need of 6-day delivery, while generating higher revenue and increasing traffic for the Post Office.
Is the Price Right?

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA) ushered in a new regulatory structure for the U.S. Postal Service. One key element was a price cap on market dominant products. (Most of the Postal Service’s products are market dominant.) This means that price increases for market dominant products are capped by the rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). PAEA, however, does allow the Postal Service to increase its prices beyond the CPI cap under “extraordinary and exceptional circumstances.” The Postal Service makes the exception by filing an ‘exigent’ rate case to the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC). Before the Postal Service can increase prices, the PRC must agree with the ‘exigent’ request and find it to be reasonable, equitable, and necessary.
Read More



