¶ 26 An agency's action is arbitrary and capricious only if it “ ‘is willful and unreasoning and taken without regard to the attending facts or circumstances.’ ” Attorney Gen.'s Office v. Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 128 Wash.App. 818, 824, 116 P.3d 1064 (2005) (quoting Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wash.2d 373, 383, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) ). “ ‘Where there is room for two opinions, an action taken after due consideration is not arbitrary and capricious even though a reviewing court may believe it to be erroneous.’ ”
¶ 26 An agency's action is arbitrary and capricious only if it “ ‘is willful and unreasoning and taken without regard to the attending facts or circumstances.’ ” Attorney Gen.'s Office v. Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 128 Wash.App. 818, 824, 116 P.3d 1064 (2005) (quoting Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wash.2d 373, 383, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) ). “ ‘Where there is room for two opinions, an action taken after due consideration is not arbitrary and capricious even though a reviewing court may believe it to be erroneous.’ ”
We review the commission's application of the law de novo. See Attorney Gen.'s Office v. Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 128 Wn. App. 818, 825, 116 P.3d 1064 (2005). However, we accord the commission's view of the law substantial weight when it falls within its expertise in that special field of the law.
See Attorney Gen.'s Office v. Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 128 Wn.App. 818, 825, 116 P.3d 1064 (2005). However, we accord the commission's view of the law substantial weight when it falls within its expertise in that special field of the law.
"An agency's action is arbitrary and capricious only if it 'is willful and unreasoning and taken without regard to the attending facts or circumstances.'" PacifiCorp, 194 Wn.App. at 587 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Att'y Gen.'s Office v. Wash. Utils. &Transp. Comm'n, 128 Wn.App. 818, 8'24, 116 P.3d 1064 (2005))." 'Where there is room for two opinions, an action taken after due consideration is not arbitrary and capricious even though a reviewing court may believe it to be erroneous.'" Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Att'y Gen.'s Office, 128 Wn.App. at 824)."
¶41 "An agency's action is arbitrary and capricious only if it ‘is willful and unreasoning and taken without regard to the attending facts or circumstances.’ " PacifiCorp , 194 Wash. App. at 587, 376 P.3d 389 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Att'y Gen.’s Office v. Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n , 128 Wash. App. 818, 824, 116 P.3d 1064 (2005) ). " ‘Where there is room for two opinions, an action taken after due consideration is not arbitrary and capricious even though a reviewing court may believe it to be erroneous.’ "
¶30 "An agency's action is arbitrary and capricious only if it ‘is willful and unreasoning and taken without regard to the attending facts or circumstances.’ " Id. at 587, 376 P.3d 389 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Att'y Gen.’s Office v. Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n , 128 Wash. App. 818, 824, 116 P.3d 1064 (2005) ). " ‘Where there is room for two opinions, an action taken after due consideration is not arbitrary and capricious even though a reviewing court may believe it to be erroneous.’ "
1. Legal Principles We will consider an agency action to be arbitrary and capricious only if the action is" 'willful and unreasoning and taken without regard to the attending facts or circumstances'" Whidbey Env't Action Network v. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd., 14 Wn.App. 2d 514, 526, 471 P.3d 960 (2020) (quoting Att'y Gen.'s Off. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 128 Wn.App. 818, 824, 116 P.3d 1064 (2005)). If there is room for two opinions and the agency duly considered its action, the action is not arbitrary and capricious. Whidbey Env't Action Network,
¶ 78 We give "substantial deference to a regulatory agency’s judgment about how best to serve the public interest." Att’y Gen.’s Office, Pub. Counsel Section v. Utils. & Transp. Comm’n , 128 Wash.App. 818, 824, 116 P.3d 1064 (2005). "An agency’s decision cannot be set aside absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion."
Likewise, we review de novo questions of law and the application of the law to established facts. Attorney Gen.'s Office v. Wash. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n. 128 Wn.App. 818, 827, 116 P.3d 1064 (2005).