Wash. Farm Bureau v. Dep't Of Ecology, 103,413-0

The Washington Climate Commitment Act (CCA) caps greenhouse gas emissions from large fuel suppliers and exempts fuel used exclusively for agricultural purposes if the buyer provides an exemption certificate. 1
The legislature directed Ecology to adopt rules implementing the agricultural exemption and to determine a method for expanding it to fuels used to transport agricultural products on public highways. 2
Ecology adopted a rule treating the agricultural exemption as applying to supplier emissions and later issued guidance allowing a Department of Revenue form to serve as the exemption certificate. 3
Washington Farm Bureau petitioned for rulemaking, arguing the exemption framework was unworkable and that Ecology should create a pre-purchase exemption and refund process for fuel surcharges. 4
After Ecology denied the petition, WFB sought declaratory and APA review in superior court, which dismissed the action with prejudice. 5
On direct review, the Supreme Court affirmed Ecology’s rule and denial of further rulemaking. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Ecology exceed its statutory authority? 7	CCA exempts end users, not suppliers, and Ecology should bar agricultural surcharges.	CCA regulates suppliers, and Ecology’s rule matches the statute.	No; Ecology’s rule was reasonably consistent with the CCA. 8
Was Ecology’s agricultural exemption rule arbitrary and capricious? 9	Ecology adopted an unworkable exemption despite knowing its flaws.	Ecology considered alternatives and reasonably implemented the statute.	No; Ecology acted with due consideration, not willfully or unreasonably. 10
Was Ecology’s denial of WFB’s rulemaking petition arbitrary and capricious? 11	Ecology ignored evidence that the exemption framework harmed farmers.	Ecology provided guidance, lacked authority for refunds, and had no duty to reopen rulemaking.	No; the denial was reasoned and within Ecology’s authority. 12

Spokane County v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, 192 Wn.2d 453 (Wash. 2018) (administrative rules are presumptively valid 13)
Bostain v. Food Express, Inc., 159 Wn.2d 700 (Wash. 2007) (rules are invalid only if inconsistent with the statutes they implement 14)
Campbell v. Department of Social & Health Services, 150 Wn.2d 881 (Wash. 2004) (a rule reasonably consistent with its statute should be upheld 15)
Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 2002) (plain-meaning statutory interpretation governs 16)
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Department of Ecology, 86 Wn.2d 310 (Wash. 1976) (challenges to agency action require compelling reasons showing conflict with legislative intent 17)
Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 151 Wn.2d 568 (Wash. 2004) (courts defer to agency expertise but not arbitrary action 18)
Abbenhaus v. City of Yakima, 89 Wn.2d 855 (Wash. 1978) (action is arbitrary only if willful and unreasoning 19)
Rios v. Department of Labor & Industries, 145 Wn.2d 483 (Wash. 2002) (failure to act can be arbitrary when experts find a feasible necessary program 20)