precluded other companies from competing for solid waste collection services contracts. When the court invited the views of the Attorney General of Washington as an ami-cus, that Office stated only that it concurred with the portions of the Government’s brief that addressed the “comprehensive statutory and regulatory scheme governing solid waste collection companies operating in Washington.” September 13, 2004 Letter from Gregory J. Trautman, Assistant Attorney General of Washington. That Office, however, did not represent that the legislature of the State of Washington intended issuance of a WUTC Certificate to preclude competition, nor could it in light of contrary guidance by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. See In re Electric Lightwave, Inc., 869 P.2d at 1051 (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, Waste Management — Washington
recognizing that reasonable time limitations may be placed on the exercise of constitutional rights holding that the commission may only exercise jurisdiction over utilities expressly included in the scope of the pua holding that a commission is a body with special and limited power and it can only exercise the power expressly or impliedly granted to it and any reasonable doubt of existence of any power must be resolved against the exercise thereof holding that the legislature must expressly grant monopolies  before the commission may exercise such rights holding that even when there is a conflict of evidence before the commission and the evidence was such that the commission could have reasonably reached a contrary decision the commissions decision was not arbitrary and capricious