conclusion misplaces the fault for any anti-competitive effect that may have occurred. AT&T’s decision to not pay the invoiced rate means they paid a lower rate than TWC during that time period, but the timing of CPS Energy’s collection efforts is not the cause of that effect. Whether an attaching entity pays the rate charged is a matter not entirely within an MOU’s control. While an MOU can make collection efforts, whether those efforts are successful is also not entirely within the MOU’s control. Moreover, many different factors may affect .a collecting entity’s analysis of when and how to pursue collection, and therefore, attempting to identify “meaningful action” to collect in the absence of legislative guidance appears arbitrary and capricious. See Charter Med., 665 S.W.2d at 454 (<HOLDING>). The collusion and fraud scenarios suggested
holding that chevron deference is due only when the agency acts pursuant to delegated authority and the agency action has the force of law holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it reverses its position in the face of a precedent it has not persuasively distinguished holding that agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it improperly bases its decision on nonstatutory criteria holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously if it entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem or offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency