The primary standard of review for judicial review of agency ratemaking decisions is the arbitrary and capricious standard. This standard requires the court to determine whether the agency's decision was based on a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

The scope of review for judicial review of agency ratemaking decisions is limited to the record before the agency. This means that the court may only consider the evidence and arguments that were presented to the agency during the ratemaking proceeding.

The party challenging the agency's ratemaking decision has the burden of proving that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. This means that the party must show that the agency's decision was not based on a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

A court may consider a number of factors in determining whether an agency's ratemaking decision was arbitrary and capricious, including whether the agency followed its own rules and procedures, whether the agency considered all of the relevant evidence, and whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence.

The role of the court in judicial review of agency ratemaking decisions is to determine whether the agency's decision was arbitrary and capricious, to ensure that the agency's decision is consistent with the law, and to substitute its own judgment for that of the agency if the agency's decision is found to be arbitrary and capricious.

A court may order a number of remedies in judicial review of agency ratemaking decisions, including remanding the case to the agency for further proceedings, vacating the agency's decision, and enjoining the agency from implementing its decision.

Judicial review of agency ratemaking decisions is generally more deferential than judicial review of agency adjudications. This is because ratemaking decisions are often complex and involve a great deal of technical expertise. As a result, courts are reluctant to second-guess the agency's decision-making process.

There are a number of challenges to judicial review of agency ratemaking decisions, including the complexity of ratemaking decisions, the lack of transparency in the ratemaking process, and the difficulty in obtaining expert testimony.

One of the recent trends in judicial review of agency ratemaking decisions is that courts are becoming more deferential to agency decisions. This is due in part to the increasing complexity of ratemaking decisions and the recognition that agencies have a great deal of expertise in this area.

It is likely that courts will continue to become more deferential to agency ratemaking decisions in the future. This is due to the increasing complexity of ratemaking decisions and the recognition that agencies have a great deal of expertise in this area.