Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
attaches an importance to prompt delivery, or simply because he desires to reduce shipping costs selectively. If selective cost savings were sufficient grounds to use a private courier to carry letters, the Private Express Statutes would be effectively nullified. 44 Fed.Reg. 40,076 (July 9, 1979) (emphasis added). Despite the soundness of this reasoning, the USPS proceeded in this case to ignore it, indeed to contravene it directly, by justifying an unqualified suspension solely on the selective cost and service benefits to businesses engaged in international commerce. This approach is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. Cf. Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency v. FERC, 826 F.2d 1074, 1091-92 (D.C.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 913, 108 S.Ct. 1088, 99 L.Ed.2d 247 (1988) . The Postal Service replies that it did
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public
B. recognizing the public interest exception
C. holding that public meeting did not satisfy public participation requirement because public did not receive adequate notice
D. recognizing the importance of public welfare and conservation of water in administering its public waters
E. holding that agency administering a public interest standard did not engage in reasoned decisionmaking when it focused only on the economic impacts accruing to one segment of the power consuming public
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.