Discussion

The joint recommendation was distributed to all parties with ample time for review. No party has indicated its opposition to the joint recommendation. As a result, the joint recommendation is, in essence, an unopposed settlement of Phase 1. Therefore, we will evaluate it as such.

Rule 51.1(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that the Commission will not approve settlements or stipulations, whether contested or not, unless they are reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest. As discussed below, the joint recommendation meets these criteria.

The joint recommendation is the result of parties' participation in a workshop run by our staff, comments filed by the parties, discussions held at several prehearing conferences, and numerous other discussions among the parties. In addition, the joint recommendation is unopposed. Therefore, it is reasonable in light of the whole record.

The joint recommendation does not contravene any statute or Commission decision. Therefore, it is consistent with law.

There is strong public policy favoring settlements to avoid costly and protracted litigation. The joint recommendation is the result of extensive discussions by parties representing a diverse range of affected interests, including the utilities, MHP owners, utility customers, and MHP tenants. In addition, no party opposes it. Therefore, the joint recommendation is in the public interest.

The joint recommendation resolves Phase 1 issues, and will provide the basis for moving forward with Phase 2. Therefore, it conveys to the Commission sufficient information to permit it to discharge its future regulatory obligations with respect to the parties and their interests.