Ignoring the specific issue in this case that the outcome appears to be pre-determined, it remains that the surface process being followed is standard for regul

Ignoring the specific issue in this case that the outcome appears to be pre-determined, it remains that the surface process being followed is standard for regulators. Regulators hold public/industry consultations to gather evidence and arguments that need to be taken into account in coming to their final decision. They are not running popularity contests (which would be too easy to rig if that was the standard used). The arguments submitted are usually a mix of legal and economic (including models) based on data or clearly stated assumptions (ideally). For example, an industry stakeholder might make a legal argument that the regulator is making a decision beyond the remit of the legislation, or make an economic argument that if the proposed decision is adopted, then this will remove the infrastructure investment incentive for the stakeholder (including the data to substantiate this). In making their final decision, the regulator should take into account all the arguments put forward, and respond to them in their final report. Submissions that are substantially the same (or sections within) will be grouped together and responded to as a single point. The regulator should explain why they reject or adopt each argument. The criteria that a regulator uses to evaluate the different arguments and come to a final decision is set by the enabling legislation. I have not worked within the US legal framework, but I have both prepared submissions to and worked with numerous regulators in Asia and Europe. In most cases, the criteria is deals with the best interests of consumers with a consideration of both costs and benifits. Often a longer term view is required to be taken, which biases towards promoting investment in infrastructure over time rather than maximising short time utilisation of existing infrastructure.