|
|
||||||
|
Meetings By Year | Plenary Group | SNG | Technical Working Groups (TWG) | Public Information Meetings | Calendar | Locations Plenary Group2001 2002 2003 2004 2005A Plenary Group was convened for the duration of the ALP. The Plenary Group process is further defined in the final Communication and Process Protocols. The Plenary Group was self-governing, by consensus. The responsibilities of the Plenary Group included the following:
Third-Party FacilitatorA third-party facilitator was used to conduct Plenary Group meetings. SMUD hired Marie Rainwater from Tetra Tech EM Inc. to facilitate these meetings. Technical Working Groups could also choose to use the third-party facilitator. The third-party facilitator ensured that all group Participants had an opportunity to be heard, that the meetings were productive and efficient, and that meeting summaries were prepared. The third-party facilitator were selected and paid for by SMUD. However, the third-party facilitator sought to further the interests of all Participants, not just the interests of SMUD. Decision-MakingParticipants sought agreement on studies needed, study methodologies, appropriate PM&E measures, and other issues. Decisions were made by consensus among the Participants at scheduled Plenary Group or Technical Working Group meetings. Consensus means that all Participants to a given decision can "live with" the decision. Absent specific language to the contrary, the agreements reached by the Plenary Group or Technical Working Group Participants are not intended to create contractual obligations. However, the success of this relicensing depends on all Participants acting in good faith, and it is expected that when a Participant indicates agreement to a decision, the other Participants can rely on that Participant to support such decision within its own organization and throughout the licensing process. In making decisions and reaching agreements, the Plenary Group or Technical Working Group Participants used the entire record of information available, including public input, existing sources of information and the results of the studies conducted by SMUD. Dispute ResolutionParticipants in the Plenary Group and Technical Working Groups made good faith attempts to reach agreements, as described in "Decision Making." If consensus regarding a particular issue was not achieved after reasonable efforts, the issue was considered to be in dispute. When a Technical Working Group issue was in dispute, the dispute was referred to the Plenary Group. When the Plenary Group had an issue in dispute, initial attempts at resolution occurred as internal focus groups meeting separately, with the facilitator if needed. If internal forms of dispute resolution failed, the Participants could have arranged for a FERC facilitator/mediator or a third-party facilitator/mediator, if the Participants determined that such action would help resolve the dispute. In disputes on PM&E measures not resolved by the time SMUD submitted its license application to FERC, the preliminary draft EA prepared by SMUD presented the disputed PM&E measures in the form of alternative measures. ScheduleThe Plenary Group set the schedule to ensure that the statutory and regulatory deadlines for relicensing the UARP were met, and to ensure an efficient and cost-effective relicensing process for all Participants. MeetingsPlenary Group meetings were open to the public. All Meetings were subject to the Meeting Ground Rules/Guidelines |
||||||
| SMUD Home | Privacy Statement | SMUD Search | |||
|
© 2006-2008 Sacramento Municipal Utility District |