 | |
In-Depth | Structure | Communication Procedures | Timeline/Schedule |
Governing Laws and Authorities | SMUD Team
Structure
The Sacramento Municipal
Utility District's (SMUD) Alternative Licensing Procedures (ALP) process
ended on July 15, 2005 with submittal of the Upper American River
Project (UARP) License Application to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). Under FERC regulations once a license application is
submitted, the ALP ends. However, settlement negotiations (and FERC-assisted
dispute resolution process) continue on the UARP relicensing to reach a
settlement agreement. The current FERC schedule for the UARP
relicensing is:
Milestone Date
-
Terms and conditions due October 18, 2006
-
Notice of the availability of the draft EIS April, 2007
-
Notice of the availability of the final EIS October, 2007
-
Ready for Commission's decision December 2007
SMUD followed the alternative licensing process (ALP) for the relicensing of the UARP. This process had four main components:
A one-step National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") review process, in which the Sacramento Municipal Utility District ("SMUD"), in cooperation with stakeholders and with the assistance of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"), prepared a preliminary draft environmental assessment ("EA") that was submitted to FERC along with the UARP license application. The one-step NEPA review process was coordinated with responsibilities under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA");
Broad public participation and open, efficient sharing of information, including the development and use of a Hydro Relicensing Internet web page which is available to the public;
A cooperative, consensus-based approach to identifying and designing licensing studies, analyzing study data, and developing measures for protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures (“PM&E); and
An early start on the relicensing process and a clear, workable schedule, to enable FERC to issue a new license for the Upper American River Project (“UARP”) before the current license expires, without sacrificing the opportunity to conduct comprehensive studies and analysis of the benefits and impacts of the Project.
Plenary Group
A 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:
• The Plenary Group established the schedule and structure (rules and procedures) for the ALP.
• The Plenary Group established the Technical Working Groups and allocated responsibility for addressing specific resource issues.
• The Plenary Group reviewed study plans and methodologies recommended by the Technical Working Groups and determined which studies should be conducted. The Plenary Group determined the overall study plan.
• The Plenary Group reviewed PM&E measures and alternatives recommended by the Technical Working Groups and determined which PM&E measures should be adopted.
• The Plenary Group resolved disputes in and among the Technical Working Groups.
The Plenary Group held periodic meetings, as appropriate. A third-party facilitator guided each Plenary Group meeting to ensure discussions remained focused and advanced the interests of the relicensing process overall. To ensure that the Plenary Group was productive and cost-effective for all Participants, members of the Plenary Group committed to participate actively in group discussions and attended group meetings consistently. Plenary Group meetings were open to the public.
Technical Working Group(s) (TWG)
The Technical Working Groups were made up of representatives of the
interested parties and addressed specific resource issues, such as
fishery resources, recreation, and cultural resources. The purpose and
function of the Technical Working
Groups is further defined in the
final Communication and Process Protocols adopted by the Plenary
Group.
The Technical Working Groups were self-governing, by consensus. Each Technical Working Group established rules, procedures, and schedules within the overarching structure and schedule established by the Plenary Group. Each Technical Working Group developed study plans and methodologies for the resource issues assigned to it by the Plenary Group. Each Technical Working Group developed PM&E measures for the resource issues assigned to it by the Plenary Group when studies were conducted.
Third-Party Facilitator
A third-party facilitator was used to conduct Plenary Group meetings. 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-Making
Participants 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 Resolution
Participants 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 through internal focus groups meeting separately, with the facilitator. 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.