Licensing Hydropower Projects: Better Time and Cost Data Needed
to Reach Informed Decisions About Process Reforms (02-MAY-01,
GAO-01-499).
This report assesses the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) licensing process. Specifically, GAO examines (1) why the
licensing process now takes longer and costs more than it did
when FERC issued most original licenses several decades ago; (2)
whether participants in the licensing process agree on the need
for, and type of, further reforms to reduce time and costs; and
(3) whether available time and cost data are sufficient to allow
informed decisions on the effectiveness of recent reforms and the
need for further reforms. GAO found that, since 1986, FERC has
been required to give "equal consideration" to, and make
tradeoffs among, hydropower generation and other competing
resource needs. Additional environmental and land management laws
have also placed additional requirements on other federal and
state agencies participating in the licensing process to address
specific resource needs. GAO found no agreement between FERC,
federal and state land resource agencies, licensees,
environmental groups, and other participants in the licensing
process on the need for further reforms to reduce process-related
time and costs. Finally, available time and cost data are
insufficient to allow informed decisions on the effectiveness of
recent reforms. Without complete and accurate time and cost data
and the ability to link time and costs to projects, processes,
and outcomes, FERC cannot assess the extent to which the
observations and suggestions--or any recommended administrative
reforms or legislative changes--might reduce the process' length
and costs.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-01-499
ACCNO: A00778
TITLE: Licensing Hydropower Projects: Better Time and Cost Data
Needed to Reach Informed Decisions About Process Reforms
DATE: 05/02/2001
SUBJECT: Electric power generation
Hydroelectric powerplants
Licenses
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-499
GAO United States General Accounting Office
Report to Congressional Requesters
May 2001 LICENSING HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
Better Time and Cost Data Needed to Reach Informed Decisions About Process
Reforms
GAO- 01- 499
Page i GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects Letter 1
Appendix I FERC?s Traditional Licensing Process 19
Appendix II FERC?s Alternative Licensing Process 20
Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 21
Appendix IV Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 23
Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 34 Contents
Page 1 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
May 2, 2001 The Honorable Joe Skeen Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior
and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives
The Honorable Ralph Regula House of Representatives
About 10 percent of all electricity production in the United States is
generated by hydroelectric power (hydropower) projects. Federally owned and
operated hydropower projects generate approximately half of this amount,
while about 1,000 nonfederally owned and operated hydropower projects, which
are licensed by the federal government, generate nearly all of the rest. 1
Hydropower projects can include dams, reservoirs, stream diversion
structures, powerhouses containing waterdriven turbines, and transmission
lines.
Hydropower is an important part of the nation?s energy mix. It offers the
benefits of a comparatively inexpensive, emission- free, renewable energy
source, the quantity of which can be increased quickly in periods of peak
demand. In addition, the reservoirs behind hydropower dams often provide
other benefits, including recreation, flood control, irrigation, and a
municipal water supply. However, hydropower projects can also have adverse
effects on ecosystems and resources, including fish and wildlife. They can
change the fundamental chemical, physical, and biological processes of river
ecosystems by (1) fluctuating river levels and altering the timing of flows,
(2) blocking the downstream flow of nutrients and sediments, (3) changing
water temperatures and oxygen levels, (4) impeding fish from migrating up
and down streams or killing them as they pass through turbines used to
generate power, and (5) drying out sections of streams.
1 About 600 additional small generating capacity hydropower projects are
exempted from the federal licensing requirement. ?Projects? in this report
refers to the large, licensed hydropower projects.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
The Federal Power Act (FPA) authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) to issue licenses to construct and to operate nonfederal
hydropower projects. FERC- an independent five- member commission appointed
by the President and confirmed by the Senate- issues licenses valid for
periods up to 50 years, after which the projects must be relicensed in order
to continue operations.
FERC issued original licenses for most of the about 1,000 nonfederal
hydropower projects decades ago. Between January 1, 1993, and December 31,
2000, the licenses for 395 of these projects expired. Many of these were
small projects that do not generate much power. According to FERC, over the
next 15 years, the licenses for another 238 projects will expire. The 238
projects, many of which are large, combine to generate over half of the
nation?s nonfederal hydropower.
In recent years, some licensees and other participants in the licensing
process have expressed concern that obtaining a license now takes too long
and costs too much. Responding to these concerns, FERC established an
alternative licensing process, and other federal agencies have introduced
reforms intended to make the licensing process more efficient and less
costly. However, these reforms did not quell the concerns. As a result, in
November 2000, the Congress directed FERC to conduct a comprehensive review
of the policies, procedures, and regulations relating to the licensing of
nonfederal hydropower projects to determine how to reduce the time and costs
associated with obtaining a license. FERC is required to report its findings
in 6 months, or by May 8, 2001.
Prior to the enactment of the statute requiring FERC to review its licensing
process, you asked us to identify and assess significant issues related to
the process. As agreed, this report discusses (1) why the licensing process
now takes longer and costs more than it did when FERC issued most original
licenses several decades ago; (2) whether participants in the licensing
process agree on the need for, and type of, further reforms to the process
to reduce time and costs; and (3) whether available time and cost data are
sufficient to reach informed decisions on the effectiveness of recent
reforms and the need for further reforms to the process.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal and state land and
resource agencies, licensees, environmental groups, and other participants
in the licensing process acknowledge that the process is far more complex,
time- consuming, and costly today than it was when the Commission issued the
approximately 1,000 original hydropower licenses Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
30 to 50 years ago. Since 1986, the Commission has been required to give
?equal consideration? to, and make tradeoffs among, hydropower generation
and other competing resource needs, including protecting and enhancing fish
and wildlife. Moreover, environmental and land management laws- enacted
primarily during the 1960s and 1970s- have placed additional requirements on
other federal and state agencies participating in the licensing process to
address specific resource needs, including protecting endangered species,
achieving clean water, and preserving wild and scenic rivers. Public values
toward hydropower have also changed and now reflect a growing concern about
the environmental impacts of hydropower projects. Attempts to balance and
make tradeoffs among competing economic and environmental interests and to
improve the environmental performance of projects, while preserving
hydropower as an economically viable energy source, have lengthened the
process and made it more costly.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal and state land and
resource agencies, licensees, environmental groups, and other participants
in the licensing process do not agree on whether further reforms are needed
to reduce process- related time and costs. Some within and among these
diverse parties believe that the time and money spent on licensing a project
reflect the level of complexity of the issues involved and that recent
reforms will likely reduce the time and costs needed to obtain a license.
Conversely, others believe that recent reforms will do little to reduce time
and costs. However, they cannot agree on what further reforms are needed to
shorten the process and make it less costly.
To reach informed decisions on the effectiveness of recent reforms to the
licensing process as well as the need for further reforms to the process,
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must accomplish two tasks. First,
it needs complete and accurate data on process- related time and costs by
participant, project, and process step. Currently, the Commission does not
systematically collect much of these data. Second, it needs to identify (1)
why certain projects or groups of projects displaying similar
characteristics take longer and cost more to license than others do and (2)
why the time and costs to complete certain process steps vary by project or
group of similar projects. However, the Commission has yet to link the time
and cost data that it has collected to projects displaying similar
characteristics. Similar characteristics may be project- related, such as
whether the project is on federal land; process- related, such as whether
the Commission had to resolve a dispute during the process between the
licensee and a federal or state agency; or outcome- related, such as whether
the terms and conditions of a new license compromise the
Page 4 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
project?s economic viability or environmental performance. Instead, the
Commission is relying, in part, on observations and suggestions by parties
involved or interested in the licensing process. However, without complete
and accurate time and cost data and the ability to link time and costs to
projects, processes, and outcomes, the Commission cannot assess the extent
to which the observations and suggestions- or any recommended administrative
reforms or legislative changes- might reduce the length and costs of the
process. This report contains recommendations that, if implemented, would
allow informed decisions on the effectiveness of recent reforms to the
licensing process as well as the need for further reforms to the process.
We obtained written comments on a draft of our report from the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. The Commission generally agreed with our
characterization of the licensing process and the primary issues that affect
time and costs. It also agreed that it does not systematically collect
complete and accurate data on process- related time and costs by
participant, project, and process step. However, the Commission believes
that these data are not needed to reach informed decisions on the
effectiveness of recent reforms to the licensing process as well as the need
for further reforms to the process. Rather, it thinks that it can address
the salient issues by developing ?targeted analyses? to determine major
factors affecting licensing time and costs based, in part, on its ?years of
experience? with the licensing process. However, we continue to believe that
good data are needed to reach good decisions. Moreover, without complete and
accurate time and cost data and the ability to link time and costs to
projects, processes, and outcomes, the Commission increases the risk that
any reforms that it recommends may not only not reduce processrelated time
and costs, but also result in unintended consequences to the outcomes of the
process.
FERC now issues few licenses to construct and operate new hydropower
projects. Therefore, most of FERC?s licensing activities relate to the
relicensing of projects with licenses currently nearing their expiration
dates.
FERC recognizes two licensing processes- a traditional process and an
alternative process. In addition, some licensees use a combination of the
two processes- informally referred to as a ?hybrid? process. All three
processes begin between 5 and 5-� years before a project?s license expires,
when the licensee notifies FERC of its intent to seek relicensing. Each
process ends when FERC either issues a new license or denies the Background
Page 5 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
license application. However, FPA provides for subsequent administrative and
judicial reviews of a FERC license decision. If a license expires while a
project is undergoing relicensing, FERC issues an annual license, allowing a
project to continue to operate under the conditions found in the original
license until the relicensing process is complete. Currently, more than 60
projects are operating under annual licenses, including several that have
been operating under annual licenses for over a decade.
FERC?s newly issued licenses include a standard ?reserved authority? that
allows FERC to ?reopen? a license to modify its terms and conditions to meet
fish and wildlife needs. New licenses may also include ?reopener
articles? that allow federal and state agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and individuals to petition FERC to reopen a license for
other issues, including minimum streamflows and water quality. Federal fish
and wildlife agencies may also ask FERC to reconsider the impacts of a
project when an affected species is listed as endangered or threatened under
the Endangered Species Act.
FERC divides the traditional licensing process into two phases- a
preapplication consultation phase and a post- application analysis phase.
Each phase consists of stages and individual steps defined by ?windows of
time? rather than by specific dates. (See app. I.) For example, FERC
requires at least 30 days to review a licensee?s initial consultation
package, and a meeting between the licensee and federal and state agencies
typically takes place between 30 and 60 days after the initial consultation
package is prepared.
During the pre- application consultation phase, the licensee must consult
with officials at federal and state land and resource agencies, as well as
those representing affected Indian tribes, who identify studies the licensee
should undertake to determine the project?s impacts on fish and wildlife,
recreation, water, and other resources. If the licensee disagrees with the
need for a study, FERC may be asked to resolve the dispute. After completing
the agreed- upon studies, the licensee prepares a draft application and
obtains comments from, and attempts to resolve any disagreements on needed
actions with, the relevant federal and state agencies.
The post- application analysis phase begins when the licensee files a formal
application to obtain a new license. This filing must occur at least 2 years
before the license expires. The application is a comprehensive, detailed
document specifying the project?s proposed operations, its anticipated The
Traditional Licensing
Process
Page 6 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
impact on resources and other land uses, and proposed actions to mitigate
adverse effects. FERC reviews the application to ensure that it meets all
requirements and then asks relevant federal and state land and resource
agencies to formally comment on it.
Depending on the comments and its own independent analysis of the
application, FERC may ask the licensee to provide additional data and
studies. When FERC is satisfied that these are sufficient, it conducts an
environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) and an economic analysis of the project?s benefits and costs. In
addition to using FERC?s NEPA analysis, affected federal land and resource
agencies frequently conduct separate environmental analyses under NEPA, or
assessments under other laws, to determine the license terms and conditions
to be prescribed or recommended to protect or enhance fish, wildlife, and
other resources. FERC reviews these terms and conditions and, if necessary,
negotiates with the relevant federal and state land and resource agencies or
affected Indian tribes on the license?s terms and conditions.
In October 1997, FERC issued an order codifying an alternative licensing
process. Similar to the traditional licensing process, the alternative
licensing process is divided into pre- application and post- application
phases. (See app. II.) The licensee may choose the alternative licensing
process, if it can demonstrate that all the participants agree on its use,
subject to final approval by FERC.
The alternative licensing process shortens the process by combining many of
the earlier consultations and studies with the later analyses in the
preapplication phase. For example, the licensee begins a preliminary NEPA
analysis during the pre- application phase rather than having FERC begin the
NEPA analysis during the post- application phase. The alternative licensing
process also seeks to improve communication and collaboration among the
participants in the process and often results in a ?settlement
agreement? at the end of the pre- application phase. This agreement, signed
by all the participants in the process, includes the conditions to protect
and enhance resources. Beginning the NEPA analysis and reaching agreement on
license conditions in the pre- application phase are intended to shorten the
post- application analysis phase. The Alternative Licensing
Process
Page 7 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
Some licensees use a hybrid licensing process that often combines the
structured sequence of the traditional licensing process with the improved
earlier consultation and collaboration of the alternative licensing process.
Under this process, a licensee may try during the pre- application phase to
achieve a settlement agreement among participants, but reserve the option to
use the traditional process in instances when agreement cannot be reached. A
further difference is that FERC conducts the NEPA analysis during the post-
application phase rather than having the licensee begin the analysis during
the pre- application phase as under the alternative licensing process.
The licensing process is complete when FERC either issues a license or
denies the license application. However, FPA provides for subsequent
administrative and judicial reviews of a FERC license decision. Any party to
the licensing process may file an application for a rehearing with FERC
within 30 days of FERC?s licensing decision. FERC subsequently issues an
order (decision) on the application for a rehearing. Any party to the
licensing process may also obtain a judicial review of FERC?s decision in
the relevant federal appeals court within 60 days after FERC?s order on the
application for a rehearing. FERC often delays implementation of contested
license conditions until the reconsideration phase is completed.
FERC and other participants in the licensing process acknowledge that the
process is far more complex, time- consuming, and costly today than it was
when FERC issued the approximately 1,000 original hydropower licenses 30 to
50 years ago. FERC must now attempt to balance and make tradeoffs among
competing economic and environmental interests and to improve the
environmental performance of projects while preserving hydropower as an
economically viable energy source. Balancing these interests and making the
necessary tradeoffs lengthen the process and make it more costly.
FPA remains the basic statutory authority governing the licensing of
hydropower projects. However, the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986
amended section 4( e) of FPA to require FERC to give ?equal
consideration? to water power development and other resource needs,
including protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife, in deciding whether to
issue an original or a renewed license.
In addition, environmental and land management laws- enacted primarily
during the 1960s and 1970s- require other participating federal and state
The Hybrid Licensing
Process Administrative and Judicial Reviews of FERC License Decisions
The Licensing Process Is More Complex, Lengthy, and Costly Than It Was 30 to
50 Years Ago
Page 8 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
agencies to address specific resource needs, including protecting endangered
species, achieving clean water, and preserving wild and scenic rivers. For
example, section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 represents a
congressional design to give greater priority to the protection of
endangered species than to the primary missions of FERC and other federal
agencies. 2 FERC, like all other federal agencies, must ensure that its
actions, including licensing decisions, are not likely to jeopardize the
existence of endangered and threatened species. Moreover, NEPA requires each
federal agency, including FERC, to assess the environmental impact of
proposed actions- which can include licensing decisions- that may
significantly affect the environment. NEPA is designed to compel federal
agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions and to
inform the public that these impacts have been taken into account prior to
reaching decisions.
FPA authorizes federal and state agencies other than FERC to influence
license terms and conditions, and in some instances, precludes FERC from
altering license conditions imposed by other agencies. For instance, section
4( e) of FPA makes licenses for projects on federal lands reserved by the
Congress for other purposes- such as national forests- or that use surplus
water from federal dams subject to mandatory conditions imposed by the head
of the federal agency responsible for managing the lands or facilities.
Today, these agencies include the Forest Service, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, and the Department of the Interior?s Bureau of Land Management,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bureau of
Reclamation.
Similarly, section 18 of FPA requires FERC to include license conditions for
fish passage prescribed by federal fish and wildlife agencies. These
agencies now include Interior?s Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service in the Department of Commerce. In addition, the
Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986 added section 10( j) to FPA. This
section authorizes federal and state fish and wildlife agencies to recommend
license conditions to benefit fish and wildlife that FERC must include in
the license unless it (1) finds them to be inconsistent with law and (2) has
already established license conditions that adequately protect fish and
wildlife.
2 TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153, 185 (1978).
Page 9 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
Moreover, section 401 of the Clean Water Act- added in 1972- requires anyone
seeking a license or permit for a project that may affect water quality to
seek approval from the relevant state water quality agency. States have
begun to use section 401 to influence license terms and conditions.
The regulations adopted by FERC under FPA require FERC to involve the public
in the licensing process. Members of the public may express their views on
resource needs that they believe need to be addressed in an application to
obtain a license. They may also submit comments and recommendations, request
scientific studies, and formally intervene in the licensing process. As an
intervenor, a member of the public is entitled, among other things, to
request a rehearing of a license decision by FERC or to obtain judicial
review of FERC?s decision in the relevant federal appeals court.
Public values have changed over the past 30 to 50 years and now reflect a
growing concern about the environmental impacts of hydropower projects.
Environmental groups and others view the licensing of a hydropower project
as a once- in- a- lifetime opportunity to have these values and concerns
considered.
Changing public values, coupled with requirements to give equal or greater
consideration to environmental concerns than to hydropower generation, have
resulted in new license conditions intended to protect and enhance fish,
wildlife, and other resources. For example, in an effort to reduce the risk
to fish resources, new licenses may include conditions that require
licensees to change minimum streamflows, construct fish- passage facilities,
install screens and other devices to prevent fish from being injured or
killed, limit the amount or timing of reservoir drawdowns, or purchase or
restore lands affected by a project.
FERC, federal and state land and resource agencies, licensees, environmental
groups, and other participants in the licensing process do not agree on
whether further reforms are needed to reduce processrelated time and costs.
Some within and among these diverse parties believe that the time and money
spent on licensing a project reflect the level of complexity of the issues
involved and that recent reforms will likely reduce the time and cost needed
to obtain a license. Conversely, others believe that recent reforms will do
little to reduce time and costs. However, they cannot agree on what further
reforms are needed to shorten the process and make it less costly.
Participants Cannot
Agree on the Need for, and Type of, Reforms to the Licensing Process
Page 10 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
Some participants believe that the time and money spent on project licensing
reflect the level of complexity of the issues involved. They consider the
process to be worthwhile as long as it results in a new license that is
legally defensible, scientifically credible, and more likely to protect
resources over the term of the license.
Some of these participants also believe that recent reforms will likely
reduce the time and costs associated with obtaining a new license and that
additional reforms may not be necessary. For example, they believe that,
when compared with projects using the traditional licensing process,
projects using FERC?s relatively new alternative licensing process are more
likely to obtain licenses before their old ones expire and less likely to
have their license decisions delayed as a result of administrative and
judicial reviews.
Other recent reforms that these participants believe might shorten the
licensing process or make it less costly include the following:
A January 2001 policy by the departments of the Interior and Commerce that
would, for the first time, (1) standardize the way that the two departments
consider input and comments on mandatory license conditions and (2) ensure
that public participation does not delay the licensing process.
A series of recently issued reports by an interagency task force-
established in the winter of 1998 by FERC and other federal agencies
involved in the licensing process- that addresses practical ways to improve
the process and make it more efficient.
A February 2000 report by a national review group convened by the Electric
Power Research Institute- a research consortium created by the nation?s
electric utilities. 3 In the report, licensees, federal and state agencies,
tribes, and nongovernmental organizations (1) share their licensing
experiences and ?lessons learned? and (2) provide participants in licensings
with reasonable solutions and alternative approaches to ?tough?
licensing issues. 3 Hydro Relicensing Forum: Relicensing Strategies, Interim
Report, National Review Group Publication, Electric Power Research Institute
(Feb. 2000). Some Licensing
Participants Are Satisfied With the Current Process
Page 11 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
Other participants in the licensing process believe that recent reforms will
do little to reduce the time and costs to obtain a new license. For example,
they believe that licensees and other participants will not use FERC?s
alternative licensing process for projects that involve contentious issues
or when participants have conflicting values and concerns. They also believe
that, while the alternative licensing process may shorten the time required
to obtain a new license, it may also be more costly than the traditional
licensing process. Therefore, they believe that further administrative
reforms or legislative changes are needed to shorten the process and make it
less costly.
However, these participants cannot agree on what further reforms are needed
to shorten the process and make it less costly. For instance, some
environmental groups believe that certain licensees deliberately prolong the
licensing process to delay the sometimes substantial costs of complying with
new license conditions. Conversely, some licensees believe that federal and
state land and resource agencies prolong the process and increase the costs
to obtain a new license by (1) requesting unnecessary studies; (2) not
reviewing licensing applications in a timely manner; (3) analyzing or
reanalyzing issues at different steps in the process without any clear
sequence leading to their timely resolution; and (4) insisting on
unreasonable, and sometimes conflicting, license conditions. Federal and
state land and resource agencies, however, counter these claims, saying that
licensings are sometimes delayed because, until FERC requires them to,
licensees are unwilling to conduct studies or to provide additional
information required for the agencies to fulfill their statutorily mandated
missions and responsibilities. In addition, many licensees, federal and
state agencies, and environmental groups believe that FERC has not provided
necessary leadership and direction, especially during the pre- application
consultation phase, when much of their process- related time and costs can
be incurred.
In addition to blaming each other, these proponents of further reforms to
reduce the time and costs to obtain a new license cannot agree on what
reforms are needed to shorten the process and make it less costly. Some
believe that additional administrative reforms can improve the process and
make it more efficient. Others, however, believe that new legislation will
be required. Other Participants Favor
Further Reforms to the Licensing Process
Page 12 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
To reach informed decisions on the effectiveness of recent reforms to the
licensing process and the need for further reforms, FERC must complete two
tasks. First, it needs complete and accurate data on process- related time
and costs by participant, project, and process step. Currently, FERC does
not systematically collect much of these data. Second, FERC needs to
identify why certain projects or groups of projects displaying similar
characteristics take longer and cost more to license than others and why the
time and costs required to complete certain process steps vary by project or
group of similar projects. FERC has yet to link the time and cost data that
it has collected to projects displaying similar characteristics, and instead
is relying, in part, on observations and suggestions of parties involved or
interested in the licensing process. However, without complete and accurate
time and cost data and the ability to link time and costs to projects,
processes, and outcomes, FERC cannot assess the extent to which the
observations and suggestions- or any recommended administrative reforms or
legislative changes- might shorten the process or make it less costly.
Data on where in the process costs are incurred and by whom are needed to
reach informed decisions about the effectiveness of recent reforms to the
licensing process and the need for further reforms to reduce the process-
related costs of obtaining a hydropower license. However, FERC lacks much of
the required data for itself, other federal and state agencies, and
licensees.
For example, FERC cannot systematically separate its process- related
licensing costs from other hydropower- program- related costs or link the
costs to specific projects or steps in the licensing process. FERC also
cannot identify other federal agencies? actual costs to participate in the
licensing process. Each year FERC requests federal agencies to report their
hydropower- program- related costs for the prior fiscal year; however, it
does not provided clear guidance to the other agencies on what costs they
should report. As a result, federal agencies do not report millions of
dollars of process- related costs. 4 Moreover, FERC does not request federal
agencies to break down their costs by project or by step in the licensing
process. As a result, it cannot link the hydropower- program- related costs
reported by other federal agencies to either specific projects or to the
4 Hydropower Relicensing: Federal Costs Are Not Being Recovered (GAO/ RCED-
00- 107, June 30, 2000). FERC Needs Better
Time and Cost Data to Reach Informed Decisions on the Effectiveness of
Recent Reforms and the Need for Further Reforms to the Licensing Process
Cost Data for Most Participants Are Not Available
Page 13 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
various steps in the process. In addition, FERC does not request, and states
generally do not report, their process- related licensing costs.
Similarly, FERC does not request licensees to report their process- related
licensing costs. Some licensees have, however, voluntarily reported these
costs to FERC so that FERC can include them- together with estimated
mitigation costs, annual charges, and the value of power generation lost at
relicensing- in its economic analysis of the projects? benefits and costs.
As of February 2001, FERC had compiled data on licensees? processrelated
licensing costs for 83- or about 20 percent- of the 395 projects with
licenses pending or issued between January 1, 1993, and December 31, 2000.
However, because FERC did not provide licensees with guidance on what costs
they should report, it has no assurance that the reported costs are
consistent and comparable. Moreover, since the 83 projects did not represent
a randomly selected sample, FERC cannot use these data to project the costs
incurred by the universe of 395 projects. Moreover, FERC often could not
link the costs to the various steps in the licensing process to identify
which steps were the most costly. Finally, licensees reported only those
costs that they incurred before they filed a formal application to FERC to
obtain a new license and, thus, FERC has no data on any of their costs
associated with the post- application analysis phase of the licensing
process.
Because a project proceeds through sequential phases, stages, and steps in
the licensing process, process- related time data are more readily available
than process- related cost data, which vary by participant. However, the
time data that FERC has collected are incomplete and limited almost entirely
to the post- application analysis phase of the process.
FERC collected time data for the 180 projects with licenses expiring between
January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2000. However, it collected data for only
one step in the pre- application consultation phase of the licensing
process. According to FERC, this phase generally requires 3 years or more to
complete and constitutes, on average, more than 60 percent of the total time
required to obtain a license. Moreover, FERC notes that the collected data
on the one step in the pre- application consultation phase are incomplete
because FERC did not request licensees to report when they completed the
step.
In addition, FERC is not collecting time data for administrative and
judicial reviews of its license decisions, although FERC often delays the
implementation of contested license conditions until these reviews are Time
Data Are Incomplete
Page 14 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
completed. Therefore, the time associated with administrative and judicial
reviews should be included in the time required to obtain a license,
according to many participants in the licensing process.
When FERC completes its data collection efforts, it will have some process-
related cost data (mostly from the pre- application consultation phase), and
some process- related time data (mostly from the postapplication analysis
phase). However, FERC will not know why certain projects or groups of
projects that display similar characteristics take longer and cost more to
license than others or why the time and costs to complete certain steps in
the process vary by project or group of similar projects.
FERC needs to link time and costs to project, process, and outcome
characteristics in order to reach informed decisions on the effectiveness of
recent reforms to the licensing process, as well as the need for further
reforms to the process. Project characteristics might include whether the
project has considerable generating capacity, is operated for peak power
production, is on federal land, or affects the habitat of one or more
endangered or threatened species. Process- related characteristics might
include (1) whether FERC had to resolve a dispute between the licensee and a
federal or state agency, (2) whether federal and state agencies prescribed
new mandatory license conditions, (3) whether FERC rejected or modified new
license conditions recommended by federal and state agencies, or (4) whether
parties formally intervened in a licensing. Outcome- related characteristics
might include whether power generation was lost at relicensing or whether
the terms and conditions of a new license compromise the project?s economic
viability or environmental performance.
As part of its mandated review of its licensing process, FERC held public
meetings in six different cities. It also asked for written comments and
distributed a questionnaire. In their oral and written comments and in their
responses to the questionnaire, parties offered their observations and
suggestions on how the process might be shortened or made less costly.
However, without complete and accurate time and cost data and the ability to
link time and costs to projects, processes, and outcomes, FERC will not be
able to assess the extent that any of these observations and suggestions- or
any administrative reforms or legislative changes that they may recommend-
might (1) reduce the time and costs to obtain a license or (2) change the
outcomes of the process. Thus, FERC will not be Available Time and Cost
Data Will Not Be Linked to Project, Process, and Outcome Characteristics
FERC Cannot Adequately Assess Public Observations and Suggestions on How the
Licensing Process Might Be Shortened or Made Less Costly
Page 15 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
able to adequately assess the tradeoffs between efficiency and
effectiveness, quickness and quality.
FERC recognizes the importance of collecting complete, accurate, and timely
data on which to base informed decisions. 5 However, it has not established
a schedule with firm deadlines for developing a system that tracks process-
related time and costs, nor has it developed a process to share these data
with other parties involved or interested in the process.
Currently, FERC?s data on the licensing process are widely dispersed
throughout FERC, often not comparable, and time- consuming and resource-
intensive to collect. For example, to respond to its mandate to review its
licensing process, FERC gathered time data from (1) various external and
internal information and tracking systems, (2) independent databases and
spreadsheets, (3) document storage and retrieval systems, (4) project-
specific documents, (5) staff files, (6) various studies conducted for
various purposes during the past several years, and (7) other data sources.
These data were often not comparable, and FERC staff often had to link them
manually to one another.
To address its information technology needs, in 1999, FERC completed a
review of its existing information and tracking systems. Subsequently, FERC
performed a needs assessment that showed, on a macro level, how it planned
to receive, generate, organize, and present information to users. In
February 2001, FERC prepared a preliminary draft of its long- term vision
for its hydropower- program- related data and information technology needs.
FERC officials told us that their future plans include the release of a
detailed document that will define needed enhancements to FERC?s information
and tracking systems. However, FERC has not established a schedule with firm
deadlines to implement the long- term vision of its hydropower- program-
related data and information technology needs. It also has not determined
what, if any, cost data to include.
Lastly, the Congress directed FERC to conduct the review of its licensing
process ?in consultation with other appropriate agencies.? However, despite
repeated requests by federal land and resource agencies, as of
5 Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2000- 2005, FERC (Sept. 2000). FERC Does
Not Have a
Schedule for Developing a System to Track ProcessRelated Time and Costs
Page 16 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
April 20, 2001, FERC had not provided them with a draft of its report or
with any of the process- related time and cost data that it had collected
and analyzed. As a result, Interior had to independently collect and analyze
data from FERC?s information and tracking systems.
On the basis of its analysis, Interior observed that it could not ?determine
why processing times are what they are, let alone whether these time periods
are excessive or necessary for deliberative decision- making.? 6 It
continued that the ?parties are engaged in numerous activities during the
licensing process, and to determine the extent to which each activity
contributes to the processing time calls for a more elaborate type of
analysis.? Therefore, Interior recommended that it join with FERC to build a
data set for all projects licensed by FERC and that the data be used to
identify what, if any, further reforms are needed to shorten the process.
FERC, federal and state land and resource agencies, licensees, environmental
groups, and other participants in the licensing process acknowledge that the
process to obtain a license is far more complex, time- consuming, and costly
today than it was 30 to 50 years ago when FERC issued the approximately
1,000 original hydropower licenses. Today, FERC faces a formidable challenge
in issuing a license that is legally defensible, scientifically credible,
and likely to protect fish, wildlife, and resources while still preserving
hydropower as an economically viable energy source.
Participants in the licensing process do not agree on the effectiveness of
recent reforms to the process or on the need for further reforms to shorten
the process or make it less costly. To resolve this disagreement and to
reach informed decisions on the effectiveness of recent reforms and the need
for further administrative reforms or legislative changes, FERC needs (1) a
system that collects complete and accurate data on process- related time and
costs by participant, project, and process step and (2) the ability to link
time and costs to projects displaying similar characteristics. To date, FERC
has been reluctant to work with other process participants to (1) develop a
system to collect and share process- related time and cost data and (2) link
the data to projects displaying similar characteristics in order to identify
those project, process, and outcome characteristics that
6 Hydropower Licensing Policies, Procedures, and Regulations- Comprehensive
Review,
Department of the Interior (Docket No. PL01- 1- 000, April 16, 2001).
Conclusions
Page 17 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
can increase the time and costs to obtain a license. As a result, FERC will
not be able to reach informed decisions on the need for further
administrative reforms or legislative changes to the licensing process.
We recommend that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission inform the
Congress of the extent that time and cost data limitations restrict its
ability to reach informed decisions on whether further administrative
reforms or legislative changes are needed to shorten the hydropower
licensing process or make it less costly. We also recommend that the
Commission work with other federal and state agencies and licensees to (1)
collect complete and accurate data on process- related time and costs by
participant, project, and process step and (2) link time and costs to
projects displaying similar characteristics in order to identify those
project, process, and outcome characteristics that can increase the time and
costs to obtain a license. In addition, we recommend that the Commission (1)
establish a schedule and firm deadlines for implementing the necessary
enhancements to its management information systems that are required to
track and analyze process- related time and costs and (2) share these data
with other parties involved or interested in the process.
We provided a draft of this report to the Chairman of FERC for his review
and comment. FERC generally agreed with our characterization of the
licensing process and the primary issues that affect time and costs. It also
agreed that it does not systematically collect complete and accurate data on
process- related time and costs by participant, project, and process step.
However, FERC believes that these data are not needed to reach informed
decisions on the effectiveness of recent reforms to the licensing process as
well as the need for further reforms to the process. Rather, it thinks that
it can address the salient issues by developing ?targeted analyses? to
determine major factors affecting licensing time and costs based, in part,
on its ?years of experience? with the licensing process. However, we
continue to believe that good time and cost data are needed to reach good
decisions. Without such data, it will not be possible for the Commission to
determine how much either can be reduced. Moreover, without these data and
the ability to link time and costs to projects, processes, and outcomes,
FERC increases the risk that any reforms that it recommends may not only not
reduce process- related time and costs but also result in unintended
consequences to the outcomes of the process.
FERC?s comments and our responses appear in appendix IV. Recommendations to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
Page 18 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
We conducted our work from August 2000 through April 2001 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix III contains the
details of our scope and methodology.
We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Norm Dicks, Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, House
Committee on Appropriations, and the Honorable Curt Hebert, Jr., Chairman,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The report is also available on GAO?s
home page at http:// www. gao. gov. If you have any questions about this
report, please call Charles S. Cotton or me at (202) 512- 3841. Key
contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
Barry T. Hill Director, Natural Resources
and Environment
Appendix I: FERC?s Traditional Licensing Process
Page 19 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
Appendix I: FERC?s Traditional Licensing Process
3- Stage Consultation Phase
Traditional Licensing Process Federal Energy Regulatory Commission dispute
resolution
Notice of Intent
First Stage Initial Consultation Package and Joint meeting
Comments and decision on studies
Second Stage Comment on draft application
Third Stage Application Filed Pre- application process begins
Study completion Draft application
Request for 401 Water Quality Certification
Public notice of application (tendering)
Additional study request, if any
Adequacy review Public notice (acceptance)
Comments and intervention Scoping notice and first scoping document
Additional Information Requests and response to additional studies
Scoping meeting Scoping comments
Second scoping document and Additional Information Requests
Ready for Environmental Analysis Recommendations,
mandatory conditions Draft Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement
Comments on draft Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement
10( j) meeting
Final Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement Post-
Application Analysis Phase
License decision
Appendix II: FERC?s Alternative Licensing Process
Page 20 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
Appendix II: FERC?s Alternative Licensing Process
Pre- Application Phase
Alternative Licensing Process
Post- Application Phase
Initial meeting (Initial Information Package/ Scoping) Scoping comments,
study request
Conduct studies, issue results Study comments,
additional studies (if needed)
Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement
Recommendations, draft conditions, settlement agreement
Application Filed
Draft Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement
Final Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement
License Decision Alternative Licensing Process begins
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 21 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
Concerned about the licensing of nonfederal hydropower projects,
Representative Ralph Regula, former Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations, asked us to identify
and assess significant issues related to the licensing process. As agreed,
this report discusses (1) why the licensing process now takes longer and
costs more than it did when FERC issued most original licenses several
decades ago; (2) whether participants in the licensing process agree on the
need for, and type of, further reforms to the process to reduce time and
costs; and (3) whether available time and cost data are sufficient to reach
informed decisions on the effectiveness of recent reforms and the need for
further reforms to the process.
To identify how the licensing process has changed since FERC issued most of
its original licenses several decades ago, we reviewed relevant laws,
regulations, court decisions, and guidance affecting hydropower licensing.
We interviewed officials from FERC, federal land and resource agencies,
states, industry, and nongovernmental organizations involved in the
licensing process. We also reviewed pertinent documents from these sources
as well as other independent analyses from academia and the private sector.
To identify the extent of agreement among participants in the licensing
process on the need for, and type of, reforms to the process, we (1)
attended all six of the public meetings that FERC held in January 2001 and
(2) reviewed the formal written comments provided to FERC by February 1,
2001, as part of its statutorily required review of the licensing process.
We also met with and obtained data from federal and state agencies,
licensees, industry, nongovernmental organizations, and academia. In
addition, we reviewed pertinent documents, including congressional
testimonies. We also visited two hydropower projects currently involved in
the licensing process, and interviewed participants involved in several
other recent or ongoing licensing processes.
To identify the availability of time and cost data on which to base FERC?s
May 8, 2001, report on reducing process- related time and costs, we reviewed
FERC databases as well as those of other federal agencies and
nongovernmental organizations involved in the process. We also interviewed
officials from FERC, federal and state land and resource agencies, industry,
and nongovernmental organizations. We assessed the adequacy of FERC?s data
and information systems by examining the scope and content of its project
files and databases. We then held interviews with FERC project managers,
information specialists, and analysts to determine the availability of
project and step- specific data on processing Appendix III: Objectives,
Scope, and
Methodology
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 22 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
time and costs. In addition, we examined a survey instrument developed by
FERC to gather information on licensing time and costs from participants at
the public meetings. We also reviewed FERC?s strategic plan for fiscal years
2000 through 2005 prepared under Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 as well as its plans to enhance its existing information and tracking
systems. We also interviewed FERC officials concerning their future
information and technology plans.
We conducted our work from August 2000 through April 2001 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix IV: Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Page 23 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
Appendix IV: Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
See comment 1.
Appendix IV: Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Page 24 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
See comment 2. See comment 1.
See comment 1. See comment 1.
Appendix IV: Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Page 25 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
See comment 10. See comment 9.
See comment 8. See comment 7.
See comment 6. See comment 5.
See comment 4. See comment 3.
Appendix IV: Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Page 26 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
See comment 1. See comment 15.
See comment 14. See comment 13.
See comment 12. See comment 11.
Appendix IV: Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Page 27 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
See comment 19. See comment 18.
See comment 17. See comment 16.
See comment 1.
Appendix IV: Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Page 28 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
See comment 22. See comment 22.
See comment 1. See comment 21.
See comment 20. See comment 19.
Appendix IV: Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Page 29 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
Comment 1: FERC states that our audit work concluded almost 3 months ago and
suggests that our conclusions are premature. However, nothing has changed
during the intervening 3 months. FERC still does not have the data needed to
reach informed decisions on the effectiveness of recent reforms to the
licensing process or on the need for further reforms to the process. As
reflected in their comments below, FERC?s position has not changed. It does
not believe that it needs to systematically collect complete and accurate
data on process- related time and costs by participant, project, and process
step to reach informed decisions on the effectiveness of recent reforms to
the licensing process as well as the need for further reforms to the
process. Rather, it thinks that it can address the salient issues by
developing ?targeted analyses? to determine major factors affecting
licensing time and costs based, in part, on its ?years of experience? with
the licensing process. However, we continue to believe that good data are
needed to reach good decisions. Moreover, without complete and accurate time
and cost data and the ability to link time and costs to projects, processes,
and outcomes, FERC increases the risk that any reforms that it recommends
may not only not reduce process- related time and costs but also result in
unintended consequences to the outcomes of the process.
Comment 2: According to FERC, systematically collecting complete and
accurate data on process- related time and costs by participant, project,
and process step would ?divert money and staff away from the licensing
process.? Conversely, we believe that the money would be well spent, if it
resulted in informed decisions on the need for further reforms to the
licensing process to reduce time and costs. In fact, FERC?s comment seems
inconsistent with its own strategic plan. In its Strategic Plan for Fiscal
Years 2000- 2005, FERC states that ?accurate and timely information is
essential for external customers and staff alike.? Therefore, we did not
make any changes to the report on the basis of this comment.
Comment 3: We disagree with this comment. FERC states that requiring or
requesting that licensees, federal and state agencies, tribes, nongovernment
organizations, and members of the public provide additional time and cost
data would ?burden these entities unduly.? FERC also asserts that it cannot
compel federal agencies to submit additional time and cost data. We
recognize that providing the data will take time and cost money. However, we
fail to see how doing so would unduly burden participants in the licensing
process. Obtaining a license is not a yearly event. Rather, it occurs once
every 30 to 50 years. Moreover, we never recommended or suggested that FERC
collect time and cost data from tribes, non- government organizations, and
members of the public. In GAO Comments
Appendix IV: Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Page 30 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
addition, while FERC cannot compel federal agencies to submit additional
time and cost data, it is not prohibited from requesting that the agencies
provide this information and federal agencies appear willing to do so. For
instance, in responding to our June 2000 report on recovering federal
hydropower licensing costs, 1 federal agencies agreed to ensure that their
financial management and reporting systems were capable of producing
accurate, timely, and reliable information on hydropower- program- related
administrative costs.
Comment 4: We did not make any changes to the report on the basis of this
comment. FERC observes that ?it has always been charged under FPA section
10( a)( 1) with balancing all relevant public interest considerations.?
While this statement is true, congressional dissatisfaction with FERC?s
efforts to carry out this responsibility led to a 1986 amendment to FPA,
which required FERC to give ?equal consideration? to water power development
and other resource needs, including protecting and enhancing fish and
wildlife, when deciding whether to issue an original or a renewed license.
This amendment was one of a series of statutes enacted subsequent to the
passage of FPA that specifically required FERC and other federal agencies to
consider resource needs in addition to water power development. We used the
1986 amendment to illustrate the increasing complexity of the licensing
process.
Comment 5: We agree that FERC is not charged with assuring that hydropower
projects it licenses are economically viable. However, as stated in its
September 2000 strategic plan, FERC does attempt to
?optimize hydropower benefits by improving the environmental performance of
projects while preserving hydropower as an economically viable energy
source.? 2 Since the language in our report is consistent with the language
in FERC?s strategic plan, we did not make any changes to the report on the
basis of FERC?s comment.
Comment 6: We revised the report to state that FERC does not systematically
collect much of the needed time and cost data.
Comment 7: We revised the report to make clear that, if a license expires
while a project is undergoing relicensing, FERC issues an annual license,
1 Hydropower Relicensing: Federal Costs Are Not Being Recovered (GAO/ RCED-
00- 107, June 30, 2000). 2 Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2000- 2005, FERC
(Sept. 2000).
Appendix IV: Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Page 31 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
allowing a project to continue to operate under the conditions found in the
original license until the relicensing process is complete.
Comment 8: We revised the report to add ?affected Indian tribes.? Comment 9:
We agree with FERC that only parties to the licensing process may (1) file
an application for a rehearing with FERC within 30 days of FERC?s licensing
decision and (2) obtain a judicial review of FERC?s decision in the relevant
federal appeals court within 60 days after FERC?s order on the application
for a rehearing. Therefore, we revised the report accordingly.
Comment 10: We revised the report to state that FPA authorizes federal and
state agencies, other than FERC, to influence license terms and conditions,
and in some instances, precludes FERC from altering license conditions
imposed by other agencies.
Comment 11: We revised the report to state that section 4( e) of FPA makes
licenses for projects on federal lands reserved by the Congress for other
purposes- such as national forests- or that use surplus water from federal
dams subject to mandatory conditions imposed by the head of the federal
agency responsible for managing the lands or facilities.
Comment 12: We mentioned section 10( j) to emphasize the increased role of
federal and state fish and wildlife agencies in the licensing process sine
enactment of the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986. We revised the
report to more clearly reflect this.
Comment 13: We revised the report to delete ?adversely.?
Comment 14: We revised the report to state that participants who believe
that further reforms are needed to reduce the time and costs to obtain a new
license cannot agree on what further reforms are needed to shorten the
process and make it less costly.
Comment 15: FERC notes that our report states that many licensees, federal
and state agencies, and environmental groups believe that FERC has not
provided necessary leadership and direction; however, we do not cite what is
lacking. FERC then provides examples of recent actions that it has taken
that it believes provide leadership and direction. We recognize that FERC
has taken actions intended to shorten the licensing process or make it less
costly and provide examples of these actions under the subcaption ?Some
Licensing Participants Are Satisfied With the Current
Appendix IV: Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Page 32 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
Process.? We also cite one of the most often mentioned concerns about FERC;
that is, its lack of leadership and direction during the preapplication
consultation phase when much of their process- related time and costs can be
incurred. Moreover, FERC is aware of these concerns since they were raised
at the public meetings that FERC held as part of its mandated review of its
licensing process.
Comment 16: We revised the report to state that, as of February 2001, FERC
had compiled data on licensees? process- related licensing costs for 83- or
about 20 percent- of the 395 projects with licenses pending or issued
between January 1, 1993, and December 31, 2000. FERC did not provide us with
any new data subsequent to February 2001.
Comment 17: We revised the report to make a clearer the link between data
and outcomes. Specifically, we state that without complete and accurate time
and cost data and the ability to link time and costs to projects, processes,
and outcomes, FERC will not be able to assess the extent to which the
observations and suggestions- or any administrative reforms or legislative
changes that it may recommend- might (1) reduce the time and costs to obtain
a license or (2) change the outcomes of the process.
Comment 18: We did not make any changes to the report on the basis of this
comment. Rather, FERC?s comment, which does not identify any completion
dates for either phase of its system development, supports our finding that
it has not established a schedule with firm deadlines for developing a
system to track process- related time and costs.
Comment 19: We revised the report to delete the two sentences in question.
The one- time difficulties incurred in shifting from an old tracking system
to a new one are not germane to our finding that FERC has not established a
schedule with firm deadlines for developing a system to track process-
related time and costs.
Comment 20: FERC states that it is not aware of its staff?s refusal to share
data with other agencies. However, documentation that we obtained from the
Department of the Interior shows that Interior asked for, but was not
provided, the process- related time and cost data that FERC had collected.
Appendix IV: Comments From the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Page 33 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
As a result, Interior had to independently collect and analyze
processrelated time data from FERC?s information and tracking systems. 3
Comment 21: According to FERC, at a February 13, 2001, meeting, it requested
that other federal agencies provide it with their process- related time and
cost data. FERC states that it did not receive the data. However, as we
reported in June 2000, FERC has not provided these agencies with guidance on
what and how process- related costs should be reported 4 and continues to
decline to do so. Therefore, we did not make any changes to the report on
the basis of this comment.
Comment 22: Appendixes I and II correspond exactly to the sequence of steps
in the handouts and viewgraphs presented by FERC at the public meetings held
in six cities in January 2001 as part of its mandated review of the
licensing process. Therefore, we did not make any changes to the report on
the basis of these comments.
3 Hydropower Licensing Policies, Procedures, and Regulations - Comprehensive
Review,
Department of the Interior (Docket No. PL01- 1- 000, April 16, 2001). 4
Hydropower Relicensing: Federal Costs Are Not Being Recovered (GAO/ RCED-
00- 107, June 30, 2000).
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 34 GAO- 01- 499 Licensing Hydropower Projects
Barry T. Hill, (202) 512- 3841 Charles S. Cotton, (202) 512- 3841
In addition to those named above, Jerry Aiken, Paul Aussendorf, Erin Barlow,
David Goldstein, Richard Johnson, Chester Joy, and Arvin Wu made key
contributions to this report. Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments
(141463)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013
Orders by visiting:
Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013
Orders by phone:
(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Orders by Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with ?info? in the body to:
Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov
Contact one:
Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov
1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document ***